research questions on educational technology

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

What 126 studies say about education technology

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

In recent years, there has been widespread excitement around the transformative potential of technology in education. In the United States alone, spending on education technology has now exceeded $13 billion . Programs and policies to promote the use of education technology may expand access to quality education, support students’ learning in innovative ways, and help families navigate complex school systems.

However, the rapid development of education technology in the United States is occurring in a context of deep and persistent inequality . Depending on how programs are designed, how they are used, and who can access them, education technologies could alleviate or aggravate existing disparities. To harness education technology’s full potential, education decision-makers, product developers, and funders need to understand the ways in which technology can help — or in some cases hurt — student learning.

To address this need, J-PAL North America recently released a new publication summarizing 126 rigorous evaluations of different uses of education technology. Drawing primarily from research in developed countries, the publication looks at randomized evaluations and regression discontinuity designs across four broad categories: (1) access to technology, (2) computer-assisted learning or educational software, (3) technology-enabled nudges in education, and (4) online learning.

This growing body of evidence suggests some areas of promise and points to four key lessons on education technology.

First, supplying computers and internet alone generally do not improve students’ academic outcomes from kindergarten to 12th grade, but do increase computer usage and improve computer proficiency. Disparities in access to information and communication technologies can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Students without access at school or at home may struggle to complete web-based assignments and may have a hard time developing digital literacy skills.

Broadly, programs to expand access to technology have been effective at increasing use of computers and improving computer skills. However, computer distribution and internet subsidy programs generally did not improve grades and test scores and in some cases led to adverse impacts on academic achievement. The limited rigorous evidence suggests that distributing computers may have a more direct impact on learning outcomes at the postsecondary level.

Second, educational software (often called “computer-assisted learning”) programs designed to help students develop particular skills have shown enormous promise in improving learning outcomes, particularly in math. Targeting instruction to meet students’ learning levels has been found to be effective in improving student learning, but large class sizes with a wide range of learning levels can make it hard for teachers to personalize instruction. Software has the potential to overcome traditional classroom constraints by customizing activities for each student. Educational software programs range from light-touch homework support tools to more intensive interventions that re-orient the classroom around the use of software.

Most educational software that have been rigorously evaluated help students practice particular skills through personalized tutoring approaches. Computer-assisted learning programs have shown enormous promise in improving academic achievement, especially in math. Of all 30 studies of computer-assisted learning programs, 20 reported statistically significant positive effects, 15 of which were focused on improving math outcomes.

Third, technology-based nudges — such as text message reminders — can have meaningful, if modest, impacts on a variety of education-related outcomes, often at extremely low costs. Low-cost interventions like text message reminders can successfully support students and families at each stage of schooling. Text messages with reminders, tips, goal-setting tools, and encouragement can increase parental engagement in learning activities, such as reading with their elementary-aged children.

Middle and high schools, meanwhile, can help parents support their children by providing families with information about how well their children are doing in school. Colleges can increase application and enrollment rates by leveraging technology to suggest specific action items, streamline financial aid procedures, and/or provide personalized support to high school students.

Online courses are developing a growing presence in education, but the limited experimental evidence suggests that online-only courses lower student academic achievement compared to in-person courses. In four of six studies that directly compared the impact of taking a course online versus in-person only, student performance was lower in the online courses. However, students performed similarly in courses with both in-person and online components compared to traditional face-to-face classes.

The new publication is meant to be a resource for decision-makers interested in learning which uses of education technology go beyond the hype to truly help students learn. At the same time, the publication outlines key open questions about the impacts of education technology, including questions relating to the long-term impacts of education technology and the impacts of education technology on different types of learners.

To help answer these questions, J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative is working to build the evidence base on promising uses of education technology by partnering directly with education leaders.

Education leaders are invited to submit letters of interest to partner with J-PAL North America through its  Innovation Competition . Anyone interested in learning more about how to apply is encouraged to contact initiative manager Vincent Quan .

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• J-PAL Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative
• Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition
• Article: "Will Technology Transform Education for the Better?"
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences
• Education, teaching, academics
• Technology and society
• Computer science and technology

Related Articles

J-PAL North America calls for proposals from education leaders

J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition announces inaugural partners

New learning opportunities for displaced persons

J-PAL North America announces new partnerships with three state and local governments

A new way to measure women’s and girls’ empowerment in impact evaluations

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Study: Early dark energy could resolve cosmology’s two biggest puzzles

Read full story →

3 Questions: The past, present, and future of sustainability science

Startup’s displays engineer light to generate immersive experiences without the headsets

3 Questions: What does innovation look like in the field of substance use disorder?

Celebrating student entrepreneurship at delta v’s 2024 Demo Day

MIT welcomes nine MLK Scholars for 2024-25

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

15 EdTech research papers that we share all the time

We hope you saw our recent blog post responding to questions we often get about interesting large-scale EdTech initiatives. Another question we are often asked is: “What EdTech research should I know about?” 

As Sara’s blog post explains, one of the Hub’s core spheres of work is research, so we ourselves are very interested in the answer to this question. Katy’s latest blog post explains how the Hub’s research programme is addressing this question through a literature review to create a foundation for further research.  While the literature review is in progress, we thought we would share an initial list of EdTech papers that we often reach for. At the Hub we are fortunate enough to have authors of several papers on this list as members of our team. 

All papers on this list are linked to a record in the EdTech Hub’s growing document library – where you will find the citation and source to the full text. This library is currently an alpha version. This means it’s the first version of the service and we’re testing how it works for you. If you have any feedback or find any issues with our evidence library, please get in touch.

Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes

This critical review by our own Bjӧrn Haßler, Sara Hennessy, and Louis Major has been cited over 200 times since it was published in 2016. It examines evidence from 23 studies on tablet use at the primary and secondary school levels. It discusses the fragmented nature of the knowledge base and limited rigorous evidence on tablet use in education. 

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016) Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes . Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156.

The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective

This article challenges the narrative that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are a solution to low and middle-income countries’ (LMIC) lack of access to education, examining the features of MOOCs from their perspectives. It argues that a complicated set of conditions, including access, language, and computer literacy, among others, challenge the viability of MOOCs as a solution for populations in LMIC. 

Liyanagunawardena, T., Williams, S., & Adams, A. (2013) The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers , 33(33).

Technology and education – Why it’s crucial to be critical

A thought-provoking read, Selwyn’s book chapter argues that technology and education should continuously be viewed through a critical lens. It points to how the use of technology in education is entwined with issues of inequality, domination, and exploitation, and offers suggestions for how to grapple with these issues. 

Selwyn, N. (2015) Technology and education – Why it’s crucial to be critical. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson & L. Rowan (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Technology and Education (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke and St. Martins, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives

This article argues that a narrow vision of digital technology, which ignores the complexity of education, is becoming an obstacle to improvement and transformation of education. Specifically, the authors critically reflect on common approaches to introducing digital technology in education under the guise of promoting equality and digital inclusion.

Sancho-Gil, J.M., Rivera-Vargas, P. & Miño-Puigcercós, R. (2019) Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives. Learning, Media and Technology , early view. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1666873

Synergies Between the Principles for Digital Development and Four Case Studies

The REAL Centre’s report, which includes contributions from the Hub’s own ranks, is one of the few we’ve seen that provides an in-depth exploration of how the Principles for Digital Development apply to the education sector. It uses four case studies on the work of the Aga Khan Foundation, Camfed, the Punjab Education and Technology Board, and the Varkey Foundation. 

REAL Centre (2018). Synergies Between the Principles for Digital Development and Four Case Studies. Cambridge, UK: Research for Equitable Access and Learning (REAL) Centre, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge .

Education technology map: guidance document

This report by the Hub’s Jigsaw colleagues accompanies a comprehensive map of 401 resources with evidence on the use of EdTech in low-resource environments. The evidence mapping reviews certain criteria of the resources from sources such as journal indices, online research, evaluation repositories, and resource centres and experts. The type of criteria it maps include: the geographical location of study, outcomes studied, and type of EdTech introduced.  While not inclusive of the latest EdTech research and evidence (from 2016 to the present), this mapping represents a strong starting point to understand what we know about EdTech as well as the characteristics of existing evidence.

Muyoya, C., Brugha, M., Hollow, D. (2016). Education technology map: guidance document. Jigsaw, United Kingdom.

Scaling Access & Impact: Realizing the Power of EdTech

Commissioned by Omidyar Network and written by RTI, this executive summary (with the full report expected soon) is a useful examination of the factors needed to enable, scale, and sustain equitable EdTech on a national basis. Four country reports on Chile, China, Indonesia, and the United States examine at-scale access and use of EdTech across a broad spectrum of students. It also provides a framework for an ecosystem that will allow EdTech to be equitable and able to be scaled.  

S caling Access & Impact: Realizing the Power of EdTech (Executive Summary). Omidyar Network.

Perspectives on Technology, Resources and Learning – Productive Classroom Practices, Effective Teacher Professional Development

If you are interested in how technology can be used in the classroom and to support teacher professional development, this report by the Hub’s Björn Haßler and members of the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge emphasizes the key point that technology should be seen as complementary to, rather than as a replacement for, teachers. As the authors put it, “the teacher and teacher education are central for the successful integration of digital technology into the classroom.” The report is also accompanied by a toolkit (linked below) with questions that can be used to interrogate EdTech interventions.

Haßler, B., Major, L., Warwick, P., Watson, S., Hennessy, S., & Nichol, B. (2016). Perspectives on Technology, Resources and Learning – Productive Classroom Practices, Effective Teacher Professional Development . Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2626440

Haßler, B., Major, L., Warwick, P., Watson, S., Hennessy, S., & Nichol, B. (2016). A short guide on the use of technology in learning: Perspectives and Toolkit for Discussion . Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2626660

Teacher Factors Influencing Classroom Use of ICT in Sub-Saharan Africa

In this paper, the Hub’s Sara Hennessy and co-authors synthesise literature on teachers’ use of ICT, with a focus on using ICT to improve the quality of teaching and learning. They find evidence to support the integration of ICT into subject learning, instead of treating it as a discrete subject, and to provide relevant preparation to teachers during pre- and in-service training to use ICT in classrooms. Although this evidence has been available for a decade, the implications of the paper’s findings are still not often reflected in practice.  

Hennessy, S., Harrison, D., & Wamakote, L. (2010). Teacher Factors Influencing Classroom Use of ICT in Sub-Saharan Africa. Itupale Online Journal of African Studies, 2, 39- 54.

Information and Communications Technologies in Secondary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies, Practices, Trends, and Recommendations

This landscape review by Burns and co-authors offers a useful descriptive starting point for understanding technology use in sub-Saharan Africa in secondary education, including the policy environment, key actors, promising practices, challenges, trends, and opportunities. The report includes four case studies on South Africa, Mauritius, Botswana, and Cape Verde. 

Burns, M., Santally, M. I., Halkhoree, R., Sungkur, K. R., Juggurnath, B., Rajabalee, Y. B. (2019) Information and Communications Technologies in Secondary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies, Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. Mastercard Foundation.

The influence of infrastructure, training, content and communication on the success of NEPAD’S pilot e-Schools in Kenya

This study examines the impact of training teachers to use ICT, on the success of NEPAD’S e-Schools. The e-Schools objectives were to impart ICT skills to students, enhance teachers’ capacities through the use of ICT in teaching, improve school management and increase access to education. Unlike other studies on the subject, Nyawoga, Ocholla, and Mutula crucially recognise that while teachers received technical ICT training, they did not receive training on pedagogies for integrating ICT in teaching and learning. 

Nyagowa, H. O., Ocholla, D. N., & Mutula, S. M. (2014). T he influence of infrastructure, training, content and communication on the success of NEPAD’S pilot e-Schools in Kenya . Information Development, 30(3), 235-246 .

Education in Conflict and Crisis: How Can Technology Make a Difference?

This landscape review identifies ICT projects supporting education in conflict and crisis settings. It finds that most of the projects operate in post-conflict settings and focus on the long-term development of such places. The report hones in on major thematic areas of professional development and student learning. It also presents directions for further research, including considerations of conflict sensitivity and inclusion in the use of ICT. 

Dahya, N. (2016) Education in Conflict and Crisis: How Can Technology Make a Difference? A Landscape Review . GIZ.

Does technology improve reading outcomes? Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICT interventions for early-grade reading in Kenya

This randomized controlled trial contributes to the limited evidence base on the effects of different types of ICT investments on learning outcomes. All groups participated in the ‘base’ initiative which focused on training teachers and headteachers in literacy and numeracy, books for every student, teacher guides that matched closely with the content of the students’ book, and modest ICT intervention with tablets provided only for government-funded instructional supervisors. The RCT then compared outcomes from three interventions:  (1) base program plus e-readers for students, (2) base program plus tablets for teachers, and (3) the control group who were treated only with the base program. The paper finds that the classroom-level ICT investments do not improve literacy outcomes significantly more than the base program alone, and that cost considerations are crucial in selecting ICT investments in education.

Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S., Kwayumba, D., & Strigel, C. (2016). Does technology improve reading outcomes? Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICT interventions for early-grade reading in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development (49), 204-214.

[FORTHCOMING] Technology in education in low-income countries: Problem analysis and focus of the EdTech Hub’s work

Informed by the research cited in this list (and much more) – the Hub will soon publish a problem analysis. It will define our focus and the scope of our work. To give a taste of what is to come, the problem analysis will explain why we will prioritise teachers, marginalised groups, and use a systems lens. It will also explore emergent challenges in EdTech research, design, and implementation.

EdTech Hub. (2020). Technology in education in low-income countries: Problem analysis and focus of the Hub’s work (EdTech Hub Working Paper No. 5). London, UK. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3377829

It is important to note that we have included a mix of research types at varying levels of rigour, from landscape reviews and evidence maps, to critical reviews and case studies. Our list is not comprehensive and has some obvious limitations (they are all in English, for one). If you are interested in exploring more papers and evidence, don’t forget to check out the EdTech Hub’s growing document library , where you will find not just links to the full papers in this list but over 200 resources, with more being added each day.

What interesting EdTech research have you recently read, and what did you take away from it? Let us know in the comments section or on Twitter at @GlobalEdTechHub and use #EdTechHub

Related Posts

Our strategy, part 1: empowering decision-makers ..., helping improve the kenya education cloud ..., privacy overview.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

• Chengliang Wang 1 ,
• Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
• Teng Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-7261 2 , 3 ,
• Yidan Liu 1 , 4 &
• Yuhui Jing 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

11 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

Amidst the global digital transformation of educational institutions, digital technology has emerged as a significant area of interest among scholars. Such technologies have played an instrumental role in enhancing learner performance and improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. These digital technologies also ensure the sustainability and stability of education during the epidemic. Despite this, a dearth of systematic reviews exists regarding the current state of digital technology application in education. To address this gap, this study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as a data source (specifically selecting the high-quality SSCI and SCIE) and implemented a topic search by setting keywords, yielding 1849 initial publications. Furthermore, following the PRISMA guidelines, we refined the selection to 588 high-quality articles. Using software tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator, we reviewed these 588 publications to identify core authors (such as Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards), highly productive countries/regions (England, Australia, USA), key institutions (Monash University, Australian Catholic University), and crucial journals in the field ( Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , British Journal of Educational Technology ). Evolutionary analysis reveals four developmental periods in the research field of digital technology education application: the embryonic period, the preliminary development period, the key exploration, and the acceleration period of change. The study highlights the dual influence of technological factors and historical context on the research topic. Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education system and the transformation and upgrading of education. Additionally, the study identifies three frontier hotspots in the field: physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. This study presents a clear framework for digital technology application in education, which can serve as a valuable reference for researchers and educational practitioners concerned with digital technology education application in theory and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A bibliometric analysis of knowledge mapping in Chinese education digitalization research from 2012 to 2022

Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

Digital technology has become an essential component of modern education, facilitating the extension of temporal and spatial boundaries and enriching the pedagogical contexts (Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). The advent of mobile communication technology has enabled learning through social media platforms (Szeto et al. 2015 ; Pires et al. 2022 ), while the advancement of augmented reality technology has disrupted traditional conceptions of learning environments and spaces (Perez-Sanagustin et al., 2014 ; Kyza and Georgiou, 2018 ). A wide range of digital technologies has enabled learning to become a norm in various settings, including the workplace (Sjöberg and Holmgren, 2021 ), home (Nazare et al. 2022 ), and online communities (Tang and Lam, 2014 ). Education is no longer limited to fixed locations and schedules, but has permeated all aspects of life, allowing learning to continue at any time and any place (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2016 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ).

The advent of digital technology has led to the creation of several informal learning environments (Greenhow and Lewin, 2015 ) that exhibit divergent form, function, features, and patterns in comparison to conventional learning environments (Nygren et al. 2019 ). Consequently, the associated teaching and learning processes, as well as the strategies for the creation, dissemination, and acquisition of learning resources, have undergone a complete overhaul. The ensuing transformations have posed a myriad of novel issues, such as the optimal structuring of teaching methods by instructors and the adoption of appropriate learning strategies by students in the new digital technology environment. Consequently, an examination of the principles that underpin effective teaching and learning in this environment is a topic of significant interest to numerous scholars engaged in digital technology education research.

Over the course of the last two decades, digital technology has made significant strides in the field of education, notably in extending education time and space and creating novel educational contexts with sustainability. Despite research attempts to consolidate the application of digital technology in education, previous studies have only focused on specific aspects of digital technology, such as Pinto and Leite’s ( 2020 ) investigation into digital technology in higher education and Mustapha et al.’s ( 2021 ) examination of the role and value of digital technology in education during the pandemic. While these studies have provided valuable insights into the practical applications of digital technology in particular educational domains, they have not comprehensively explored the macro-mechanisms and internal logic of digital technology implementation in education. Additionally, these studies were conducted over a relatively brief period, making it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the macro-dynamics and evolutionary process of digital technology in education. Some studies have provided an overview of digital education from an educational perspective but lack a precise understanding of technological advancement and change (Yang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, this study seeks to employ a systematic scientific approach to collate relevant research from 2000 to 2022, comprehend the internal logic and development trends of digital technology in education, and grasp the outstanding contribution of digital technology in promoting the sustainability of education in time and space. In summary, this study aims to address the following questions:

RQ1: Since the turn of the century, what is the productivity distribution of the field of digital technology education application research in terms of authorship, country/region, institutional and journal level?

RQ2: What is the development trend of research on the application of digital technology in education in the past two decades?

RQ3: What are the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education?

Literature review

Although the term “digital technology” has become ubiquitous, a unified definition has yet to be agreed upon by scholars. Because the meaning of the word digital technology is closely related to the specific context. Within the educational research domain, Selwyn’s ( 2016 ) definition is widely favored by scholars (Pinto and Leite, 2020 ). Selwyn ( 2016 ) provides a comprehensive view of various concrete digital technologies and their applications in education through ten specific cases, such as immediate feedback in classes, orchestrating teaching, and community learning. Through these specific application scenarios, Selwyn ( 2016 ) argues that digital technology encompasses technologies associated with digital devices, including but not limited to tablets, smartphones, computers, and social media platforms (such as Facebook and YouTube). Furthermore, Further, the behavior of accessing the internet at any location through portable devices can be taken as an extension of the behavior of applying digital technology.

The evolving nature of digital technology has significant implications in the field of education. In the 1890s, the focus of digital technology in education was on comprehending the nuances of digital space, digital culture, and educational methodologies, with its connotations aligned more towards the idea of e-learning. The advent and subsequent widespread usage of mobile devices since the dawn of the new millennium have been instrumental in the rapid expansion of the concept of digital technology. Notably, mobile learning devices such as smartphones and tablets, along with social media platforms, have become integral components of digital technology (Conole and Alevizou, 2010 ; Batista et al. 2016 ). In recent times, the burgeoning application of AI technology in the education sector has played a vital role in enriching the digital technology lexicon (Banerjee et al. 2021 ). ChatGPT, for instance, is identified as a novel educational technology that has immense potential to revolutionize future education (Rospigliosi, 2023 ; Arif, Munaf and Ul-Haque, 2023 ).

Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive macroscopic survey of the use of digital technologies in the education sector and identified three distinct categories, namely technologies for assessment and feedback, mobile technologies, and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). This classification criterion is both macroscopic and highly condensed. In light of the established concept definitions of digital technology in the educational research literature, this study has adopted the characterizations of digital technology proposed by Selwyn ( 2016 ) and Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) as crucial criteria for analysis and research inclusion. Specifically, this criterion encompasses several distinct types of digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Mobile tools, eXtended Reality (XR) Technologies, Assessment and Feedback systems, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Publish and Share tools, Collaborative systems, Social media, Interpersonal Communication tools, and Content Aggregation tools.

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

The research on econometric properties has been present in various aspects of human production and life, yet systematic scientific theoretical guidance has been lacking, resulting in disorganization. In 1969, British scholar Pritchard ( 1969 ) proposed “bibliometrics,” which subsequently emerged as an independent discipline in scientific quantification research. Initially, Pritchard defined bibliometrics as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” however, the definition was not entirely rigorous. To remedy this, Hawkins ( 2001 ) expanded Pritchard’s definition to “the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic features of a body of literature.” De Bellis further clarified the objectives of bibliometrics, stating that it aims to analyze and identify patterns in literature, such as the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and journals in scientific disciplines, trends in literary production over time, and collaboration networks (De Bellis, 2009 ). According to Garfield ( 2006 ), bibliometric research enables the examination of the history and structure of a field, the flow of information within the field, the impact of journals, and the citation status of publications over a longer time scale. All of these definitions illustrate the unique role of bibliometrics as a research method for evaluating specific research fields.

This study uses CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator to analyze data and create visualizations. Each of these three tools has its own strengths and can complement each other. CiteSpace and VOSviewer use set theory and probability theory to provide various visualization views in fields such as keywords, co-occurrence, and co-authors. They are easy to use and produce visually appealing graphics (Chen, 2006 ; van Eck and Waltman, 2009 ) and are currently the two most widely used bibliometric tools in the field of visualization (Pan et al. 2018 ). In this study, VOSviewer provided the data necessary for the Performance Analysis; Charticulator was then used to redraw using the tabular data exported from VOSviewer (for creating the chord diagram of country collaboration); this was to complement the mapping process, while CiteSpace was primarily utilized to generate keyword maps and conduct burst word analysis.

Data retrieval

This study selected documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science Core Collection as the data source, for the following reasons:

(1) The Web of Science Core Collection, as a high-quality digital literature resource database, has been widely accepted by many researchers and is currently considered the most suitable database for bibliometric analysis (Jing et al. 2023a ). Compared to other databases, Web of Science provides more comprehensive data information (Chen et al. 2022a ), and also provides data formats suitable for analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ).

(2) The application of digital technology in the field of education is an interdisciplinary research topic, involving technical knowledge literature belonging to the natural sciences and education-related literature belonging to the social sciences. Therefore, it is necessary to select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the sources of research data, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data while ensuring the reliability and persuasiveness of bibliometric research (Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Wang et al. 2022 ).

After establishing the source of research data, it is necessary to determine a retrieval strategy (Jing et al. 2023b ). The choice of a retrieval strategy should consider a balance between the breadth and precision of the search formula. That is to say, it should encompass all the literature pertaining to the research topic while excluding irrelevant documents as much as possible. In light of this, this study has set a retrieval strategy informed by multiple related papers (Mustapha et al. 2021 ; Luo et al. 2021 ). The research by Mustapha et al. ( 2021 ) guided us in selecting keywords (“digital” AND “technolog*”) to target digital technology, while Luo et al. ( 2021 ) informed the selection of terms (such as “instruct*,” “teach*,” and “education”) to establish links with the field of education. Then, based on the current application of digital technology in the educational domain and the scope of selection criteria, we constructed the final retrieval strategy. Following the general patterns of past research (Jing et al. 2023a , 2023b ), we conducted a specific screening using the topic search (Topics, TS) function in Web of Science. For the specific criteria used in the screening for this study, please refer to Table 1 .

Literature screening

Literature acquired through keyword searches may contain ostensibly related yet actually unrelated works. Therefore, to ensure the close relevance of literature included in the analysis to the research topic, it is often necessary to perform a manual screening process to identify the final literature to be analyzed, subsequent to completing the initial literature search.

The manual screening process consists of two steps. Initially, irrelevant literature is weeded out based on the title and abstract, with two members of the research team involved in this phase. This stage lasted about one week, resulting in 1106 articles being retained. Subsequently, a comprehensive review of the full text is conducted to accurately identify the literature required for the study. To carry out the second phase of manual screening effectively and scientifically, and to minimize the potential for researcher bias, the research team established the inclusion criteria presented in Table 2 . Three members were engaged in this phase, which took approximately 2 weeks, culminating in the retention of 588 articles after meticulous screening. The entire screening process is depicted in Fig. 1 , adhering to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021 ).

The process of obtaining and filtering the necessary literature data for research.

Data standardization

Nguyen and Hallinger ( 2020 ) pointed out that raw data extracted from scientific databases often contains multiple expressions of the same term, and not addressing these synonymous expressions could affect research results in bibliometric analysis. For instance, in the original data, the author list may include “Tsai, C. C.” and “Tsai, C.-C.”, while the keyword list may include “professional-development” and “professional development,” which often require merging. Therefore, before analyzing the selected literature, a data disambiguation process is necessary to standardize the data (Strotmann and Zhao, 2012 ; Van Eck and Waltman, 2019 ). This study adopted the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly including the following standardization operations:

Firstly, the author and source fields in the data are corrected and standardized to differentiate authors with similar names.

Secondly, the study checks whether the journals to which the literature belongs have been renamed in the past over 20 years, so as to avoid the influence of periodical name change on the analysis results.

Finally, the keyword field is standardized by unifying parts of speech and singular/plural forms of keywords, which can help eliminate redundant entries in the knowledge graph.

Performance analysis (RQ1)

This section offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of digital technology education. By utilizing descriptive statistics and visual maps, it provides a comprehensive overview of the development trends, authors, countries, institutions, and journal distribution within the field. The insights presented in this section are of great significance in advancing our understanding of the current state of research in this field and identifying areas for further investigation. The use of visual aids to display inter-country cooperation and the evolution of the field adds to the clarity and coherence of the analysis.

Time trend of the publications

To understand a research field, it is first necessary to understand the most basic quantitative information, among which the change in the number of publications per year best reflects the development trend of a research field. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publication dates.

Time trend of the publications on application of digital technology in education.

From the Fig. 2 , it can be seen that the development of this field over the past over 20 years can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage was from 2000 to 2007, during which the number of publications was relatively low. Due to various factors such as technological maturity, the academic community did not pay widespread attention to the role of digital technology in expanding the scope of teaching and learning. The second stage was from 2008 to 2019, during which the overall number of publications showed an upward trend, and the development of the field entered an accelerated period, attracting more and more scholars’ attention. The third stage was from 2020 to 2022, during which the number of publications stabilized at around 100. During this period, the impact of the pandemic led to a large number of scholars focusing on the role of digital technology in education during the pandemic, and research on the application of digital technology in education became a core topic in social science research.

Analysis of authors

An analysis of the author’s publication volume provides information about the representative scholars and core research strengths of a research area. Table 3 presents information on the core authors in adaptive learning research, including name, publication number, and average number of citations per article (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer).

Variations in research foci among scholars abound. Within the field of digital technology education application research over the past two decades, Neil Selwyn stands as the most productive author, having published 15 papers garnering a total of 1027 citations, resulting in an average of 68.47 citations per paper. As a Professor at the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Selwyn concentrates on exploring the application of digital technology in higher education contexts (Selwyn et al. 2021 ), as well as related products in higher education such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity MOOC platforms (Bulfin et al. 2014 ). Selwyn’s contributions to the educational sociology perspective include extensive research on the impact of digital technology on education, highlighting the spatiotemporal extension of educational processes and practices through technological means as the greatest value of educational technology (Selwyn, 2012 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). In addition, he provides a blueprint for the development of future schools in 2030 based on the present impact of digital technology on education (Selwyn et al. 2019 ). The second most productive author in this field, Henderson, also offers significant contributions to the understanding of the important value of digital technology in education, specifically in the higher education setting, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic (Henderson et al. 2015 ; Cohen et al. 2022 ). In contrast, Edwards’ research interests focus on early childhood education, particularly the application of digital technology in this context (Edwards, 2013 ; Bird and Edwards, 2015 ). Additionally, on the technical level, Edwards also mainly prefers digital game technology, because it is a digital technology that children are relatively easy to accept (Edwards, 2015 ).

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

The present study aimed to ascertain the leading countries in digital technology education application research by analyzing 75 countries related to 558 works of literature. Table 4 depicts the top ten countries that have contributed significantly to this field in terms of publication count (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer). Our analysis of Table 4 data shows that England emerged as the most influential country/region, with 92 published papers and 2401 citations. Australia and the United States secured the second and third ranks, respectively, with 90 papers (2187 citations) and 70 papers (1331 citations) published. Geographically, most of the countries featured in the top ten publication volumes are situated in Australia, North America, and Europe, with China being the only exception. Notably, all these countries, except China, belong to the group of developed nations, suggesting that economic strength is a prerequisite for fostering research in the digital technology education application field.

This study presents a visual representation of the publication output and cooperation relationships among different countries in the field of digital technology education application research. Specifically, a chord diagram is employed to display the top 30 countries in terms of publication output, as depicted in Fig. 3 . The chord diagram is composed of nodes and chords, where the nodes are positioned as scattered points along the circumference, and the length of each node corresponds to the publication output, with longer lengths indicating higher publication output. The chords, on the other hand, represent the cooperation relationships between any two countries, and are weighted based on the degree of closeness of the cooperation, with wider chords indicating closer cooperation. Through the analysis of the cooperation relationships, the findings suggest that the main publishing countries in this field are engaged in cooperative relationships with each other, indicating a relatively high level of international academic exchange and research internationalization.

In the diagram, nodes are scattered along the circumference of a circle, with the length of each node representing the volume of publications. The weighted arcs connecting any two points on the circle are known as chords, representing the collaborative relationship between the two, with the width of the arc indicating the closeness of the collaboration.

Further analyzing Fig. 3 , we can extract more valuable information, enabling a deeper understanding of the connections between countries in the research field of digital technology in educational applications. It is evident that certain countries, such as the United States, China, and England, display thicker connections, indicating robust collaborative relationships in terms of productivity. These thicker lines signify substantial mutual contributions and shared objectives in certain sectors or fields, highlighting the interconnectedness and global integration in these areas. By delving deeper, we can also explore potential future collaboration opportunities through the chord diagram, identifying possible partners to propel research and development in this field. In essence, the chord diagram successfully encapsulates and conveys the multi-dimensionality of global productivity and cooperation, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate inter-country relationships and networks in a global context, providing valuable guidance and insights for future research and collaborations.

An in-depth examination of the publishing institutions is provided in Table 5 , showcasing the foremost 10 institutions ranked by their publication volume. Notably, Monash University and Australian Catholic University, situated in Australia, have recorded the most prolific publications within the digital technology education application realm, with 22 and 10 publications respectively. Moreover, the University of Oslo from Norway is featured among the top 10 publishing institutions, with an impressive average citation count of 64 per publication. It is worth highlighting that six institutions based in the United Kingdom were also ranked within the top 10 publishing institutions, signifying their leading position in this area of research.

Analysis of journals

Journals are the main carriers for publishing high-quality papers. Some scholars point out that the two key factors to measure the influence of journals in the specified field are the number of articles published and the number of citations. The more papers published in a magazine and the more citations, the greater its influence (Dzikowski, 2018 ). Therefore, this study utilized VOSviewer to statistically analyze the top 10 journals with the most publications in the field of digital technology in education and calculated the average citations per article (see Table 6 ).

Based on Table 6 , it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

The evolution of research themes is a dynamic process, and previous studies have attempted to present the developmental trajectory of fields by drawing keyword networks in phases (Kumar et al. 2021 ; Chen et al. 2022b ). To understand the shifts in research topics across different periods, this study follows past research and, based on the significant changes in the research field and corresponding technological advancements during the outlined periods, divides the timeline into four stages (the first stage from January 2000 to December 2005, the second stage from January 2006 to December 2011, the third stage from January 2012 to December 2017; and the fourth stage from January 2018 to December 2022). The division into these four stages was determined through a combination of bibliometric analysis and literature review, which presented a clear trajectory of the field’s development. The research analyzes the keyword networks for each time period (as there are only three articles in the first stage, it was not possible to generate an appropriate keyword co-occurrence map, hence only the keyword co-occurrence maps from the second to the fourth stages are provided), to understand the evolutionary track of the digital technology education application research field over time.

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

From January 2000 to December 2005, digital technology education application research was in its infancy. Only three studies focused on digital technology, all of which were related to computers. Due to the popularity of computers, the home became a new learning environment, highlighting the important role of digital technology in expanding the scope of learning spaces (Sutherland et al. 2000 ). In specific disciplines and contexts, digital technology was first favored in medical clinical practice, becoming an important tool for supporting the learning of clinical knowledge and practice (Tegtmeyer et al. 2001 ; Durfee et al. 2003 ).

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

Between January 2006 and December 2011, it was the initial development period of digital technology education research. Significant growth was observed in research related to digital technology, and discussions and theoretical analyses about “digital natives” emerged. During this phase, scholars focused on the debate about “how to use digital technology reasonably” and “whether current educational models and school curriculum design need to be adjusted on a large scale” (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2009 ; Margaryan et al. 2011 ). These theoretical and speculative arguments provided a unique perspective on the impact of cognitive digital technology on education and teaching. As can be seen from the vocabulary such as “rethinking”, “disruptive pedagogy”, and “attitude” in Fig. 4 , many scholars joined the calm reflection and analysis under the trend of digital technology (Laurillard, 2008 ; Vratulis et al. 2011 ). During this phase, technology was still undergoing dramatic changes. The development of mobile technology had already caught the attention of many scholars (Wong et al. 2011 ), but digital technology represented by computers was still very active (Selwyn et al. 2011 ). The change in technological form would inevitably lead to educational transformation. Collins and Halverson ( 2010 ) summarized the prospects and challenges of using digital technology for learning and educational practices, believing that digital technology would bring a disruptive revolution to the education field and bring about a new educational system. In addition, the term “teacher education” in Fig. 4 reflects the impact of digital technology development on teachers. The rapid development of technology has widened the generation gap between teachers and students. To ensure smooth communication between teachers and students, teachers must keep up with the trend of technological development and establish a lifelong learning concept (Donnison, 2009 ).

In the diagram, each node represents a keyword, with the size of the node indicating the frequency of occurrence of the keyword. The connections represent the co-occurrence relationships between keywords, with a higher frequency of co-occurrence resulting in tighter connections.

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

During the period spanning January 2012 to December 2017, the application of digital technology in education research underwent a significant exploration phase. As can be seen from Fig. 5 , different from the previous stage, the specific elements of specific digital technology have started to increase significantly, including the enrichment of technological contexts, the greater variety of research methods, and the diversification of learning modes. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dimensions of the learning environment were further de-emphasized, as noted in previous literature (Za et al. 2014 ). Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, the education system in the digital era is in urgent need of collaborative evolution and reconstruction, as argued by Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka ( 2013 ).

In the domain of digital technology, social media has garnered substantial scholarly attention as a promising avenue for learning, as noted by Pasquini and Evangelopoulos ( 2016 ). The implementation of social media in education presents several benefits, including the liberation of education from the restrictions of physical distance and time, as well as the erasure of conventional educational boundaries. The user-generated content (UGC) model in social media has emerged as a crucial source for knowledge creation and distribution, with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. Moreover, social networks have become an integral component of ubiquitous learning environments (Hwang et al. 2013 ). The utilization of social media allows individuals to function as both knowledge producers and recipients, which leads to a blurring of the conventional roles of learners and teachers. On mobile platforms, the roles of learners and teachers are not fixed, but instead interchangeable.

In terms of research methodology, the prevalence of empirical studies with survey designs in the field of educational technology during this period is evident from the vocabulary used, such as “achievement,” “acceptance,” “attitude,” and “ict.” in Fig. 5 . These studies aim to understand learners’ willingness to adopt and attitudes towards new technologies, and some seek to investigate the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes through quasi-experimental designs (Domínguez et al. 2013 ). Among these empirical studies, mobile learning emerged as a hot topic, and this is not surprising. First, the advantages of mobile learning environments over traditional ones have been empirically demonstrated (Hwang et al. 2013 ). Second, learners born around the turn of the century have been heavily influenced by digital technologies and have developed their own learning styles that are more open to mobile devices as a means of learning. Consequently, analyzing mobile learning as a relatively novel mode of learning has become an important issue for scholars in the field of educational technology.

The intervention of technology has led to the emergence of several novel learning modes, with the blended learning model being the most representative one in the current phase. Blended learning, a novel concept introduced in the information age, emphasizes the integration of the benefits of traditional learning methods and online learning. This learning mode not only highlights the prominent role of teachers in guiding, inspiring, and monitoring the learning process but also underlines the importance of learners’ initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity in the learning process. Despite being an early conceptualization, blended learning’s meaning has been expanded by the widespread use of mobile technology and social media in education. The implementation of new technologies, particularly mobile devices, has resulted in the transformation of curriculum design and increased flexibility and autonomy in students’ learning processes (Trujillo Maza et al. 2016 ), rekindling scholarly attention to this learning mode. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of the blended learning model, such as its significant impact on the traditional teaching system, the lack of systematic coping strategies and relevant policies in several schools and regions (Moskal et al. 2013 ).

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

The period spanning from January 2018 to December 2022 witnessed a rapid transformation in the application of digital technology in education research. The field of digital technology education research reached a peak period of publication, largely influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2023 ). Research during this period was built upon the achievements, attitudes, and social media of the previous phase, and included more elements that reflect the characteristics of this research field, such as digital literacy, digital competence, and professional development, as depicted in Fig. 6 . Alongside this, scholars’ expectations for the value of digital technology have expanded, and the pursuit of improving learning efficiency and performance is no longer the sole focus. Some research now aims to cultivate learners’ motivation and enhance their self-efficacy by applying digital technology in a reasonable manner, as demonstrated by recent studies (Beardsley et al. 2021 ; Creely et al. 2021 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a crucial backdrop for the digital technology’s role in sustaining global education, as highlighted by recent scholarly research (Zhou et al. 2022 ; Pan and Zhang, 2020 ; Mo et al. 2022 ). The online learning environment, which is supported by digital technology, has become the primary battleground for global education (Yu, 2022 ). This social context has led to various studies being conducted, with some scholars positing that the pandemic has impacted the traditional teaching order while also expanding learning possibilities in terms of patterns and forms (Alabdulaziz, 2021 ). Furthermore, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for teacher teaching and technological innovation, and this viewpoint has been empirically substantiated (Moorhouse and Wong, 2021 ). Additionally, some scholars believe that the pandemic’s push is a crucial driving force for the digital transformation of the education system, serving as an essential mechanism for overcoming the system’s inertia (Romero et al. 2021 ).

The rapid outbreak of the pandemic posed a challenge to the large-scale implementation of digital technologies, which was influenced by a complex interplay of subjective and objective factors. Objective constraints included the lack of infrastructure in some regions to support digital technologies, while subjective obstacles included psychological resistance among certain students and teachers (Moorhouse, 2021 ). These factors greatly impacted the progress of online learning during the pandemic. Additionally, Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of existing research on digital technology use during the pandemic, highlighting the critical role played by various factors such as learners’ and teachers’ digital skills, teachers’ personal attributes and professional development, school leadership and management, and administration in facilitating the digitalization and transformation of schools.

The current stage of research is characterized by the pivotal term “digital literacy,” denoting a growing interest in learners’ attitudes and adoption of emerging technologies. Initially, the term “literacy” was restricted to fundamental abilities and knowledge associated with books and print materials (McMillan, 1996 ). However, with the swift advancement of computers and digital technology, there have been various attempts to broaden the scope of literacy beyond its traditional meaning, including game literacy (Buckingham and Burn, 2007 ), information literacy (Eisenberg, 2008 ), and media literacy (Turin and Friesem, 2020 ). Similarly, digital literacy has emerged as a crucial concept, and Gilster and Glister ( 1997 ) were the first to introduce this concept, referring to the proficiency in utilizing technology and processing digital information in academic, professional, and daily life settings. In practical educational settings, learners who possess higher digital literacy often exhibit an aptitude for quickly mastering digital devices and applying them intelligently to education and teaching (Yu, 2022 ).

The utilization of digital technology in education has undergone significant changes over the past two decades, and has been a crucial driver of educational reform with each new technological revolution. The impact of these changes on the underlying logic of digital technology education applications has been noticeable. From computer technology to more recent developments such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI), the acceleration in digital technology development has been ongoing. Educational reforms spurred by digital technology development continue to be dynamic, as each new digital innovation presents new possibilities and models for teaching practice. This is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era, where the importance of technological progress in supporting teaching cannot be overstated (Mughal et al. 2022 ). Existing digital technologies have already greatly expanded the dimensions of education in both time and space, while future digital technologies aim to expand learners’ perceptions. Researchers have highlighted the potential of integrated technology and immersive technology in the development of the educational metaverse, which is highly anticipated to create a new dimension for the teaching and learning environment, foster a new value system for the discipline of educational technology, and more effectively and efficiently achieve the grand educational blueprint of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Zhang et al. 2022 ; Li and Yu, 2023 ).

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

The examination of keyword evolution reveals a consistent trend in the advancement of digital technology education application research. The emergence and transformation of keywords serve as indicators of the varying research interests in this field. Thus, the utilization of the burst detection function available in CiteSpace allowed for the identification of the top 10 burst words that exhibited a high level of burst strength. This outcome is illustrated in Table 7 .

According to the results presented in Table 7 , the explosive terminology within the realm of digital technology education research has exhibited a concentration mainly between the years 2018 and 2022. Prior to this time frame, the emerging keywords were limited to “information technology” and “computer”. Notably, among them, computer, as an emergent keyword, has always had a high explosive intensity from 2008 to 2018, which reflects the important position of computer in digital technology and is the main carrier of many digital technologies such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Assessment and Feedback systems (Barlovits et al. 2022 ).

Since 2018, an increasing number of research studies have focused on evaluating the capabilities of learners to accept, apply, and comprehend digital technologies. As indicated by the use of terms such as “digital literacy” and “digital skill,” the assessment of learners’ digital literacy has become a critical task. Scholarly efforts have been directed towards the development of literacy assessment tools and the implementation of empirical assessments. Furthermore, enhancing the digital literacy of both learners and educators has garnered significant attention. (Nagle, 2018 ; Yu, 2022 ). Simultaneously, given the widespread use of various digital technologies in different formal and informal learning settings, promoting learners’ digital skills has become a crucial objective for contemporary schools (Nygren et al. 2019 ; Forde and OBrien, 2022 ).

Since 2020, the field of applied research on digital technology education has witnessed the emergence of three new hotspots, all of which have been affected to some extent by the pandemic. Firstly, digital technology has been widely applied in physical education, which is one of the subjects that has been severely affected by the pandemic (Parris et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Ning, 2022 ). Secondly, digital transformation has become an important measure for most schools, especially higher education institutions, to cope with the impact of the pandemic globally (García-Morales et al. 2021 ). Although the concept of digital transformation was proposed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated this transformation process. Educational institutions must carefully redesign their educational products to face this new situation, providing timely digital learning methods, environments, tools, and support systems that have far-reaching impacts on modern society (Krishnamurthy, 2020 ; Salas-Pilco et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the professional development of teachers has become a key mission of educational institutions in the post-pandemic era. Teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and be familiar with the tools and online teaching resources used in online teaching, which has become a research hotspot today. Organizing digital skills training for teachers to cope with the application of emerging technologies in education is an important issue for teacher professional development and lifelong learning (Garzón-Artacho et al. 2021 ). As the main organizers and practitioners of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, teachers must put cognitive effort into their professional development to ensure effective implementation of ERT (Romero-Hall and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2022 ).

The burst word “digital transformation” reveals that we are in the midst of an ongoing digital technology revolution. With the emergence of innovative digital technologies such as ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot, technology trends will continue to evolve, albeit unpredictably. While the impact of these advancements on school education remains uncertain, it is anticipated that the widespread integration of technology will significantly affect the current education system. Rejecting emerging technologies without careful consideration is unwise. Like any revolution, the technological revolution in the education field has both positive and negative aspects. Detractors argue that digital technology disrupts learning and memory (Baron, 2021 ) or causes learners to become addicted and distracted from learning (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020 ). On the other hand, the prudent use of digital technology in education offers a glimpse of a golden age of open learning. Educational leaders and practitioners have the opportunity to leverage cutting-edge digital technologies to address current educational challenges and develop a rational path for the sustainable and healthy growth of education.

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

The field of digital technology education application research has experienced substantial growth since the turn of the century, a phenomenon that is quantifiably apparent through an analysis of authorship, country/region contributions, and institutional engagement. This expansion reflects the increased integration of digital technologies in educational settings and the heightened scholarly interest in understanding and optimizing their use.

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

The authorship distribution within digital technology education research is indicative of the field’s intellectual structure and depth. A primary figure in this domain is Neil Selwyn, whose substantial citation rate underscores the profound impact of his work. His focus on the implications of digital technology in higher education and educational sociology has proven to be seminal. Selwyn’s research trajectory, especially the exploration of spatiotemporal extensions of education through technology, provides valuable insights into the multifaceted role of digital tools in learning processes (Selwyn et al. 2019 ).

Other notable contributors, like Henderson and Edwards, present diversified research interests, such as the impact of digital technologies during the pandemic and their application in early childhood education, respectively. Their varied focuses highlight the breadth of digital technology education research, encompassing pedagogical innovation, technological adaptation, and policy development.

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

At the country/region level, the United Kingdom, specifically England, emerges as a leading contributor with 92 published papers and a significant citation count. This is closely followed by Australia and the United States, indicating a strong English-speaking research axis. Such geographical concentration of scholarly output often correlates with investment in research and development, technological infrastructure, and the prevalence of higher education institutions engaging in cutting-edge research.

China’s notable inclusion as the only non-Western country among the top contributors to the field suggests a growing research capacity and interest in digital technology in education. However, the lower average citation per paper for China could reflect emerging engagement or different research focuses that may not yet have achieved the same international recognition as Western counterparts.

The chord diagram analysis furthers this understanding, revealing dense interconnections between countries like the United States, China, and England, which indicates robust collaborations. Such collaborations are fundamental in addressing global educational challenges and shaping international research agendas.

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Institutional productivity in digital technology education research reveals a constellation of universities driving the field forward. Monash University and the Australian Catholic University have the highest publication output, signaling Australia’s significant role in advancing digital education research. The University of Oslo’s remarkable average citation count per publication indicates influential research contributions, potentially reflecting high-quality studies that resonate with the broader academic community.

The strong showing of UK institutions, including the University of London, The Open University, and the University of Cambridge, reinforces the UK’s prominence in this research field. Such institutions are often at the forefront of pedagogical innovation, benefiting from established research cultures and funding mechanisms that support sustained inquiry into digital education.

Discussion on journal publication analysis

An examination of journal outputs offers a lens into the communicative channels of the field’s knowledge base. Journals such as Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology not only serve as the primary disseminators of research findings but also as indicators of research quality and relevance. The impact factor (IF) serves as a proxy for the quality and influence of these journals within the academic community.

The high citation counts for articles published in Computers & Education suggest that research disseminated through this medium has a wide-reaching impact and is of particular interest to the field. This is further evidenced by its significant IF of 11.182, indicating that the journal is a pivotal platform for seminal work in the application of digital technology in education.

The authorship, regional, and institutional productivity in the field of digital technology education application research collectively narrate the evolution of this domain since the turn of the century. The prominence of certain authors and countries underscores the importance of socioeconomic factors and existing academic infrastructure in fostering research productivity. Meanwhile, the centrality of specific journals as outlets for high-impact research emphasizes the role of academic publishing in shaping the research landscape.

As the field continues to grow, future research may benefit from leveraging the collaborative networks that have been elucidated through this analysis, perhaps focusing on underrepresented regions to broaden the scope and diversity of research. Furthermore, the stabilization of publication numbers in recent years invites a deeper exploration into potential plateaus in research trends or saturation in certain sub-fields, signaling an opportunity for novel inquiries and methodological innovations.

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

The evolution of the research field concerning the application of digital technology in education over the past two decades is a story of convergence, diversification, and transformation, shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting educational paradigms.

At the turn of the century, the inception of digital technology in education was largely exploratory, with a focus on how emerging computer technologies could be harnessed to enhance traditional learning environments. Research from this early period was primarily descriptive, reflecting on the potential and challenges of incorporating digital tools into the educational setting. This phase was critical in establishing the fundamental discourse that would guide subsequent research, as it set the stage for understanding the scope and impact of digital technology in learning spaces (Wang et al. 2023 ).

As the first decade progressed, the narrative expanded to encompass the pedagogical implications of digital technologies. This was a period of conceptual debates, where terms like “digital natives” and “disruptive pedagogy” entered the academic lexicon, underscoring the growing acknowledgment of digital technology as a transformative force within education (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ). During this time, the research began to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the integration of technology, considering not only its potential to change where and how learning occurred but also its implications for educational equity and access.

In the second decade, with the maturation of internet connectivity and mobile technology, the focus of research shifted from theoretical speculations to empirical investigations. The proliferation of digital devices and the ubiquity of social media influenced how learners interacted with information and each other, prompting a surge in studies that sought to measure the impact of these tools on learning outcomes. The digital divide and issues related to digital literacy became central concerns, as scholars explored the varying capacities of students and educators to engage with technology effectively.

Throughout this period, there was an increasing emphasis on the individualization of learning experiences, facilitated by adaptive technologies that could cater to the unique needs and pacing of learners (Jing et al. 2023a ). This individualization was coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, both online and offline, and the role of digital tools in supporting these processes. Blended learning models, which combined face-to-face instruction with online resources, emerged as a significant trend, advocating for a balance between traditional pedagogies and innovative digital strategies.

The later years, particularly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated the necessity for digital technology in education, transforming it from a supplementary tool to an essential platform for delivering education globally (Mo et al. 2022 ; Mustapha et al. 2021 ). This era brought about an unprecedented focus on online learning environments, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Research became more granular, examining not just the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools, but also their role in maintaining continuity of education during crises, their impact on teacher and student well-being, and their implications for the future of educational policy and infrastructure.

Across these two decades, the research field has seen a shift from examining digital technology as an external addition to the educational process, to viewing it as an integral component of curriculum design, instructional strategies, and even assessment methods. The emergent themes have broadened from a narrow focus on specific tools or platforms to include wider considerations such as data privacy, ethical use of technology, and the environmental impact of digital tools.

Moreover, the field has moved from considering the application of digital technology in education as a primarily cognitive endeavor to recognizing its role in facilitating socio-emotional learning, digital citizenship, and global competencies. Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to the ways in which technology can support collaborative skills, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning within diverse student populations.

In summary, the past over twenty years in the research field of digital technology applications in education have been characterized by a progression from foundational inquiries to complex analyses of digital integration. This evolution has mirrored the trajectory of technology itself, from a facilitative tool to a pervasive ecosystem defining contemporary educational experiences. As we look to the future, the field is poised to delve into the implications of emerging technologies like AI, AR, and VR, and their potential to redefine the educational landscape even further. This ongoing metamorphosis suggests that the application of digital technology in education will continue to be a rich area of inquiry, demanding continual adaptation and forward-thinking from educators and researchers alike.

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

The analysis of keyword evolution in digital technology education application research elucidates the current frontiers in the field, reflecting a trajectory that is in tandem with the rapidly advancing digital age. This landscape is sculpted by emergent technological innovations and shaped by the demands of an increasingly digital society.

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

One of the frontiers identified from recent keyword bursts includes the integration of digital technology into diverse educational contexts, particularly noted with the keyword “physical education.” The digitalization of disciplines traditionally characterized by physical presence illustrates the pervasive reach of technology and signifies a push towards interdisciplinary integration where technology is not only a facilitator but also a transformative agent. This integration challenges educators to reconceptualize curriculum delivery to accommodate digital tools that can enhance or simulate the physical aspects of learning.

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Another pivotal frontier is the focus on “digital literacy” and “digital skill”, which has intensified in recent years. This suggests a shift from mere access to technology towards a comprehensive understanding and utilization of digital tools. In this realm, the emphasis is not only on the ability to use technology but also on critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ethical use of digital resources (Yu, 2022 ). The acquisition of digital literacy is no longer an additive skill but a fundamental aspect of modern education, essential for navigating and contributing to the digital world.

Educational digital transformation

The keyword “digital transformation” marks a significant research frontier, emphasizing the systemic changes that education institutions must undergo to align with the digital era (Romero et al. 2021 ). This transformation includes the redesigning of learning environments, pedagogical strategies, and assessment methods to harness digital technology’s full potential. Research in this area explores the complexity of institutional change, addressing the infrastructural, cultural, and policy adjustments needed for a seamless digital transition.

Engagement and participation

Further exploration into “engagement” and “participation” underscores the importance of student-centered learning environments that are mediated by technology. The current frontiers examine how digital platforms can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and active learning, potentially leading to more meaningful and personalized educational experiences. Here, the use of technology seeks to support the emotional and cognitive aspects of learning, moving beyond the transactional view of education to one that is relational and interactive.

Professional development and teacher readiness

As the field evolves, “professional development” emerges as a crucial area, particularly in light of the pandemic which necessitated emergency remote teaching. The need for teacher readiness in a digital age is a pressing frontier, with research focusing on the competencies required for educators to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. This includes familiarity with digital tools, pedagogical innovation, and an ongoing commitment to personal and professional growth in the digital domain.

Pandemic as a catalyst

The recent pandemic has acted as a catalyst for accelerated research and application in this field, particularly in the domains of “digital transformation,” “professional development,” and “physical education.” This period has been a litmus test for the resilience and adaptability of educational systems to continue their operations in an emergency. Research has thus been directed at understanding how digital technologies can support not only continuity but also enhance the quality and reach of education in such contexts.

Ethical and societal considerations

The frontier of digital technology in education is also expanding to consider broader ethical and societal implications. This includes issues of digital equity, data privacy, and the sociocultural impact of technology on learning communities. The research explores how educational technology can be leveraged to address inequities and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Innovation and emerging technologies

Looking forward, the frontiers are set to be influenced by ongoing and future technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Wu and Yu, 2023 ; Chen et al. 2022a ). The exploration into how these technologies can be integrated into educational practices to create immersive and adaptive learning experiences represents a bold new chapter for the field.

In conclusion, the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education are multifaceted and dynamic. They reflect an overarching movement towards deeper integration of technology in educational systems and pedagogical practices, where the goals are not only to facilitate learning but to redefine it. As these frontiers continue to expand and evolve, they will shape the educational landscape, requiring a concerted effort from researchers, educators, policymakers, and technologists to navigate the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by the digital revolution in education.

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

The utilization of digital technology in education is a research area that cuts across multiple technical and educational domains and continues to experience dynamic growth due to the continuous progress of technology. In this study, a systematic review of this field was conducted through bibliometric techniques to examine its development trajectory. The primary focus of the review was to investigate the leading contributors, productive national institutions, significant publications, and evolving development patterns. The study’s quantitative analysis resulted in several key conclusions that shed light on this research field’s current state and future prospects.

(1) The research field of digital technology education applications has entered a stage of rapid development, particularly in recent years due to the impact of the pandemic, resulting in a peak of publications. Within this field, several key authors (Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards, etc.) and countries/regions (England, Australia, USA, etc.) have emerged, who have made significant contributions. International exchanges in this field have become frequent, with a high degree of internationalization in academic research. Higher education institutions in the UK and Australia are the core productive forces in this field at the institutional level.

(2) Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology are notable journals that publish research related to digital technology education applications. These journals are affiliated with the research field of educational technology and provide effective communication platforms for sharing digital technology education applications.

(3) Over the past two decades, research on digital technology education applications has progressed from its early stages of budding, initial development, and critical exploration to accelerated transformation, and it is currently approaching maturity. Technological progress and changes in the times have been key driving forces for educational transformation and innovation, and both have played important roles in promoting the continuous development of education.

(4) Influenced by the pandemic, three emerging frontiers have emerged in current research on digital technology education applications, which are physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. These frontier research hotspots reflect the core issues that the education system faces when encountering new technologies. The evolution of research hotspots shows that technology breakthroughs in education’s original boundaries of time and space create new challenges. The continuous self-renewal of education is achieved by solving one hotspot problem after another.

The present study offers significant practical implications for scholars and practitioners in the field of digital technology education applications. Firstly, it presents a well-defined framework of the existing research in this area, serving as a comprehensive guide for new entrants to the field and shedding light on the developmental trajectory of this research domain. Secondly, the study identifies several contemporary research hotspots, thus offering a valuable decision-making resource for scholars aiming to explore potential research directions. Thirdly, the study undertakes an exhaustive analysis of published literature to identify core journals in the field of digital technology education applications, with Sustainability being identified as a promising open access journal that publishes extensively on this topic. This finding can potentially facilitate scholars in selecting appropriate journals for their research outputs.

Limitation and future research

Influenced by some objective factors, this study also has some limitations. First of all, the bibliometrics analysis software has high standards for data. In order to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, the research only selects the periodical papers in SCIE and SSCI indexes, which are the core collection of Web of Science database, and excludes other databases, conference papers, editorials and other publications, which may ignore some scientific research and original opinions in the field of digital technology education and application research. In addition, although this study used professional software to carry out bibliometric analysis and obtained more objective quantitative data, the analysis and interpretation of data will inevitably have a certain subjective color, and the influence of subjectivity on data analysis cannot be completely avoided. As such, future research endeavors will broaden the scope of literature screening and proactively engage scholars in the field to gain objective and state-of-the-art insights, while minimizing the adverse impact of personal subjectivity on research analysis.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F9QMHY

Alabdulaziz MS (2021) COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7609–7633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

Arif TB, Munaf U, Ul-Haque I (2023) The future of medical education and research: is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise? Med Educ Online 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052

Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT, Johns I, Chappell D, Linton N, Cole GD, Francis DP, Szram J, Ross J, Zaman S (2021) The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02870-x

Barlovits S, Caldeira A, Fesakis G, Jablonski S, Koutsomanoli Filippaki D, Lázaro C, Ludwig M, Mammana MF, Moura A, Oehler DXK, Recio T, Taranto E, Volika S(2022) Adaptive, synchronous, and mobile online education: developing the ASYMPTOTE learning environment. Mathematics 10:1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101628

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron NS(2021) Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering J Pragmat 175:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Batista J, Morais NS, Ramos F (2016) Researching the use of communication technologies in higher education institutions in Portugal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0571-6.ch057

Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández-Leo D (2021) Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13101

Bennett S, Maton K(2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences J Comput Assist Learn 26:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Buckingham D, Burn A (2007) Game literacy in theory and practice 16:323–349

Google Scholar  

Bulfin S, Pangrazio L, Selwyn N (2014) Making “MOOCs”: the construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Camilleri MA, Camilleri AC(2016) Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education Technol Knowl Learn 22:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chen C(2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen J, Dai J, Zhu K, Xu L(2022) Effects of extended reality on language learning: a meta-analysis Front Psychol 13:1016519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016519

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen J, Wang CL, Tang Y (2022b) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Cohen A, Soffer T, Henderson M(2022) Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: International comparison J Comput Assist Learn 38(5):1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678

Collins A, Halverson R(2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology J Comput Assist Learn 26:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Conole G, Alevizou P (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK: the Open University, retrieved 17 February

Creely E, Henriksen D, Crawford R, Henderson M(2021) Exploring creative risk-taking and productive failure in classroom practice. A case study of the perceived self-efficacy and agency of teachers at one school Think Ski Creat 42:100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100951

Davis N, Eickelmann B, Zaka P(2013) Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective J Comput Assist Learn 29:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

De Belli N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ(2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes Comput Educ 63:380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Donnison S (2009) Discourses in conflict: the relationship between Gen Y pre-service teachers, digital technologies and lifelong learning. Australasian J Educ Technol 25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1138

Durfee SM, Jain S, Shaffer K (2003) Incorporating electronic media into medical student education. Acad Radiol 10:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80046-6

Dzikowski P(2018) A bibliometric analysis of born global firms J Bus Res 85:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054

van Eck NJ, Waltman L(2009) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84:523–538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Edwards S(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum Eur Early Child Educ Res J 21:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.789190

Edwards S(2015) New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular-culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education Technol Pedagogy Educ 25:513–532 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2015.1108929

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Eisenberg MB(2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 28:39–47. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.2.166

Forde C, OBrien A (2022) A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Med Educ Online 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

García-Morales VJ, Garrido-Moreno A, Martín-Rojas R (2021) The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059

Garfield E(2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295:90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Garzón-Artacho E, Sola-Martínez T, Romero-Rodríguez JM, Gómez-García G(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage Heliyon 7:e07513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H(2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006

Gilster P, Glister P (1997) Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Greenhow C, Lewin C(2015) Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning Learn Media Technol 41:6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

Hawkins DT(2001) Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science Infor Res 7(1):7–1. http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R(2015) Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and “usefulness J High Educ Policy Manag 37:308–319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1034424

Huang CK, Neylon C, Hosking R, Montgomery L, Wilson KS, Ozaygen A, Brookes-Kenworthy C (2020) Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57067

Hwang GJ, Tsai CC(2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010 Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Zhuang YY, Huang YM(2013) Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students Interact Learn Environ 21:338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.575789

Jiang S, Ning CF (2022) Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance. Universal Access Inf Soc, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00911-w

Jing Y, Zhao L, Zhu KK, Wang H, Wang CL, Xia Q(2023) Research landscape of adaptive learning in education: a bibliometric study on research publications from 2000 to 2022 Sustainability 15:3115–3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115

Jing Y, Wang CL, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023b) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: a systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Krishnamurthy S (2020) The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40

Kyza EA, Georgiou Y(2018) Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform Interact Learn Environ 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039

Laurillard D(2008) Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation J Philos Educ 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

Li M, Yu Z (2023) A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508

Luo H, Li G, Feng Q, Yang Y, Zuo M (2021) Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G(2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies Comput Educ 56:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

McMillan S(1996) Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons Comput Educ 27:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(96)00026-7

Mo CY, Wang CL, Dai J, Jin P (2022) Video playback speed influence on learning effect from the perspective of personalized adaptive learning: a study based on cognitive load theory. Front Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839982

Moorhouse BL (2021) Beginning teaching during COVID-19: newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educ Stud 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939

Moorhouse BL, Wong KM (2021) The COVID-19 Pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pac J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1988511

Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: a dangerous idea? Internet High Educ 18:15–23

Mughal MY, Andleeb N, Khurram AFA, Ali MY, Aslam MS, Saleem MN (2022) Perceptions of teaching-learning force about Metaverse for education: a qualitative study. J. Positive School Psychol 6:1738–1745

Mustapha I, Thuy Van N, Shahverdi M, Qureshi MI, Khan N (2021) Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. a bibliometric analysis. Int J Interact Mob Technol 15:136

Nagle J (2018) Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: a review of the literature. Teach Teach Education 76:86–94

Nazare J, Woolf A, Sysoev I, Ballinger S, Saveski M, Walker M, Roy D (2022) Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Comput Educ 188:104565

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of simulation & gaming to the literature, 1970-2019: a bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 104687812094156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Nygren H, Nissinen K, Hämäläinen R, Wever B(2019) Lifelong learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments Br J Educ Technol 50:1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906

Pan SL, Zhang S(2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research Int J Inf Manage 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W(2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools J Informetr 12:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Parris Z, Cale L, Harris J, Casey A (2022) Physical activity for health, covid-19 and social media: what, where and why?. Movimento, 28. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.122533

Pasquini LA, Evangelopoulos N (2016) Sociotechnical stewardship in higher education: a field study of social media policy documents. J Comput High Educ 29:218–239

Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hernández-Leo D, Santos P, Delgado Kloos C, Blat J(2014) Augmenting reality and formality of informal and non-formal settings to enhance blended learning IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2312719

Pinto M, Leite C (2020) Digital technologies in support of students learning in Higher Education: literature review. Digital Education Review 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.343-360

Pires F, Masanet MJ, Tomasena JM, Scolari CA(2022) Learning with YouTube: beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances Convergence 28(3):838–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521102054

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics 25:348

Romero M, Romeu T, Guitert M, Baztán P (2021) Digital transformation in higher education: the UOC case. In ICERI2021 Proceedings (pp. 6695–6703). IATED https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1512

Romero-Hall E, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2022) Teaching in times of disruption: faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2030782

Rospigliosi PA(2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z(2022) Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Br J Educ Technol 53(3):593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190

Selwyn N(2009) The digital native-myth and reality In Aslib proceedings 61(4):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776

Selwyn N(2012) Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: the role of sociological theory Oxford Review of Education 38:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

Selwyn N, Facer K(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future Oxford Rev Educ 40:482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

Selwyn N, Banaji S, Hadjithoma-Garstka C, Clark W(2011) Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms J Comput Assist Learn 27:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x

Selwyn N, Aagaard J (2020) Banning mobile phones from classrooms-an opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Selwyn N, O’Neill C, Smith G, Andrejevic M, Gu X (2021) A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media Int Austr 1329878X2110058. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x211005862

Selwyn N, Pangrazio L, Nemorin S, Perrotta C (2019) What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learn, Media Technol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Selwyn, N (2016) What works and why?* Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts 2016 Final report Appendices (Part B). Monash University Griffith University

Sjöberg D, Holmgren R (2021) Informal workplace learning in swedish police education-a teacher perspective. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09267-3

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: what difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63:1820–1833

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sutherland R, Facer K, Furlong R, Furlong J(2000) A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput Educ 34:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00045-7

Szeto E, Cheng AY-N, Hong J-C(2015) Learning with social media: how do preservice teachers integrate YouTube and Social Media in teaching? Asia-Pac Educ Res 25:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9

Tang E, Lam C(2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios Int High Educ 20:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Taskin Z, Al U(2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science Online Inf Rev 43:676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Tegtmeyer K, Ibsen L, Goldstein B(2001) Computer-assisted learning in critical care: from ENIAC to HAL Crit Care Med 29:N177–N182. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200108001-00006

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Moné AM, Ioannou A(2023) Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: a literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28(6):6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba Fadul M (2016) Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9

Turin O, Friesem Y(2020) Is that media literacy?: Israeli and US media scholars’ perceptions of the field J Media Lit Educ 12:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden

Vratulis V, Clarke T, Hoban G, Erickson G(2011) Additive and disruptive pedagogies: the use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation Teach Teach Educ 27:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004

Wang CL, Dai J, Xu LJ (2022) Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022. In 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics ( ICCCBDA ) (pp. 507-512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccbda55098.2022.9778874

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of college students toward new E-learning spaces based on an integrated model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wong L-H, Boticki I, Sun J, Looi C-K(2011) Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle Comput Hum Behav 27:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.005

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yang D, Zhou J, Shi D, Pan Q, Wang D, Chen X, Liu J (2022) Research status, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of global digital education via knowledge graph analysis. Sustainability 14:15157–15157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu Z (2022) Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 14:4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388

Za S, Spagnoletti P, North-Samardzic A(2014) Organisational learning as an emerging process: the generative role of digital tools in informal learning practices Br J Educ Technol 45:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12211

Zhang X, Chen Y, Hu L, Wang Y (2022) The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Front Psychol 13:1016300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300

Zhou M, Dzingirai C, Hove K, Chitata T, Mugandani R (2022) Adoption, use and enhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project, “Mechanisms and Pathways for Empowering Classroom Teaching through Learning Spaces under the Strategy of High-Quality Education Development”, the 2022 National Social Science Foundation Education Youth Project “Research on the Strategy of Creating Learning Space Value and Empowering Classroom Teaching under the background of ‘Double Reduction’” (Grant No. CCA220319) and the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (Grant No. 202310337023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, China

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Y.J., C.W.; methodology, C.W.; software, C.W., Y.L.; writing-original draft preparation, C.W., Y.L.; writing-review and editing, T.Y., Y.L., C.W.; supervision, X.C., T.Y.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, X.C., Y.L. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T. et al. Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms.

• Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Identification and evaluation of technology trends in K-12 education from 2011 to 2021

Adam kenneth dubé.

Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2 Canada

Associated Data

Source data used for this study can be found on the authors’ website.

Educational technologies have captured the attention of researchers, policy makers, and parents. Each year, considerable effort and money are invested into new technologies, hoping to find the next effective learning tool. However, technology changes rapidly and little attention is paid to the changes after they occur. This paper provides an overall picture of the changing trends in educational technology by analyzing the Horizon Reports’ predictions of the most influential educational technologies from 2011 to 2021, identifying larger trends across these yearly predictions, and by using bibliometric analysis to evaluate the accuracy of the identified trends. The results suggest that mobile and analytics technologies trended consistently across the period, there was a trend towards maker technologies and games in the early part of the decade, and emerging technologies (e.g., VR, AI) are predicted to trend in the future. Overall, the specific technologies focused on by the HRs’ predictions and by educational researchers’ publications seem to coincide with the availability of consumer grade technologies, suggesting that the marketplace and technology industry is driving trends (cf., pedagogy or theory).

Introduction

Due to the perception that new technologies can facilitate and improve learning, there has been a longstanding societal push from policy makers and parents to adopt technology into education (Artym et al., 2016 ; Nevski & Siibak, 2016 ; Reiser & Ely, 1997 ; Skinner, 1954 , 1958 , 1968 ; Vanderlinde et al., 2010 ). Based on the hope that technology will improve teaching and learning, schools are investing in information and communication technology (Machin et al., 2006 ); teachers are implementing technology into classrooms (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014 ); and parents are ensuring students have internet access at home (83.9% in Canada, 73.4% in the US, OECD, 2018 ). However, the specific technology that schools, teachers, and parents are expected to adopt changes rapidly and the inclusion of new technologies can change how learning occurs in classrooms. Therefore, it is critical to understand the changing trends in educational technology and how these changes affect the role of technology in classrooms.

Technologies have many affordances in education. The interactivity of Web 2.0 was supposed to enhance student’s comprehension and interest of online information (Karvounidis et al., 2018 ); social networking may develop writing and collaboration skills (Voivonta, & Avraamidou, 2018 ); mobile devices enable anytime, anyplace learning; augmented reality increases student’s learning attitudes and learning efficiency (Teng et al., 2018 ); and digital games increase engagement and hence improve academic achievement (Kiili et al., 2014 ; Outhwaite et al., 2017 ). From these few examples, it is clear that the mass adoption of any one technology could shift the focus in a classroom. Adopting social networking into education would emphasize collaboration as being central to learning in today’s classrooms. In contrast, adopting digital games may place more of an emphasis on whether or not students are engaged as a means to increase their understanding. These different foci could affect how teachers evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction and the types of activities they have students complete (e.g., online group work vs individual game progression). Thus, a better understanding of previous and current trends in educational technology use helps paint a picture of the present and future classroom.

Literature review

Technology trend reports.

A few reports provide technological or pedagogical predictions that could be used to paint the aforementioned picture. These include Innovative Pedagogy (produced by Institution of Educational Technology), the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Reports (made by Joint Research Centre of the European Commission), and the Horizon Reports (produced by New Media Consortium). Innovative Pedagogy is a series of reports starting from 2012 that cover some technology uses in education (e.g. learning with robots) but mainly focus on new forms of pedagogy (e.g., such as learning through wonder, student-led analytics, and intergroup empathy). The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Reports also contain technology predictions, but the report’s main goal is to facilitate policy making from an economic perspective rather than an educational perspective. In contrast, the Horizon Report Project predicts and explores technology developments that may potentially impact education. The Horizon Reports (HRs) have continuously been issued since 2002 and have typically reached more than 500,000 downloads per year across 195 countries. Thus, the HRs are a unique source of information on technology trends in classrooms.

More specifically, the HRs are a global ongoing research report exploring technology trends and developments that are likely to have an impact on formal education. Each year, an advisory board consisting of a broad spectrum of experts in education, technology, and other fields engage in a comprehensive review and analysis of educational technologies based on current research and educational practice. The board finalizes six technologies they believe will influence K-12 teaching and learning across three periods: near-term (the year of the report), mid-term (2–3 years), and far-term (4–5 years). The HRs are argued to provide a link between current societal interest, research, educational practice, and future educational community’s mainstream technology practice. It should be noted that the potential technologies chosen in each report are selected based on the Delphi Technique. The Delphi technique is a deliberation method which involves collaborative decision making among advisory board members who ultimately come up with the final six high ranking technologies each year (Harold et al., 2011 ). Importantly, the selection of technologies in the HRs were due to their supposed popularity in research and educational practice rather than specific evidence-based benefits on teaching and learning. The goal is to identify technologies that are likely to influence education not necessarily to identify technologies that are the best learning tools, as determined by research or theory.

As mentioned earlier, technology changes rapidly and researchers, policy makers, educators, and parents should be aware of greater trends. Proper awareness allows policy makes and the public to spend their educational capital more wisely by avoiding the adoption of devices that are unlikely to persist (e.g., Mobile VR; Robertson, 2019 ). Awareness also allows researchers to better understand those technologies that are likely to impact a broad range of classrooms rather than those adopted by the few techno-enthusiasts. There is some previous work that has tried to identify technology trends in education, but the predictions in these works are now outdated and were never validated. Ely did a content analysis of journals, dissertations, conferences, and documents from ERIC and other sources and highlighted eight technology trends from 1988 to 1995, which included televisions, desktop computing, and early networking ( 1996 ). In a more recent report, Bonk ( 2009 ) stated that web-based technology was changing education by generating new forms of learning and listed ten trends: e-books, blended e-learning, open sources, learning objects, e-collaboration, mobile learning, and personalized learning. Importantly, these studies only described technologies that the authors thought were most likely to be adopted in the near future but there was no examination of whether the predictions came to pass.

Martin et al.’s ( 2011 ) work is the first and the only study to identify trends in educational technology in K-12 education and also evaluate the accuracy of the predicted trends. Marin et al. ( 2011 ) provided an evaluation of the most important technology trends in K-12 education across 2004 to 2010 by comparing the technology adoption rates predicted by the Horizon Reports with published articles in Google Scholar using bibliometric analysis. Specifically, they collated the six technologies predicted by each yearly report, clustered these individual predictions into larger trends, and then looked at whether the trends were supported by an increased level of scholarly discourse (i.e., publications). They originally conducted a market survey to see if technology purchasing rates correlated with the predictions but found that the buying power of the education sector was insufficient to affect greater societal buying trends. Alternatively, Martin et al. ( 2018 ) attempted to use Relative Search Volume (i.e., the number of times a term is searched in google) as a metric of societal impact in addition to bibliometric analysis but found this approach to be uninformative when they narrowed down the search to education related results. Outside Martin’s work, several studies have argued in support of the use of bibliometrics analysis as a means to evaluate the effect of emerging technologies (Daim et al., 2006 ; Han & Shin, 2014 ; Huang et al., 2014 ; Morom et al., 2018 ; Stelzer et al., 2015 ; Yeo et al., 2015 ). While bibliometrics does not directly reflect the use of technologies in society, it does provide insights into which technologies researchers believe are affecting society and the analysis can help guide future studies using more direct measures.

The goal was to see if the predicted technologies actually influenced education. The study concluded that the social web and mobile devices held the most influence on education and predicted that video games would have a bigger impact after 2010. Since Martin et al. ( 2011 ) original work, they used a similar methodology and evaluated the technology trends in higher education from 2010 to 2015 (Martin et al., 2018 ). No recent study has identified and evaluated the educational technology trends in K-12 after 2010 using the HRs. Further, Marten et al.’s work somewhat ignored an assumption underlying the HRs about the connection between society and education, that broader societal trends in research and practice determine the educational community’s mainstream technology usage. To address this gap, we use the same methodology to provide an updated overview of educational technology trends in K-12 education from 2011 to 2021 by collating the yearly predictions from the 2011 to 2017 HRs, identifying larger trends across these yearly predictions, and using bibliometric analysis to evaluate the accuracy of the identified trends.

The following research questions guided the work:

Research questions

Data sources.

Martin et al.’s ( 2011 ) work suggests that the HRs can be used as a basis for analyzing the influence of technology on education. Therefore, we chose the Horizon Reports on primary and secondary education from 2011 to 2017 to be used as the sole source of technology predictions for this analysis. To test the accuracy of Horizon Report’s prediction, Google Scholar was chosen as the bibliometric database due to it providing metadata of scholarly literature across disciplines and it connecting repositories of articles stored worldwide. Further, Google Scholar is considered to provide a broader coverage of publications as compared to Scopus and Web of Science (Bergman, 2012 ; Harzing, 2010 ).

This paper adopted Martin et al.’s ( 2011 ) methodology but with the latest HRs from 2011 to 2017. The methodology involved the following stages:

• Seven Horizon Reports were gathered from 2011 to 2017 and the six technologies predicted in each report were recorded according to their time frame (near, mid, far).
• Based on the records, a visual representation of the HRs’ predictions was made. These visualisations use different colors to differentiate the technologies from each report and provide a clear picture of all the technologies predicted across the seven reports.
• Similar technologies across all the reports were grouped into clusters and visual representations (same method as mentioned in step 2) were created for each cluster. These clusters are used in the subsequent bibliometric analysis.
• Using the newly created clusters, the evolution of educational technologies across 2011–2017 were analyzed and discussed for each group.
• Keyword selection. Technology related keywords were generated based on the clusters identified in stage 3. The technology specific keywords were derived from the technologies predicted by the HRs. Taking ‘mobile technology’ for example, the technologies identified in this cluster by the HRs were mobile, tablet, App, Bring Your Own Devices, and wearable technology. These specific technologies and their derivatives were entered as keywords in sequential searches (e.g., the technology ‘App’ included searches using the keywords Application, App, Apps) along with keywords representing schools (e.g., classroom, school). To limit redundancy, keywords used in a previous search were entered as an exclusion criteria in subsequent searches (e.g., search 1 = ‘App’, search 2 = ‘Applications’, -‘App’). Thus, the keywords used in the search were based on the specific technologies mentioned by the reports.
• Year of publication. The number of publications for each keyword in each year from 2011 to 2018 was obtained, as well as the total number of occurrences across all years.
• Title search. To limit the search to education publications, the words “learning” or “education” have to appear in the title together with the cluster keywords.
• Result confirmation. Each individual search was conducted three times, across separate days and computers, to ensure that Google Scholar was returning consistent metrics.

p ¯ the mean of papers published in education from 2010 to 2018, p i  = the number of papers published in year i, i = the year from 2010 to 2018, 2010 , 2011 , 2012 … 2018 , N = total number of years.

• To assess the accuracy of the HRs predictions, the trends predicted by HRs were compared to their weighted impact from step 5-d. Note* technologies predicted to trend in a given year would likely have a delayed impact on publications (i.e., predicted 2011, publications increase 2012).

Visual representation of predicted technologies

A visual representation of the technology predictions from step 1 and 2 can been seen in Fig.  1 . The vertical line depicts the year of prediction (year the HR was released), and the horizontal line depicts the year(s) in which technologies were predicted to have an impact.

Technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

Technology clusters and trends

Following the approach by Martin et al. ( 2011 ), a visual analysis of Fig.  1 and a thematic analysis of the specific predictions made in the HRs were used to identify seven clusters of technology predictions and named them according to their common theme: mobile technology, maker technology, analytics technology, games, simulation technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and other technologies. The thematic analysis involved reading the HRs explanation for each prediction (e.g., mobile, Apps, BYOD) and identifying commonalities based on the type of technology involved (i.e., portable, personal computing devices). The themed clusters accounted for 30 of the total 42 predictions (71%) made by the HRs from 2011 to 2017. The ‘other’ cluster contains predictions that did not clearly cluster around a specific technology (e.g., cloud computing, open content, internet of things, natural user interface, digital badges, online learning, personal learning environments). In the following section, the seven clusters will be expanded upon by identifying how these technologies are proposed to affect education according to both the HRs (i.e., prediction justifications) and recent reviews of educational technology research. Understanding why each prediction was made by the HRs will also aid in the later evaluation of their prediction accuracy.

Mobile technology

This cluster (see Fig.  2 ) included every technology and practice related to mobile learning technologies in the HRs’ predictions, such as mobile devices, Apps, tablet computing, bring your own device (BYOD), and wearable technology.

Mobile technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

The 2011 HR forecasted the importance of mobile on teaching and learning signifying a shift in how students and educators connect to the internet, from computers to mobile devices. Especially when tablets began to join the family of mobile technology, enabling the immediate and easy access to thousands of Apps all at once. The seamless access to the third-party applications is proposed to open the door to multiple resources for education (McEwen & Dubé, 2017 ). The 2012 HR also predicted mobile devices and Apps to be influential on education since mobile devices were reported to be one of the most common ways for youth to access educational software (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015 ). Meanwhile, teachers started to use Apps in their classrooms as supplementary tools to engage students with complex learning content (e.g., Zhang et al., 2015 ). In the same year’s report, tablets were separately predicted and emphasized to have impact on education, due to their larger screens and a richer range of gestures that may provide a more hands-on learning experience (Dubé & McEwen, 2015 , 2017 ). The 2013 HR gave attention to mobile learning again, as it was widely adopted in school’s one-to-one learning initiatives and educational Apps became the second most downloaded category in the Apple App Store (Shuler, 2012 ). Similarly, the 2014 and 2015 HRs forecasted a new form of mobile learning—Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). BYOD is argued to facilitate student-centered learning and provided a more seamless learning experience between learning at home with the device and learning in the classroom with the same tool (e.g., McLean, 2016 ).

The 2014, 2015 and 2016 HR all predicted that wearable technology (e.g., smart watches, fitness bands) would be increasingly adopted in daily-life and education. However, the application of wearable technology to education was still emerging and was predicted to produce an impact on learning in the far-term. During this time, researchers were similarly predicting that wearables would be increasingly adopted into education, with a focus on their use as collaborative fieldwork tools in STEM subjects (e.g., taking pictures with Google Glass while collecting field samples in a biology course, see Sapargalivev, 2015 for a review of uses).

To sum up, in the HRs, mobile technology was continuously predicted to have an impact on learning. From 2011 to 2015, mobiles, tablets, Apps, and BYOD were predicted to have impact in near term (one year or less). From year 2014 to 2016, wearable technology was forecasted to have a far-term impact (4 to 5 years). All six reports (2011–2016) emphasized the importance of mobile technology from 2011 to 2021 and predicted a change in focus from mobile, Apps, tablets, and BYOD to wearable technology. The shift in focus may reflect the waning impact of currently pervasive mobile devices and tablets and the increasing impact of emerging wearable technologies, which were relatively new at a societal level.

Maker technology

The Maker movement and associated technologies (see Fig.  3 ) aim to promote authentic learning through hands-on design and construction (Loy, 2014 ). The specific maker technologies predicted by the HRs consist of 3D printing, robotics, and makerspaces.

Maker technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

3D printing was forecasted to be influential on teaching and learning in both the 2013 and 2015 HRs; Due to the high cost and teacher training needed for inclusion in classrooms, 3D printing was only predicted to have an impact on education in the mid- and far-term. These critiques of 3D printing in education are echoed by both researchers and educators (e.g., Eisenberg, 2013 ; Turner et al., 2017 ), and have since been somewhat mitigated by the development of free, child-friendly 3D printing software and tutorials (e.g., tinkercad.com).

The robotics industry witnessed a significant growth in this decade (Ford, 2015 ; Ross, 2016 ) and were predicted in both the 2016 and 2017’s HRs to have an impact on education in the mid-to-far-term. Robotics were generally predicted to have a positive influence on the development of children’s twenty-first century skills. Contemporaneous reviews of research on robotics in education (Toh et al., 2016 ) suggests that students building and reasoning about robotics is said to contribute to problem-solving, collaboration, overall school achievement, STEM skills, and language ability (due to coding), and produce more participation from both students and parents in school activities through after-school workshops.

Makerspaces are a created workshop environment for learners to collective practice hand-on construction with technologies and to share resources and knowledge (Fourie & Meyer, 2015 ). Makerspaces appear in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 HRs all with predictions of near-term impacts, as makerspaces gained considerable attention worldwide. The makerspace movement can be considered as central to both the 3D printing and robotics movement, but is sometimes deemed technology agnostic (i.e., can build with Legos or robots). The original movement was focused on sharing knowledge and resources in a joint workspace whereas the later educational makerspace movement aims to promote learning through building (e.g., constructionism, Papert, 1980 ) and to promote the 4Cs of twenty-first century skills (i.e., critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication, Fourie & Meyer, 2015 ).

In total, four HRs emphasized the impacts of maker technology on learning from 2015 to 2018. The predicted impact of maker technology gradually moved from long-term predictions, to mid-term, and then near-term, which suggests an adoption of this technology into education across the period. Of note, this pattern of prediction coincides with the increased availability and quality of consumer-grade maker technologies across this period (Li et al., 2017 ).

Analytics technology

Analytics technology or learning analytics (see Fig.  4 ) uses individualized data to provide adaptive instruction and assessment tailored to each student’s needs (Yu & Jo, 2014 ). Learning analytics is argued to improve existing assessment practices by providing continuous, formative assessment that can be used to both identify a learner’s strengths and weaknesses and subsequently adapt instruction (Johnson et al., 2011 ).

Analytics technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

In total, five HRs predicted that analytics technology would influence education from 2014 to 2019. Though continuously predicted to be important, the impact was always predicted in the future and never moves to the near-term. This might occur because the technology was first applied in higher education, primarily on at-risk students (Johnson et al., 2011 ), and the application to elementary education was deemed more difficult. The implementation in K-12 settings has been stymied due to the inherently qualitative nature of elementary assessment that is not amenable to the big data approach needed for learning analytics (cf., university grading systems, Zhang et al., 2018 ). By the 2017 HR, the authors noted that the delayed impact of learning analytics on K-12 education could partially be caused by the enterprise market driving investment in analytics technologies and causing the development of technologies that meet the needs of enterprise and not education. The noted exception being the development of learning dashboards that track and visualize student performance. The growing interest in learning analytics coincides with the larger societal interest in ‘big-data’ and its uses across business and public policy (e.g., Kim, 2017 ; McGregor et al., 2013 ).

Gaming technologies (see Fig.  5 ) focus on how digital games can be used to facilitate learning, such as game-based learning and gamification. Game-based learning involves the creation of educational experiences in which content knowledge or procedures are imbedded into the mechanics of the game such that playing the game and learning occur simultaneously (Dubé & Keenan, 2016 ). Gamification involves incorporating reward and leveling systems from video games into traditional academic tasks (e.g., complete math problems and receive a star, for reviews of games in education see Landers, 2014 ; Plass et al., 2020 ; Young et al., 2012 ).

Game technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

In the 2011 HR, game-based learning was predicted to affect education due to schools integrating online games into classrooms. Online learning games provide free access to educational software that previously required download and installation. The 2012 HR again focused attention on games citing that serious games helped students engage with learning content (Boyle, 2016 ); role-playing games offered students the opportunity to see the world from a different perspective (Annetta et al., 2009 ); online social games developed student’s communication and collaboration skills (Paraskeva et al., 2010 ); and game-designing classes fostered learners to creatively construct knowledge (Games, 2010 ). The 2014 HR specifically highlighted the importance of gamification and discussed how game-like elements could be applied to daily learning and produce a more engaging and motivating classroom experience.

From 2004 to 2017, the HRs made more predication about gaming than any other educational technology. Gaming appeared in six of the seven HRs from 2004 to 2010 (except 2009, Martin et al., 2011 ) and appeared in three of the seven reports from 2011 to 2017. As such, games were predicted to have an impact almost every year from 2006 to 2014. Across all of the reports, most of the predictions were mid-term impacts. These repeated predictions suggest a sustained interest in games but with an impact that was perpetually two to three years away. Overall, games show promise as learning tools and have captured steady attention from the HRs, but the continuous mid-term predictions suggest that it is taking more time to implement games in the classroom than earlier HRs foresaw.

Simulation technologies

Simulation technologies (see Fig.  6 ) provide an immersive and interactive learning environment for learners by placing them in virtual reality (VR) or by blending virtual data or visualizations into the real world using augmented reality (AR).

Simulation technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

In the 2012 HR, AR was forecasted to have a long-term effect on education by 2016 with mention of how advancements in both the Apple iOS and Android operating systems were allowing for augmented reality applications to be developed for mobile. The report also mentions how augmented reality will move beyond mobile with the announcement of Google’s ‘Project Glass’, an AR system that provided a heads-up display in the user’s line-of-sight. In the 2013 HR, virtual and remote laboratories (e.g., virtual frog dissection) were predicted to have a long-term effect on secondary education by 2017. In the 2016 HR, VR was forecasted to permeate the mainstream of K-12 education in the mid-term citing the recent successful application of VR to other areas (e.g., entertainment) and the availability of affordable mobile VR (e.g., Google Cardboard). The 2016 HR highlighted the potential benefits of simulation in education, specifically the ability for lower income schools to create virtual science labs and go on virtual fieldtrips. In the 2017 HR, mobile VR was again cited as contributing to interest in the technology along with a financial prediction by Goldman Sachs stating that the VR industry would ‘reach 15 million learners by 2025’ (Freeman et al., 2017 , p. 46). However, the HR did note that the impact of VR would be in mid-to-far-term due to time required to develop educational software for the mobile VR market. The 2017 HR report highlighted the potential to foster other soft-skills like collaboration, language development, and empathy. The two most recent HRs predicted virtual reality to have an impact across 2017 to 2019 and this prediction coincided with the development of more affordable consumer grade VR systems (e.g., Oculus Rift, Playstation VR).

The HRs’ focus on the potential of VR to simulate learning environments and support soft-skill development was supported by early reviews of VR education research (see Hew & Cheung, 2010 ). The potential of consumer-grade mobile VR systems to foster educational use has also been cited by recent researchers (see reviews by Jensen & Konradsen, 2018 ; Kavanagh et al., 2017 ). These reviews concluded that the head-mounted displays used in these consumer grade systems can engage students (e.g., Loup et al., 2016 ), improve spatial reasoning (e.g., Rasheed et al., 2015 ), and train emotional responses to adverse situations (Anderson et al., 2013 ); but HMDs could also distract from learning due to the frequent occurrence of both motion sickness (e.g., Madrigal et al., 2016 ) and technological problems using the devices in an educational setting (e.g., space requirements).

Artificial intelligence

AI technologies (see Fig.  7 ) support live adaptive learning with tailored content (cf., analytics-based lesson planning based on historical records).

Artificial intelligence predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

The 2016 HR predicted that AI would have an impact on education in the far-term. The report cited an influential milestone in the AI field that occurred in March of 2016, when Google’s AI program AlphaGo defeated the world Go champion. Following this event, both the 2016 and 2017 HRs predicted AI to be influential in the Far-Term. The 2016 HR identified the existence of imbedded AI that students already use but are not aware of (e.g., Digital assistants like Siri, Google Search) as current influences of AI on education and the existence of Chatbots that interact with learners to facilitate second-language acquisition (e.g., Duolingo). The 2017 HRs placed greater emphasis on the potential of AI to perform ‘administrative’ tasks like grading as to allow teachers more time for individualized instruction. Roll and Wylie’s ( 2016 ) review of AI education research proposes that AI is developing along two co-existing tracks in education. One track is enhancing current practices (e.g., cognitive tutoring systems combining AI technology and curriculum) whereas the other track is redefining educational practice (e.g., AI driven formative assessment via consistent feedback). Both the HRs and researchers argue for these potentials but acknowledge that these changes are not likely to occur anytime soon.

Other technologies

Several individual technologies that did not meaningfully cluster together were predicted by the horizon report, many of the them repeatedly (see Fig.  8 ). Technologies or practices that received multiple predictions include cloud computing (e.g., Google Classrooms) with near-term predictions in the 2011, 2013, and 2014 HRs; open content (e.g., Kahn Academy) with mid-term predictions in the 2011 and 2013 HRs; internet of things (e.g., Smart Televisions) with far-term predictions in the 2014 and 2017 HRs; and personal learning environments (i.e., technologies and practices that enable and foster self-directed learning) with a far-term prediction in the 2011 HR and a mid-term prediction in the 2012 HR. Technologies or practices that received a single prediction include far-term predictions for natural user interfaces in the 2012 HR and digital badges in the 2015 HR and a near-term prediction for online learning in the 2016 HR.

Other technologies predicted to impact education according to the Horizon Reports from 2011 to 2017

Bibliometric analysis

In the previous section, a brief discussion of the HRs predictions alongside educational researchers’ interests in these different technologies shows some alignment between the HRs and the educational technology field at large. To further evaluate the accuracy of the HRs predictions, a bibliometric analysis was conducted based on step 5. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the total number of educational publications available in Google Scholar from 2011 to 2018 along with their weighting factor (WFi), as calculated using the same equation as Martin et al. ( 2011 ) and explained in step 5. Table ​ Table2 2 shows the total number of publications and the weighted number of publications available for each of the analyzed years in each technology cluster.

The number of educational papers available in Google Scholar from 2011 to 2018 and their corresponding weighting factor

The raw and weighted number of educational papers available in Google Scholar from 2011 to 2018

As in Martin et al. ( 2011 ), the results from Table ​ Table2 2 are graphically represented in Fig.  9 and depict the publishing evolution for each technology cluster. Figures  10 , ​ ,11, 11 , ​ ,12, 12 , ​ ,13, 13 , ​ ,14, 14 , and ​ and15 15 show the weighted number of publications for each individual cluster and provide detailed information on the contribution of each specific technology within the cluster (e.g., contribution of tablets to the total number of mobile publications). The following section will discuss the accuracy of the HRs predictions for each technology cluster.

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar by technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for the mobile technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for the maker technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for the analytics technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for the games cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for the simulation technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The weighted number of publications in Google Scholar for other technology cluster from 2011 to 2018

The HRs from 2011 to 2017 contained a total of 42 predictions (6 per report, 7 reports) and mobile technologies accounted for the largest percentage of overall predictions (i.e., 9 predictions or 21%). The bibliometric results revealed that compared to other themed clusters, mobile technology had the biggest impact on educational research from 2011 to 2018 (see Fig.  10 ). Both the raw and weighted number of mobile technology publications in Google Scholar increased steadily across 2011 to 2018. with a 269% increase in the weighted number of publications across the period. This pattern matches the HRs’ short-term and long-term predictions for mobile technologies, especially when considering the specific technologies within the cluster. Figure  11 shows the proportion of publications for each technology in the mobile cluster. Mobile technology was the most published topic in this group, followed by tablets, Apps, wearables, and BYOD. The number of articles on APPS shows an increased focus on this aspect of mobile technology that is not predicted by the HRs. However, the increased number of articles on wearables in 2017 and 2018 corresponds well with the HRs’ predictions.

Maker technologies accounted for the second largest percentage of overall predictions (i.e., 7 or 16%) but had the fifth highest level of publications (see Fig.  8 ). Both the raw and weighted number of publications increased across 2011 to 2018, with a 408% increase in the number of weighted publications. Within the maker technology cluster (see Fig.  11 ), robotics had the highest number of publications followed by 3D printing and makerspaces. Robotics largely accounted for the considerable growth in the cluster, despite it only receiving two of the seven predictions. The HRs predicted both 3D printing and makerspaces to have an impact starting in 2015 and this is somewhat reflected by an increased number of publications in that year. Given the discrepancy between the number of predications and publications, it seems that the HRs overemphasized the impact of maker technology on education overall and underpredicted the relative contribution of robotics to the maker movement.

Analytics technologies accounted for the third largest percentage of overall predictions (i.e., 5 or 12%) and had the fourth highest level of publications (see Fig.  8 ). Both the raw and weighted number of publications grew across 2011 to 2018, with a 1130% increase in weighted publications across the period. The HRs predicted an increased impact starting in 2015 and this is reflected by the 191% increase in weighted publications across 2012 to 2014 but a 250% growth across 2015 to 2018 (see Fig.  12 ). Within this cluster, the majority of publications are on learning analytics (cf., adaptive learning technology) and this too aligns with the HRs’ emphasis.

Gaming technologies accounted for the fifth largest percentage of overall predictions (i.e., 3 or 7%) but had the second largest impact on educational publications (see Fig.  10 ). Both the raw and weighted number of game publications increased steadily across 2011 to 2018, with a 255% increase in the weighted number of publications across the period. Within the games cluster (see Fig.  13 ), there were far more articles on games than the more specific gamification or game-based learning topics, but interest in gamification rose notably across the period by 2687%. Despite the HRs not predicting a major impact of games on education past 2015, the growth rate of game publications actually increased in this period. Overall, the data suggests that the HRs grossly underestimated the continued impact of games on education during this period.

Simulation technologies accounted for the fourth largest percentage of overall predictions (i.e., 4 or 9%) and had the third highest number of publications (see Fig.  10 ). Both the number of actual and weighted articles decreased from 2011 to 2012 but then steadily increased from 2013 to 2018, with a 554% increase in the weighted number of publications across the period. This pattern reflects the HR predictions, in that no predictions were made prior to 2012. Figure  14 shows the proportion of publications for each technology in the simulation cluster. Augmented reality generated the most publications followed closely by virtual reality, with virtual and remote laboratories in a distant third. This aligns with the HRs in that AR was predicted to have an effect on education earlier than VR and that VR’s effect on education was predicted to occur starting in 2018, which is when the number of VR articles matched the number of AR articles.

AI and other technologies

Artificial intelligence accounted for the lowest percentage of predictions from any of the clusters (i.e., 2 or 5%) and had the lowest number of publications (see Fig.  9 ). Both the raw and weighted number of publications decreased from 2011 to 2014 by 45% (weighted) but then increased from 2015 to 2018 by 841% (weighted). This increase is reflected in both the 2016 and 2017 HRs including AI in their far-term predictions. Given that only one technology populated the AI cluster, a figure of its individual publications is not included. Figure  15 shows the proportion of publications for each technology in the cluster ‘other’. Online learning consistently generated the highest number of publications across 2011 to 2018, such that it accounted for 84% of all publications in 2018 and is responsible for the other cluster ranking near the games and mobile technology cluster. This high level of impact is not reflected by the HRs, which only made one, rather general, near-term prediction for online learning in the 2016 HRs. In contrast, cloud computing and internet of things were the subject of more HR predictions but generated far fewer publications. Yet, the HRs predictions that cloud computing would have an early impact while internet of things would have a later impact is somewhat supported by the bibliometric results.

HR predications: accuracy and limitations

The preceding bibliometric analysis highlights how the HRs predictions are not always successful. To further illustrate this and to facilitate comparison between the present HRs’ predictions and the ones from Martin et al. ( 2011 ), Table ​ Table3 3 categorizes individual predictions across both studies according to their accuracy. The categorization reflects the accuracy evaluations made in the discussions by Martin et al. ( 2011 ) and in the preceding results. Martin et al. concluded that 37% of the individual HRs’ predictions were accurately predicted or slightly delayed whereas 41% of HRs’ predictions were deemed accurate or delayed in the present study. In both studies, a considerable number of individual predictions were deemed overestimations. These results further support the importance of evaluating the HRs’ predictions using bibliometric analysis and not just accepting them as pure reflections of actual technology trends.

HRs prediction accuracy across Martin et al. ( 2011 ) and the current study

Despite the evaluative value bibliometric analysis provides, using the number of publications on a given educational technology is not a perfect indicator of that technology’s influence on actual educational practice and is an imperfect substitute for directly observing technology use in classrooms. However, more direct data on educational technology adoption (e.g., school technology purchase rates) is largely not obtainable or limited to specific geographic regions. Further, studying broader technology adoption rates (e.g., overall purchase rates of tablets) runs the risk of assuming technology trends outside of schools are mirrored within them. This being said, the result of the bibliometric analysis should not be interpreted as directly reflecting the impact any one educational technology has on practice. Further, the extant body of educational technology research is often criticized for focusing on what is emerging (cf., pervasive) and on English speaking, developed nations. A similar critique can be made of the HRs themselves. As such, the present results and discussions should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

These results identify the K-12 educational technology trends predicted by the HRs from 2011 to 2021 and evaluate the accuracy of these predictions against the number of academic publications on these technologies. The HRs are an influential document with 500,000 downloads per year across 195 countries that are the product of deliberations among technology and education experts on how they see the future of educational technologies developing. Should teacher training and technology purchases be informed by the HRs? That is a difficult question to answer, but evaluating these reports provides a useful calibration for the numerous policy makers and educators who use them. Further, the HRs predictions are only a description of future potentials (i.e., models) and evaluating which predictions come to pass provides information on both what has occurred and on the prediction process itself.

Over seven-years of forecasts, the reports predicted that mobile technology would be the most influential educational technology from 2011 into the near future. Given that mobile technologies were the most impactful in the HRs from 2002 to 2010, this further reinforces the influence of mobile devices on education. Maker technology and games were predicted to impact education from 2015 to 2018 and 2012 to 2016, respectively. Analytics technologies’ impact was predicted to increase and would continue to influence learning along with other emerging technologies like VR and AI. Thus, the HRs predictions continue to highlight both pervasive (mobile) and emerging technologies (VR, AI, Maker) while recognizing the social webs’ declining influence on education.

The bibliometric analysis suggests that the HRs’ accurately predicted the most influential educational technology (i.e., mobile) and was fairly accurate for the fourth most influential technology (i.e., analytics technology). Predictions for maker technologies (i.e., 3D printing and robotics) were somewhat overstated and placed too great an emphasis on 3D printing and maker spaces over robotics. In contrast, the HRs’ predictions around games were far too conservative but did accurately foresee an increased interest in gamification. Thus, the prediction accuracy of the HRs was mixed. Some of these mixed results could be due to a fundamental assumption underlying the HRs; that the future of educational technology depends on larger societal trends. However, this assumption fails to consider the pedagogical value of a given educational technology and, perhaps more importantly, the additional barriers that prevent technologies from being adopted into K-12 classrooms. Mobile technologies are ubiquitous in society and are increasingly affordable. As such, it makes sense that the horizon reports accurately predicted their impact on education. In contrast, maker technologies are receiving a lot of attention at a societal level (e.g., news stories, featured in popular TV shows like Grey’s Anatomy) but they require considerable training to use and are relatively expensive to purchase and maintain. This may reflect how the HRs may ‘listen’ to popular discourse around technology more so than practitioners’ concerns. While evaluating the pedagogical merit and impact of each technology identified in this study would be beyond the scope of the present endeavor, Table ​ Table4 4 in Appendix contains a listing of recent systematic reviews for each technology cluster along with a brief overview for each paper. Having identified the technologies predicted to trend across 2011–2021, these systematic reviews will help evaluate their supposed merits and impact.

Systematic reviews for each technology cluster

The tendency for educational technology adoption to follow societal factors is not limited to the HRs’ predictions. For example, both the year of prediction and the publication rates for emerging technologies seem to coincide with availability of the technology at a consumer level (i.e., affordable). Consumer level maker and VR technologies became available the same year they were included in the HRs and their publications rates increased in the two years following their commercial availability. This suggests that both predicted and actual trends in educational technologies are driven more by their availability than their educational affordances and exemplifies the longstanding criticism of the educational technology field as placing an overemphasis on ‘stuff’ (i.e., devices) at cost to pedagogical practice and theory building (Richey, 2008 ). Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic (which occurred during the revision of this paper) brings to light another factor affecting the educational technology industry, historical events and societal shifts. Predictions are based on the assumption that past and current behavior's determine future ones, but they cannot take into account unforeseen events (e.g., a global pandemic that moves education online). While the pandemic and the rise of online learning are an extreme example, more minor ones include societal shifts to and away from technologies for reasons unrelated to education (e.g., current disillusion with social media).

Allowing industry to direct educators and researchers’ gaze towards specific technologies is particularly problematic considering that many technology companies are just as quick to invest as to divest in a given technology. For example, Google entered the mobile VR market in October of 2017 with the affordable Daydream headset but abandoned the product line entirely in October of 2019 (Robertson, 2019 ). Researchers or educators turning to mobile VR because of Google’s investment would be left with devices that are now wholly unsupported. Thus, the trends identified in this study indicate a worrisome practice of researchers and educators following the investment whims of technology companies (i.e., a marketplace effect) but arguably being less able to course correct as quickly as the companies they follow. Interestingly, this marketplace effect on the HRs was not identified in the previous works by Martin et al. ( 2011 , 2018 ). A lesson to be learned from this, for prognosticators, users, and researchers of educational technology, is to be less swayed by technologies that are cheap and available today (VR, 3D printing) and more focused on technologies that show signs of permanence (e.g., mobile).

The bibliometric analyses indicate that educational technology continues to be a growing field and topic within the greater educational research discourse and whether or not this growing interest is a net positive for education is up for debate. Both the actual and weighted number of publications on educational technology increased from 2011 to 2018, representing an approximately 300% increase in the amount of researcher discourse on educational technology across the period. While an increased interest in educational technology is warranted, given the influence of technology on society generally across this period, it does raise questions about the impact this increased level of research discourse will have on students. Tawfik et al. ( 2016 ) discussion on the consequences of technology in education made a strong case that an unmindful adoption of technology runs the risk of unintentionally increasing societal inequities in the classroom. Thus, the meteoric increase in educational technology discourse seen here could benefit students but only if the discussion considers who is included and who is excluded. For example, the largest trend in terms of predictions and research discourse was for mobile technologies. Much of this discourse within this trend assumes that students not only have a device (i.e., BYOD) but that they can access the internet on the device outside of school (i.e., anywhere learning). Discussions about the impact of mobile technologies on education thus run the risk of excluding or ignoring students who do not have devices or unlimited mobile internet access. Similar issues of equality of access likely exist for many of the technologies identified in this study and future works should use the approach forwarded by Tawfik et al. ( 2016 ) to critically examine each of the major trends identified herein.

Conclusions

This work provides an updated picture of K-12 educational technology trends in the past and near future by collating individual technologies predictions across seven Horizon Reports, identifying larger trends from these individual predictions, and evaluating the prediction accuracy using bibliometrics. The previous trend analysis by Martin et al. ( 2011 ) identified 7 technologies believed to affect educational practice from 2004 to 2010; including the social web, mobile, games, semantic web, human computer interaction, learning objects, and augmented reality (in order of impact). The present work identifies 6 technologies believed to affect education practice from 2011 to 2017; including mobile, games, analytics technologies, simulation technology, maker technology, and AI (in order of impact). A direct comparison between the two studies shows a deemphasis on social networks as an emerging educational technology, a continued influence of both mobile and game technologies, and an emerging influence of learning analytics and AI. Looking at both studies also highlights the importance of not relying on any one year of HR predictions but rather the long-term trends that arise from multiple reports, as reports in individual years are overly swayed by the availability of new technologies. Taken together, the present study and Marten et al.’s study provide a continuous tracking of major educational technology trends from 2004 to 2021, which can serve as a state of the field for researchers, policy makers, and educators interested in how technology has and continues to influence educational practice in the twenty-first century.

See Table ​ Table4 4 .

No funding was used in support of this work.

Data availability

Declarations.

There is no potential conflict of interest in the working being described here.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Adam Kenneth Dubé, Email: [email protected] .

Run Wen, Email: [email protected] .

• Anderson PL, Price M, Edwards SM, Obasaju MA, Schmertz SK, Zimand E, Calamaras MR. Virtual reality exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2013; 81 (5):751. doi: 10.1037/a0033559. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Annetta LA, Minogue J, Holmes SY, Cheng M-T. Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education. 2009; 53 :74–85. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Artym, C., Carbonaro, M., & Boechler, P. (2016). Pre-service teachers designing and constructing “good digital games”. Australian Educational Computing, 31 (1).
• Benitti FBV. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2012; 58 (3):978–988. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergman EML. Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2012; 38 (6):370–379. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bodily R, Verbert K. Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2017; 10 (4):405–418. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2017.2740172. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonk CJ. The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2009. pp. 3371–3380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle EA, Hainey T, Connolly TM, Gray G, Earp J, Ott M, Lim T, Ninaus M, Ribeiro C, Pereira J. An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers and Education. 2016; 94 :178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byun J, Joung E. Digital game-based learning for K–12 mathematics education: A meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics. 2018; 118 (3–4):113–126. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12271. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crompton H, Burke D, Gregory KH. The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2017; 110 :51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crompton H, Burke D, Gregory KH, Gräbe C. The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2016; 25 (2):149–160. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daim TU, Rueda G, Martin H, Gerdsri P. Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2006; 73 (8):981–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.04.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubé AK, Keenan A. Are games a viable home numeracy practice? In: Blevins-Knabe B, Austin AMB, editors. Early childhood mathematics skill development in the home environment. Springer; 2016. pp. 165–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dube AK, McEwen RN. Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learning and Instruction. 2015; 40 :89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubé AK, McEwen R. Abilities and affordances: Factors influencing successful child-tablet interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2017; 65 :889–908. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9493-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg M. 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2013; 1 (1):7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ely, D. P. (1996). Trends in educational technology 1995 . Information Resources Publications.
• Ford M. Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. Basic Book; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford S, Minshall T. Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing. 2019; 25 :131–150. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fourie I, Meyer A. What to make of makerspaces. Library High Tech. 2015; 33 :519–525. doi: 10.1108/LHT-09-2015-0092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017. The New Media Consortium.
• Games IA. “Gamestar Mechanic”: Learning a designer mindset through communicational competence with the language of games. Learning, Media, and Technology. 2010; 35 :31–52. doi: 10.1080/17439880903567774. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han K, Shin J. A systematic way of identifying and forecasting technological reverse salients using QFD, bibliometrics, and trend impact analysis: A carbon nanotube biosensor case. Technovation. 2014; 34 (9):559–570. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.05.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linstone Harold A., Turoff Murray. Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011; 78 (9):1712–1719. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harzing AW. The publish or perish book. Tarma Software Research Pty Limited; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hew KF, Cheung WS. Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 41 (1):33–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirsh Pasek K, Zosh JM, Golinkoff RM, Gray JH, Robb MB, Kaufman J. Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning . Psychological Science. 2015; 16 (1):3–34. doi: 10.1177/1529100615569721. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang L, Zhang Y, Guo Y, Zhu D, Porter AL. Four dimensional science and technology planning: A new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014; 81 :39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchison A, Woodward L. A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher. 2014; 67 (6):455–464. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1225. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannou A, Makridou E. Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (6):2531–2544. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9729-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen L, Konradsen F. A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (4):1515–1529. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson L, Adams S, Haywood K. NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karvounidis T, Chimos K, Bersimis S, Douligeris C. Factors, issues and interdependencies in the incorporation of a Web 2.0 based learning environment in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23 :935–955. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9644-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavanagh S, Luxton-Reilly A, Wuensche B, Plimmer B. A systematic review of Virtual Reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education. 2017; 10 (2):85–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiili K, Ketamo H, Koivisto A, Finn E. Studying the user experience of a tablet based math game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning. 2014; 4 (1):60–77. doi: 10.4018/IJGBL.2014010104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J. Big data, health informatics, and the future of cardiovascular medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017; 69 :899–902. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landers RN. Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming. 2014; 45 :752–768. doi: 10.1177/1046878114563660. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li MC, Tsai CC. Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2013; 22 (6):877–898. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9436-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li Y, Linke BS, Voet H, Falk B, Schmitt R, Lam M. Cost, sustainability and surface roughness quality—A comprehensive analysis of products made with personal 3D printers. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology. 2017; 16 :1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu M, Scordino R, Geurtz R, Navarrete C, Ko Y, Lim M. A look at research on mobile learning in K–12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2014; 46 (4):325–372. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2014.925681. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loup, G., Serna, A., Iksal, S., & George, S. (2016) Immersion and persistence: Improving learners’ engagement in authentic learning situations. Vol. 9891 LNCS. In 11th European conference on technology enhanced learning, EC-TEL 2016 (pp. 410–415). Springer.
• Loy J. eLearning and eMaking: 3D printing blurring the digital and the physical. Education Sciences. 2014; 4 :108–121. doi: 10.3390/educsci4010108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Machin, S. J., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2006). New technology in schools: Is there a payoff?
• Madrigal E, Prajapati S, Hernandez-Prera JC. Introducing a virtual reality experience in anatomic pathology education. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2016; 146 (4):462–468. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqw133. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnisalis I, Demetriadis S, Karakostas A. Adaptive and intelligent systems for collaborative learning support: A review of the field. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2011; 4 (1):5–20. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2011.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin S, Diaz G, Sancristobal E, Gil R, Castro M, Peire J. New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education. 2011; 57 (3):1893–1906. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin S, López-Martín A, Lopez-Rey J, Cubillo A, Moreno-Pulido A, Castro M. Analysis of new technology trends in education: 2010–2015. IEEE Access. 2018; 6 :36840–36848. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2851748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McEwen R, Dubé AK. Understanding tablets from early childhood to adulthood: Encounters with touch technology. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGregor, V. K., Calderon, S. H., & Tonelli, R. D. (2013). Big data and consumer financial information. Business Law Today, Nov , 1–4.
• McLean KJ. The implementation of bring your own device (BYOD) in primary [elementary] schools. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016; 7 :24–33. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01739. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merino-Campos C, del Castillo Fernndez H. The benefits of active video games for educational and physical activity approaches: A systematic review. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal) 2016; 5 (2):115–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moro A, Boelman E, Joanny G, Garcia JL. A bibliometric-based technique to identify emerging photovoltaic technologies in a comparative assessment with expert review. Renewable Energy. 2018; 123 :407–416. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morries S. A visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2002; 43 (4):841–862. doi: 10.1016/S0360-8352(02)00143-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nevski E, Siibak A. The role of parents and parental mediation on 0–3-year olds’ digital play with smart devices: Estonian parents’ attitudes and practices. Early Years. 2016; 36 (3):227–241. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2016.1161601. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton MJ. Introductory concepts in information science. Information Processing & Management. 2001; 37 (5):764–766. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD. (2018). Internet access (indicator). Retrieved July 6, 2018, from 10.1787/69c2b997-en
• Outhwaite, L. A., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford, N. J. (2017). Closing the gap: Efficacy of a tablet intervention to support the development of early mathematical skills in UK primary school.
• Papert S. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful idea. Basic Books; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paraskeva F, Mysirlaki S, Papagianni A. Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers & Education. 2010; 54 :498–505. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plass JL, Mayer RE, Homer BD, editors. Handbook of game-based learning. The MIT Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasheed, F., Onkar, P., & Narula, M. (2015). Immersive virtual reality to enhance the spatial awareness of students. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on human computer interaction, India.
• Richey EC. Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the Field. TechTrends. 2008; 52 (1):24–25. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiser RA, Ely DP. The field of educational technology as reflected through its definitions. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1997; 45 (3):63–72. doi: 10.1007/BF02299730. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robertson, A. (2019, October). Google is discontinuing the Daydream View VR headset, and the Pixel 4 won’t support Daydream. https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915609/google-pixel-4-no-daydream-support-view-vr-headset-discontinued
• Roll I, Wylie R. Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2016; 26 (2):582–599. doi: 10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn: A content analysis of the iTunes App Store's Education Section. New York
• Skinner BF. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review. 1954; 24 (2):86–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Teaching machines: From the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self-instruction. Science. 1958; 128 (3330):969–977. doi: 10.1126/science.128.3330.969. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stelzer B, Meyer-Brötz F, Schiebel E, Brecht L. Combining the scenario technique with bibliometrics for technology foresight: The case of personalized medicine. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015; 98 :137–156. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tawfik AA, Reeves TD, Stich A. Intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social inequality. TechTrends. 2016; 60 (6):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0109-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng C, Chen J, Chen Z. Impact of augmented reality on programming language learning: Efficiency and perception. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2018; 56 (2):254–271. doi: 10.1177/0735633117706109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toh LPR, Causo A, Tzuo P-W, Chen I, Yeo SH. A review on the use of robotics in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society. 2016; 19 :148–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner H, Resch G, Southwick D, McEwen R, Dubé AK, Record I. Using 3D printing to enhance understanding and engagement with young audiences: Lessons from workshops in a museum. Curator: the Museum Journal. 2017; 60 (3):311–333. doi: 10.1111/cura.12224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vanderlinde R, Hermans R, van Braak J. ICT research and school performance feedback: A perfect marriage? Educational Studies. 2010; 36 (3):341–344. doi: 10.1080/03055690903425441. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voivonta T, Avraamidou L. Facebook: A potentially valuable educational tool? Educational Media International. 2018; 55 (1):34–48. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2018.1439708. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie J, Basham JD, Marino MT, Rice M. Reviewing research on mobile learning for students with and without disabilities in k-12 educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2018; 33 :27–39. doi: 10.1177/0162643417732292. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeo W, Kim S, Park H, Kang J. A bibliometric method for measuring the degree of technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015; 95 :152–162. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young MF, Slota S, Cutter AB, Jalette G, Mullin G, Lai B, Simeoni Z, SiTran M, Yukhymenko M. Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research. 2012; 82 (1):61–89. doi: 10.3102/0034654312436980. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu, T., & Jo, I-H. (2014). Educational technology approach toward learning analytics: Relationship between student online behavior and learning performance in higher education. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (LAK '14), ACM, New York, NY (pp. 269–270).
• Zhang M, Trussell RP, Gallegos B, Asam RR. Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends. 2015; 59 (2):32–39. doi: 10.1007/s11528-015-0837-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J, Zhang X, Jiang S, Ordóñez de Pablos P, Sun Y. Mapping the study of learning analytics in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2018; 37 (10–11):1142–1155. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1529198. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

• Frontiers in Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Research Topics

New Educational Technologies and Their Impact on Students' Well-being and Inclusion Process

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

In the new millennium, education is rapidly changing due to the more and more pervasive use of technology to support teaching and learning. New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as internet, wikis, blogs, search engines, emails and instant messaging require new literacy frameworks and ...

Keywords : New technologies, ICT, online reading, reading comprehension, well-being, inclusion

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

Research Topics & Ideas: Education

170+ Research Ideas To Fast-Track Your Dissertation, Thesis Or Research Project

I f you’re just starting out exploring education-related topics for your dissertation, thesis or research project, you’ve come to the right place. In this post, we’ll help kickstart your research topic ideation process by providing a hearty list of research topics and ideas , including examples from actual dissertations and theses..

PS – This is just the start…

We know it’s exciting to run through a list of research topics, but please keep in mind that this list is just a starting point . To develop a suitable education-related research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , and a viable plan of action to fill that gap.

If this sounds foreign to you, check out our free research topic webinar that explores how to find and refine a high-quality research topic, from scratch. Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help, consider our 1-on-1 coaching service .

Overview: Education Research Topics

• How to find a research topic (video)
• List of 50+ education-related research topics/ideas
• List of 120+ level-specific research topics 
• Examples of actual dissertation topics in education
• Tips to fast-track your topic ideation (video)
• Where to get extra help

Education-Related Research Topics & Ideas

Below you’ll find a list of education-related research topics and idea kickstarters. These are fairly broad and flexible to various contexts, so keep in mind that you will need to refine them a little. Nevertheless, they should inspire some ideas for your project.

• The impact of school funding on student achievement
• The effects of social and emotional learning on student well-being
• The effects of parental involvement on student behaviour
• The impact of teacher training on student learning
• The impact of classroom design on student learning
• The impact of poverty on education
• The use of student data to inform instruction
• The role of parental involvement in education
• The effects of mindfulness practices in the classroom
• The use of technology in the classroom
• The role of critical thinking in education
• The use of formative and summative assessments in the classroom
• The use of differentiated instruction in the classroom
• The use of gamification in education
• The effects of teacher burnout on student learning
• The impact of school leadership on student achievement
• The effects of teacher diversity on student outcomes
• The role of teacher collaboration in improving student outcomes
• The implementation of blended and online learning
• The effects of teacher accountability on student achievement
• The effects of standardized testing on student learning
• The effects of classroom management on student behaviour
• The effects of school culture on student achievement
• The use of student-centred learning in the classroom
• The impact of teacher-student relationships on student outcomes
• The achievement gap in minority and low-income students
• The use of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom
• The impact of teacher professional development on student learning
• The use of project-based learning in the classroom
• The effects of teacher expectations on student achievement
• The use of adaptive learning technology in the classroom
• The impact of teacher turnover on student learning
• The effects of teacher recruitment and retention on student learning
• The impact of early childhood education on later academic success
• The impact of parental involvement on student engagement
• The use of positive reinforcement in education
• The impact of school climate on student engagement
• The role of STEM education in preparing students for the workforce
• The effects of school choice on student achievement
• The use of technology in the form of online tutoring

Level-Specific Research Topics

Looking for research topics for a specific level of education? We’ve got you covered. Below you can find research topic ideas for primary, secondary and tertiary-level education contexts. Click the relevant level to view the respective list.

Research Topics: Pick An Education Level

Primary education.

• Investigating the effects of peer tutoring on academic achievement in primary school
• Exploring the benefits of mindfulness practices in primary school classrooms
• Examining the effects of different teaching strategies on primary school students’ problem-solving skills
• The use of storytelling as a teaching strategy in primary school literacy instruction
• The role of cultural diversity in promoting tolerance and understanding in primary schools
• The impact of character education programs on moral development in primary school students
• Investigating the use of technology in enhancing primary school mathematics education
• The impact of inclusive curriculum on promoting equity and diversity in primary schools
• The impact of outdoor education programs on environmental awareness in primary school students
• The influence of school climate on student motivation and engagement in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of early literacy interventions on reading comprehension in primary school students
• The impact of parental involvement in school decision-making processes on student achievement in primary schools
• Exploring the benefits of inclusive education for students with special needs in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of teacher-student feedback on academic motivation in primary schools
• The role of technology in developing digital literacy skills in primary school students
• Effective strategies for fostering a growth mindset in primary school students
• Investigating the role of parental support in reducing academic stress in primary school children
• The role of arts education in fostering creativity and self-expression in primary school students
• Examining the effects of early childhood education programs on primary school readiness
• Examining the effects of homework on primary school students’ academic performance
• The role of formative assessment in improving learning outcomes in primary school classrooms
• The impact of teacher-student relationships on academic outcomes in primary school
• Investigating the effects of classroom environment on student behavior and learning outcomes in primary schools
• Investigating the role of creativity and imagination in primary school curriculum
• The impact of nutrition and healthy eating programs on academic performance in primary schools
• The impact of social-emotional learning programs on primary school students’ well-being and academic performance
• The role of parental involvement in academic achievement of primary school children
• Examining the effects of classroom management strategies on student behavior in primary school
• The role of school leadership in creating a positive school climate Exploring the benefits of bilingual education in primary schools
• The effectiveness of project-based learning in developing critical thinking skills in primary school students
• The role of inquiry-based learning in fostering curiosity and critical thinking in primary school students
• The effects of class size on student engagement and achievement in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of recess and physical activity breaks on attention and learning in primary school
• Exploring the benefits of outdoor play in developing gross motor skills in primary school children
• The effects of educational field trips on knowledge retention in primary school students
• Examining the effects of inclusive classroom practices on students’ attitudes towards diversity in primary schools
• The impact of parental involvement in homework on primary school students’ academic achievement
• Investigating the effectiveness of different assessment methods in primary school classrooms
• The influence of physical activity and exercise on cognitive development in primary school children
• Exploring the benefits of cooperative learning in promoting social skills in primary school students

Secondary Education

• Investigating the effects of school discipline policies on student behavior and academic success in secondary education
• The role of social media in enhancing communication and collaboration among secondary school students
• The impact of school leadership on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes in secondary schools
• Investigating the effects of technology integration on teaching and learning in secondary education
• Exploring the benefits of interdisciplinary instruction in promoting critical thinking skills in secondary schools
• The impact of arts education on creativity and self-expression in secondary school students
• The effectiveness of flipped classrooms in promoting student learning in secondary education
• The role of career guidance programs in preparing secondary school students for future employment
• Investigating the effects of student-centered learning approaches on student autonomy and academic success in secondary schools
• The impact of socio-economic factors on educational attainment in secondary education
• Investigating the impact of project-based learning on student engagement and academic achievement in secondary schools
• Investigating the effects of multicultural education on cultural understanding and tolerance in secondary schools
• The influence of standardized testing on teaching practices and student learning in secondary education
• Investigating the effects of classroom management strategies on student behavior and academic engagement in secondary education
• The influence of teacher professional development on instructional practices and student outcomes in secondary schools
• The role of extracurricular activities in promoting holistic development and well-roundedness in secondary school students
• Investigating the effects of blended learning models on student engagement and achievement in secondary education
• The role of physical education in promoting physical health and well-being among secondary school students
• Investigating the effects of gender on academic achievement and career aspirations in secondary education
• Exploring the benefits of multicultural literature in promoting cultural awareness and empathy among secondary school students
• The impact of school counseling services on student mental health and well-being in secondary schools
• Exploring the benefits of vocational education and training in preparing secondary school students for the workforce
• The role of digital literacy in preparing secondary school students for the digital age
• The influence of parental involvement on academic success and well-being of secondary school students
• The impact of social-emotional learning programs on secondary school students’ well-being and academic success
• The role of character education in fostering ethical and responsible behavior in secondary school students
• Examining the effects of digital citizenship education on responsible and ethical technology use among secondary school students
• The impact of parental involvement in school decision-making processes on student outcomes in secondary schools
• The role of educational technology in promoting personalized learning experiences in secondary schools
• The impact of inclusive education on the social and academic outcomes of students with disabilities in secondary schools
• The influence of parental support on academic motivation and achievement in secondary education
• The role of school climate in promoting positive behavior and well-being among secondary school students
• Examining the effects of peer mentoring programs on academic achievement and social-emotional development in secondary schools
• Examining the effects of teacher-student relationships on student motivation and achievement in secondary schools
• Exploring the benefits of service-learning programs in promoting civic engagement among secondary school students
• The impact of educational policies on educational equity and access in secondary education
• Examining the effects of homework on academic achievement and student well-being in secondary education
• Investigating the effects of different assessment methods on student performance in secondary schools
• Examining the effects of single-sex education on academic performance and gender stereotypes in secondary schools
• The role of mentoring programs in supporting the transition from secondary to post-secondary education

Tertiary Education

• The role of student support services in promoting academic success and well-being in higher education
• The impact of internationalization initiatives on students’ intercultural competence and global perspectives in tertiary education
• Investigating the effects of active learning classrooms and learning spaces on student engagement and learning outcomes in tertiary education
• Exploring the benefits of service-learning experiences in fostering civic engagement and social responsibility in higher education
• The influence of learning communities and collaborative learning environments on student academic and social integration in higher education
• Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences in fostering critical thinking and scientific inquiry skills
• Investigating the effects of academic advising and mentoring on student retention and degree completion in higher education
• The role of student engagement and involvement in co-curricular activities on holistic student development in higher education
• The impact of multicultural education on fostering cultural competence and diversity appreciation in higher education
• The role of internships and work-integrated learning experiences in enhancing students’ employability and career outcomes
• Examining the effects of assessment and feedback practices on student learning and academic achievement in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty professional development on instructional practices and student outcomes in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty-student relationships on student success and well-being in tertiary education
• The impact of college transition programs on students’ academic and social adjustment to higher education
• The impact of online learning platforms on student learning outcomes in higher education
• The impact of financial aid and scholarships on access and persistence in higher education
• The influence of student leadership and involvement in extracurricular activities on personal development and campus engagement
• Exploring the benefits of competency-based education in developing job-specific skills in tertiary students
• Examining the effects of flipped classroom models on student learning and retention in higher education
• Exploring the benefits of online collaboration and virtual team projects in developing teamwork skills in tertiary students
• Investigating the effects of diversity and inclusion initiatives on campus climate and student experiences in tertiary education
• The influence of study abroad programs on intercultural competence and global perspectives of college students
• Investigating the effects of peer mentoring and tutoring programs on student retention and academic performance in tertiary education
• Investigating the effectiveness of active learning strategies in promoting student engagement and achievement in tertiary education
• Investigating the effects of blended learning models and hybrid courses on student learning and satisfaction in higher education
• The role of digital literacy and information literacy skills in supporting student success in the digital age
• Investigating the effects of experiential learning opportunities on career readiness and employability of college students
• The impact of e-portfolios on student reflection, self-assessment, and showcasing of learning in higher education
• The role of technology in enhancing collaborative learning experiences in tertiary classrooms
• The impact of research opportunities on undergraduate student engagement and pursuit of advanced degrees
• Examining the effects of competency-based assessment on measuring student learning and achievement in tertiary education
• Examining the effects of interdisciplinary programs and courses on critical thinking and problem-solving skills in college students
• The role of inclusive education and accessibility in promoting equitable learning experiences for diverse student populations
• The role of career counseling and guidance in supporting students’ career decision-making in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty diversity and representation on student success and inclusive learning environments in higher education

Education-Related Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic in education, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses in the education space to see how this all comes together in practice.

Below, we’ve included a selection of education-related research projects to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

• From Rural to Urban: Education Conditions of Migrant Children in China (Wang, 2019)
• Energy Renovation While Learning English: A Guidebook for Elementary ESL Teachers (Yang, 2019)
• A Reanalyses of Intercorrelational Matrices of Visual and Verbal Learners’ Abilities, Cognitive Styles, and Learning Preferences (Fox, 2020)
• A study of the elementary math program utilized by a mid-Missouri school district (Barabas, 2020)
• Instructor formative assessment practices in virtual learning environments : a posthumanist sociomaterial perspective (Burcks, 2019)
• Higher education students services: a qualitative study of two mid-size universities’ direct exchange programs (Kinde, 2020)
• Exploring editorial leadership : a qualitative study of scholastic journalism advisers teaching leadership in Missouri secondary schools (Lewis, 2020)
• Selling the virtual university: a multimodal discourse analysis of marketing for online learning (Ludwig, 2020)
• Advocacy and accountability in school counselling: assessing the use of data as related to professional self-efficacy (Matthews, 2020)
• The use of an application screening assessment as a predictor of teaching retention at a midwestern, K-12, public school district (Scarbrough, 2020)
• Core values driving sustained elite performance cultures (Beiner, 2020)
• Educative features of upper elementary Eureka math curriculum (Dwiggins, 2020)
• How female principals nurture adult learning opportunities in successful high schools with challenging student demographics (Woodward, 2020)
• The disproportionality of Black Males in Special Education: A Case Study Analysis of Educator Perceptions in a Southeastern Urban High School (McCrae, 2021)

As you can see, these research topics are a lot more focused than the generic topic ideas we presented earlier. So, in order for you to develop a high-quality research topic, you’ll need to get specific and laser-focused on a specific context with specific variables of interest.  In the video below, we explore some other important things you’ll need to consider when crafting your research topic.

Get 1-On-1 Help

If you’re still unsure about how to find a quality research topic within education, check out our Research Topic Kickstarter service, which is the perfect starting point for developing a unique, well-justified research topic.

Find The Perfect Research Topic

How To Choose A Research Topic: 5 Key Criteria

How To Choose A Research Topic Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + Free Topic...

Research Topics & Ideas: Automation & Robotics

A comprehensive list of automation and robotics-related research topics. Includes free access to a webinar and research topic evaluator.

Research Topics & Ideas: Sociology

Research Topics & Ideas: Sociology 50 Topic Ideas To Kickstart Your Research...

Research Topics & Ideas: Public Health & Epidemiology

A comprehensive list of public health-related research topics. Includes free access to a webinar and research topic evaluator.

Research Topics & Ideas: Neuroscience

Research Topics & Ideas: Neuroscience 50 Topic Ideas To Kickstart Your Research...

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

71 Comments

This is an helpful tool 🙏

Special education

Really appreciated by this . It is the best platform for research related items

Research title related to school of students

How are you

I think this platform is actually good enough.

Research title related to students

My field is research measurement and evaluation. Need dissertation topics in the field

Assalam o Alaikum I’m a student Bs educational Resarch and evaluation I’m confused to choose My thesis title please help me in choose the thesis title

Good idea I’m going to teach my colleagues

You can find our list of nursing-related research topic ideas here: https://gradcoach.com/research-topics-nursing/

Write on action research topic, using guidance and counseling to address unwanted teenage pregnancy in school

Thanks a lot

I learned a lot from this site, thank you so much!

Thank you for the information.. I would like to request a topic based on school major in social studies

parental involvement and students academic performance

Science education topics?

plz tell me if you got some good topics, im here for finding research topic for masters degree

How about School management and supervision pls.?

Hi i am an Deputy Principal in a primary school. My wish is to srudy foe Master’s degree in Education.Please advice me on which topic can be relevant for me. Thanks.

Thank you so much for the information provided. I would like to get an advice on the topic to research for my masters program. My area of concern is on teacher morale versus students achievement.

Every topic proposed above on primary education is a starting point for me. I appreciate immensely the team that has sat down to make a detail of these selected topics just for beginners like us. Be blessed.

Kindly help me with the research questions on the topic” Effects of workplace conflict on the employees’ job performance”. The effects can be applicable in every institution,enterprise or organisation.

Greetings, I am a student majoring in Sociology and minoring in Public Administration. I’m considering any recommended research topic in the field of Sociology.

I’m a student pursuing Mphil in Basic education and I’m considering any recommended research proposal topic in my field of study

Research Defense for students in senior high

Kindly help me with a research topic in educational psychology. Ph.D level. Thank you.

Project-based learning is a teaching/learning type,if well applied in a classroom setting will yield serious positive impact. What can a teacher do to implement this in a disadvantaged zone like “North West Region of Cameroon ( hinterland) where war has brought about prolonged and untold sufferings on the indegins?

I wish to get help on topics of research on educational administration

I wish to get help on topics of research on educational administration PhD level

I am also looking for such type of title

I am a student of undergraduate, doing research on how to use guidance and counseling to address unwanted teenage pregnancy in school

the topics are very good regarding research & education .

Am an undergraduate student carrying out a research on the impact of nutritional healthy eating programs on academic performance in primary schools

Can i request your suggestion topic for my Thesis about Teachers as an OFW. thanx you

Would like to request for suggestions on a topic in Economics of education,PhD level

Would like to request for suggestions on a topic in Economics of education

Hi 👋 I request that you help me with a written research proposal about education the format

Am offering degree in education senior high School Accounting. I want a topic for my project work

l would like to request suggestions on a topic in managing teaching and learning, PhD level (educational leadership and management)

request suggestions on a topic in managing teaching and learning, PhD level (educational leadership and management)

I would to inquire on research topics on Educational psychology, Masters degree

I am PhD student, I am searching my Research topic, It should be innovative,my area of interest is online education,use of technology in education

request suggestion on topic in masters in medical education .

Look at British Library as they keep a copy of all PhDs in the UK Core.ac.uk to access Open University and 6 other university e-archives, pdf downloads mostly available, all free.

May I also ask for a topic based on mathematics education for college teaching, please?

Please I am a masters student of the department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education Please I am in need of proposed project topics to help with my final year thesis

Am a PhD student in Educational Foundations would like a sociological topic. Thank

please i need a proposed thesis project regardging computer science

Greetings and Regards I am a doctoral student in the field of philosophy of education. I am looking for a new topic for my thesis. Because of my work in the elementary school, I am looking for a topic that is from the field of elementary education and is related to the philosophy of education.

Masters student in the field of curriculum, any ideas of a research topic on low achiever students

In the field of curriculum any ideas of a research topic on deconalization in contextualization of digital teaching and learning through in higher education

Amazing guidelines

I am a graduate with two masters. 1) Master of arts in religious studies and 2) Master in education in foundations of education. I intend to do a Ph.D. on my second master’s, however, I need to bring both masters together through my Ph.D. research. can I do something like, ” The contribution of Philosophy of education for a quality religion education in Kenya”? kindly, assist and be free to suggest a similar topic that will bring together the two masters. thanks in advance

Hi, I am an Early childhood trainer as well as a researcher, I need more support on this topic: The impact of early childhood education on later academic success.

I’m a student in upper level secondary school and I need your support in this research topics: “Impact of incorporating project -based learning in teaching English language skills in secondary schools”.

Although research activities and topics should stem from reflection on one’s practice, I found this site valuable as it effectively addressed many issues we have been experiencing as practitioners.

Your style is unique in comparison to other folks I’ve read stuff from. Thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this site.

that is good idea you are sharing for a lot of researchers. I am one of such an information sucker. I am a chemistry teacher in Ethiopia secondary school. I am MSc degree holder in Analytical chemistry. I need to continue my education by this field. How I can get a full scholar ship?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

Technology Education - Science topic

• asked a question related to Technology Education

• 55 Recommendations

• 15 Aug 2023
• 30 Aug 2023
• 5 Recommendations

• 14 Apr 2021

• 25 Sept 2022
• 0 Recommendations

• 12 Jul 2022

• Screenshot_20220712_1518 19.jpg 659 kB

• 12 Recommendations

• 30 Oct 2021

• 90 Recommendations

• 25 Sept 2021

• 26 Sept 2021

• 17 Sept 2021

• 24 Sept 2021
• 120 Recommendations

• 16 Jan 2019

• 16 Aug 2021
• 9 Recommendations

• 22 Jan 2021

• 31 Aug 2020

• 29 Sept 2020
• 18 Recommendations

• 10 Jun 2020

• 21 Oct 2016

• 20 Recommendations

• 29 Sept 2017
• 31 Dec 2019

• 26 Nov 2019

• 27 Nov 2019
• 4 Recommendations

• 11 Nov 2019
• payne20 17.pdf 1.16 MB
• 28 Recommendations

• 21 Jan 2019

• 26 Jan 2019
• 7 Recommendations

• 17 Jan 2019
• 30 Recommendations

• 21 Jun 2018

• 27 Jun 2018
• Use Tablets and cell Ed uc.pdf 613 kB

• 24 Feb 2018

• 25 Feb 2018

• 28 Jan 2018

• 31 Jan 2018
• 50 Recommendations

• 11 May 2016
• 18 Jan 2017
• 6 Recommendations

• 19 Nov 2016
• 21 Nov 2016

• 10 Nov 2016

• 15 Recommendations

• 11 Jun 2016

• 15 Jun 2016

• 31 Mar 2016

• 29 Dec 2015

• 28 Jan 2016
• 91 Recommendations
• 21 Dec 2015

• 24 Dec 2015
• 8 Recommendations

• 19 Nov 2015

• 24 Nov 2015
• 270 Recommendations

• 30 Sept 2015

• 19 Mar 2015

• 20 Sept 2015

• 5 Sept 2015

• 16 Sept 2015
• 07.pdf 197 kB
• 3 Recommendations

• 35 Recommendations

• 16 Apr 2014

• 19 May 2014

• 17 Apr 2014

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Become a Member
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computational Thinking
• Digital Citizenship
• Edtech Selection
• Global Collaborations
• STEAM in Education
• Teacher Preparation
• ISTE Certification
• School Partners
• Career Development
• 2024 ASCD Leadership Summit
• ISTELive 25
• 2025 ASCD Annual Conference
• Leadership Exchange
• Solutions Summit
• Edtech Product Database
• Solutions Network
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Learning Library

The Hottest Topics in Edtech for 2022!

• Education Leadership

For a few years now, we’ve shared on this blog the hottest edtech trends of the year based on the topics resonating with educators who submit proposals to present at the annual ISTE conference . The topics that presenters submit can tell us a lot about what educators are interested in — and experimenting with — in their schools and classrooms.

Often the topics don’t change much from year to year, but that hasn’t been the case the past two years. 

Last year, after many months of remote learning under their belts, educators were eager to share their best practices about online learning, as well as how to build equity and boost social emotional learning, which were three of the hottest topics going into 2021.

While those topics made the list again this year, there were some surprises at the top of the list. Here are the eight hottest topics for 2022, starting with No 8. 

8. Augmented, mixed and virtual reality 

The ISTE community has been excited about this topic for years now, but it’s been elevated recently as tools for immersive learning become more affordable, accessible and easier for both teachers and students to use.

“Education has just started to tap into what it can bring,” says Camilla Gagliolo, a longtime educator and ISTE’s senior director of event content. “Personally, I’m really excited about the growth in AR/VR and in immersive learning.”

Augmented reality involves superimposing a computer-generated image on your view of the real world. Think Pokemon Go. 

Virtual reality is a 3D, computer-generated environment that you can immerse yourself in. Using an Oculus or a similar headset, you can transport yourself to a another place or time and interact within it, whether it’s visiting the Great Pyramid of Giza or exploring the functions of the human body.

Some of the newer trends involve being able to interact with historical events that have been recreated in a virtual environment. So, you can show up at an event and actually be part of it — well, sort of.

The pandemic has caused a lot of educators to focus on how to better engage students in content online, and AR/VR is a sure-fire way to do that. 

In addition to having students experience learning through AR/VR, many educators are helping students create their own experiences.

Look for sessions on how to do this and much more with AR/VR in your classroom when the ISTELive 22 program goes live in February.

7. Social-emotional learning

As soon as COVID-19 closed school buildings in 2020, it was immediately clear that educators would need to do far more than teach their students. Every single student was struggling with something in addition to trying to adapt to a new way of learning, and educators were on the front lines of helping students feel safe, secure, emotionally stable and ready to learn. 

But many of their needs — like food, internet and medical care — were shared by the whole family, so educators realized they couldn’t help students in isolation. They had to work with families as a whole. 

In a way, roles were reversed — or at least blurred: Educators helped families meet their basic needs by assisting them with finding resources like meals, child care and other services, while parents took over a lot of the teaching tasks. 

What evolved was a whole-village approach to education, where, for the first time on a grand scale, teachers and schools were working in concert with students and families. 

“When the parent community took over the teaching, the teachers had to help the parents help the children,” Gagliolo said. “There is a new role for parents, and I think this is going to change how we work with parents going forward.”

Many individual educators and school systems as a whole developed innovative ways of working with parents and are eager to share what they’ve learned at ISTELive 22 .

6. Equity and inclusion

Never has equity and inclusion seemed more urgent than in the past two years. The pandemic brought inequities — whether they were due to socio-economic status, special needs or the family circumstances of the student — into sharp focus. 

The most immediate need was devices and bandwidth. Schools, government, the business sector and local communities combined forces to deliver devices and connectivity to nearly every household in the country, but that's not enough.

“ It took a pandemic to give every kid a device,” Gagliolo says. “Now the challenge is to get meaningful learning with these devices.”

Educators have been doing just that — experimenting with ways to make learning more engaging, student-centered and inclusive with technology tools.

 “Even Zoom has become a tool of access,” Gagliolo says. “The pandemic actually brought to the forefront what tech can do to bridge equity and meet the need for tools, platforms and access.”

Although the learning curve was high, many educators discovered strategies and ideas for making learning more accessible to a range of learners using various tools. And they are eager to share what worked at ISTELive 22.

5. Online tools and apps

This topic has been a favorite of presenters and ISTE conference participants for years because it appeals to the tech geek in all of us. But this time around, there’s an emphasis on highlighting tools that — just like students and educators themselves — have made a big leap in what they are capable of because of the pandemic.

“There’s been so much improvement in tools and apps,” Gagliolo said. “They were forced to be much more stable. They can handle more interaction and have developed features for connecting students with teachers.”

A lot of what the newest versions of tools are offering allow students to learn — and share their learning — in a variety of ways, whether it’s being able to quickly upload a video, make a comment via a sound recording, or create and quickly upload an artifact.

Free creation tools like Adobe Spark as well as myriad video-creation tools have taken a big leap in terms of ease of use and accessibility.    

4. Distance, online, blended learning

This was hands-down the hottest topic of 2021 as educators around the globe were still learning how to best transition their teaching to online formats. The biggest hurdle at first was how to use the tools. The learning curve was high as educators had to figure out everything from creating breakout groups in Zoom and Teams to establishing rules about cameras and appropriate backgrounds. 

This year the topic is less about how to use the technology and more about how to best engage students. 

And the stakes are high. Disengaged students can simply turn off their cameras when they are bored. But with the threat of learning loss looming, no educator wants any student to miss out on access to learning. So they’ve been coming up with lots of ways to stimulate collaboration and build community — online and in person. 

“There are a lot of new strategies and new tools developed over the past two years that engage students at a high level,” Gagliolo says. 

Although it’s not exactly new, she points to FlipGrid, as a tool that’s being used in diverse ways. It allows students to record comments, facilitates a connection between home and school, and lets students demonstrate their storytelling chops.

And speaking of tools, learning management systems, once the bane of educators’ existence, have enjoyed a resurgence. Educators in general have become more comfortable with these tools and are seeing the potential for communicating with students and parents in a much more streamlined way. 

3. Computer science and computational thinking

Computer science and computational thinking have long been a favorite topic of teachers who love technology and see it as a gateway for their students to enter STEM careers. So it’s no surprise that it made it to the No. 3 spot on the list.

What is more surprising is the evolution of computer science (CS) and computational thinking (CT) as something strictly reserved for math and science class to a discipline that has infiltrated all subjects, from literature and art to music and dance.

“You think of CS and CT as being for math and science, but we’re seeing educators incorporating it into language learning and storytelling quite a bit,” Gagliolo says. “It’s taking different shapes and forms and not just in the traditional areas.” 

Tools like Scratch, Snap, Tynker and KODU allow students to use programming to create stories. They develop their characters, or sprites, and build out their environments. “They can create their world and their scenario,” Gagliolo says.

2. Instructional design and delivery

Of all the topics on the list, this one is perhaps the most exciting because it illustrates a sophistication in how educators are thinking about educational technology, Gagliolo says. The focus is on educational strategies and instruction with technology for higher-order thinking — not tools and gadgets.

“The pedagogy and learning strategies are rising to the top more than the technology topics,” Gagliolo said. “It shows that awareness that learning comes first and tech tools are there to support.”

Instructional design and delivery covers an array of topics from designing content in online formats that is accessible to all learners to ensuring that the content is culturally relevant. It covers ways to encourage community and interaction among students and teachers as well as an awareness of research on how students learn and how online delivery differs from face to face. 

This information is not just from educators who have the instructional designer title. Remote learning  made educators of all subject areas and grade bands realize that they, too, were assuming the role of instructional designers. 

1. Project-based learning 

Also known as problem- and challenge-based learning, PBL is a model where students learn by actively engaging in real-world and personally meaningful projects. 

While this model isn’t new to ISTE presenters, what’s astonishing is that it landed on the top, Gagliano said. What it shows is that as educators become more comfortable with various tools, they are focusing more on pedagogy and how to guide students to use tools to practice their personal passions and achieve their goals.

“It’s a level of maturity that ISTE has advocated for for a long time,” she said. "It’s more about the learning strategy than the tool.”

Many of the conference proposals related to PBL are for poster sessions, which means these are from educators eager to show a project their students have taken on. What that shows is that PBL has moved from the theoretical to the practical. These are projects that have been tested in classrooms around the world.

Many of them, Gagliolo says, are related to design thinking. Students are coming up with problems and solutions, prototyping and iterating. 

Diana Fingal is ISTE's director of editorial content.

• artificial intelligence

Educational technology research and development

A bi-monthly publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology

• Publishes rigorous original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies on topics relating to applications of technology or instructional design in educational settings.
• Features well-documented articles on the practical aspects of research as well as applied theory in educational practice.
• Development Section publishes research on planning, implementation, evaluation and management of a variety of instructional technologies and learning environments.
• Includes a Cultural and Regional Perspectives Section for innovative research about how technologies are being used to enhance learning, instruction, and performance specific to a culture or region.
• 91% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would definitely publish or probably publish in the journal again.
• Tristan E. Johnson,
• Lin Lin Lipsmeyer

Societies and partnerships

Latest issue

Volume 72, Issue 3

Latest articles

A multi-level factors model affecting teachers’ behavioral intention in ai-enabled education ecosystem.

• Xinyan Zhang

Analyzing the impact of basic psychological needs on student academic performance: a comparison of post-pandemic interactive synchronous hyflex and pre-pandemic traditional face-to-face instruction

• Nathan Mentzer
• Elnara Mammadova
• Shawn Farrington

Evidence-based development of an instrument for the assessment of teachers’ self-perceptions of their artificial intelligence competence

• Jan Delcker
• Dirk Ifenthaler

DUDA: a digital didactic learning unit based on educational escape rooms and multisensory learning activities for primary school children during COVID-19 lockdown

• Walter Setti
• Rebecca Tarello
• Gualtiero Volpe

The effect of cumulative eye movements’ guidance of experts on transition from novice to expert

• Neslihan Yondemir Çalişkan
• Emine Şendurur

Journal updates

Supporting the sustainable developmental goals.

Educational Technology Research and Development is the only scholarly journal in the field focusing entirely on research and development in educational technology. More about the sections in the journal can be found here.

Call for Reviewers

Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR& D) is experiencing record levels of submissions. As a result, we are seeking additional qualified reviewers. We invite you to join our family of reviewers and look forward to hearing from you. More...

Journal information

• Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Google Scholar
• MLA International Bibliography
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Social Science Citation Index
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Research Paper Guides
• Research Paper Topics
• 450+ Technology Research Topics & Ideas for Your Paper
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

450+ Technology Research Topics & Ideas for Your Paper

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

Technology is like a massive puzzle where each piece connects to form the big picture of our modern lives. Be it a classroom, office, or a hospital, technology has drastically changed the way we communicate and do business. But to truly understand its role, we need to explore different technology research topics.

And that's where this blog will be handy! Powered by solid experience, our professional term paper writers gathered multiple technology research paper topics in literally any direction. Whether you're a student looking for an intriguing subject for your project or just a tech enthusiast trying to broaden your understanding, we've got your back. Dive into this collection of tech topics and see how technological progress is shaping our world.

What Are Technology Topics?

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. It's the smartphone in your hand, the electric car on your street, and the spacecraft exploring Mars. It might also be the code that protects your online privacy and the microscope that uncovers mysteries of the human cell.

Technology permeates our lives, revolutionizing the way we communicate, learn, work, and play. But, beyond the gadgets and gizmos, there's a world of diverse technology research topics, ideas, concepts, and challenges.

Technology topics zoom in on these ideas, peeling back the layers of the tech universe. As a researcher, you might study how AI is changing healthcare, explore the ethical implications of robotics, or investigate the latest innovations in renewable energy. Your project should probe into the 'how,' the 'why,' and the 'what next' of the technology that is reshaping our world. So, whether you're dissecting the impact of EdTech on traditional learning or predicting the future of space exploration, research topics in technology are limitless.

Branches of Technology Research Paper Topics

Undoubtedly, the reach of technology is extensive. It's woven its way into almost every corner of our lives. Before we move to technological research topics, let’s first see just where technology has left its mark. So, here are some areas where technology is really shaking things up:

• Government services: E-governance, digital IDs, and digital voting are just a few examples of technology's application in government services.
• Finance: Fintech innovations include cryptocurrencies, mobile banking, robo-advising, and contactless payments.
• Education: Technology is used in a wide variety of educational contexts, from e-learning platforms and digital textbooks to educational games and virtual classrooms.
• Communication: Social media, video conferencing, instant messaging, and email are all examples of tech's role in communication.
• Healthcare: From electronic medical records and telemedicine to advanced imaging technology and robotic surgery, technology is surely transforming healthcare.
• Agriculture: Technological advancements are revolutionizing agriculture through precision farming, automated machinery, drones, and genetic engineering.
• Retail: It also influences retail through e-commerce, mobile payments, virtual fitting rooms, and personalized shopping experiences.
• Environment: Tech is used in climate modeling, conservation efforts, renewable energy, and pollution control.

These are far from all sectors where technology can be applied. But this list shows how diverse topics in technology can be.

How to Choose a Technology Research Topic?

Before you select any idea, it’s important to understand what a good technology research topic is. In a nutshell, a decent topic should be interesting, relevant, and feasible to research within your available resources and time. Make sure it’s specific enough, but not to narrow so you can find enough credible resources. 

Your technology topic sets the course of your research. It influences the type and amount of information you'll search for, the methods you'll use to find it, and the way you'll interpret it. Ultimately, the right topic can make your research process not only more manageable but also more meaningful. But how to get started, you may ask. Don’t worry! Below we are going to share valuable tips from our thesis writers on how to choose a worthy topic about technology.

• Make research Study the latest trends and explore relevant technology news. Your task is to come up with something unique that’s not been done before. Try to look for inspiration in existing literature, scientific articles, or in past projects.
• Recognize your interests Start with what you are genuinely curious about in the field of technology. Passion can be a great motivator during the research process.
• Consider the scope You want a topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow. It should provide enough material to explore without being overwhelming.
• Check availability of resources Ensure there are sufficient trustworthy resources available for your chosen topic.
• Evaluate the relevance Your technology research idea should be pertinent to your field of study and resonate with current trends. This can make your research more valuable and engaging for your audience.

Top List of Technology Research Topics

Are you looking for the best research topics about technology? Stop by! Here, we’ve carefully collected the topic ideas to ignite your curiosity and support your research. Each topic offers various data sources, allowing you to construct well-supported arguments. So, let's discover these fascinating subjects together!

• AI's influence on healthcare.
• Challenges of cybersecurity in a connected world.
• Role of drones in modern agriculture.
• Could renewable energy replace fossil fuels?
• Impact of virtual reality on education.
• Blockchain's potential beyond cryptocurrencies.
• Ethical considerations in biotechnology.
• Can smart cities enhance quality of life?
• Autonomous vehicles – opportunities and threats.
• Robotics in manufacturing.
• Is big data changing decision-making processes?
• E-waste : Challenges and solutions.
• Role of IoT in smart homes.
• Implications of 5G technology.
• EdTech: A revolution in learning?

Good Technology Research Topics

Ready for another batch of inspiration? Get ready to discover great technology topics for a research paper across various disciplines. These ideas are designed to stimulate your creativity and provide substantial information for your research. So, let's explore these exciting themes together!

• Impact of nanotechnology on medicine.
• Harnessing quantum computing potential.
• Augmented reality in tourism.
• Can bioinformatics revolutionize disease prediction?
• Sustainability in tech product design.
• Darknet : A hidden side of the internet.
• How does technology influence human behavior?
• Assistive technology in special education.
• Are smart textiles transforming the fashion industry?
• Role of GIS in urban planning.
• Space tourism: A reality or fantasy?
• Potential of digital twins in engineering.
• How is telemedicine shaping healthcare delivery?
• Green IT : Addressing environmental issues.
• Impact of machine learning on finance.

Interesting Technology Research Paper Topics

For those craving intriguing angles and fresh ideas, we present these interesting topics in technology. This collection is filled with thought-provoking subjects that cover the lesser-known areas of technology. Each topic is concise, clear, and ready to spark a fascinating research journey!

• Cyber-physical systems in industry 4.0.
• Social implications of deepfake technology.
• Can gamification enhance learning outcomes?
• Neuromorphic computing: Emulating the human brain.
• Li-Fi : Light-based communication technology.
• Health risks of prolonged screen time.
• Quantum cryptography and secure communication.
• Role of technology in sustainable agriculture.
• Can we predict earthquakes with AI?
• Virtual influencers: A new trend in marketing.
• Tech solutions for wildlife conservation.
• Role of 3D printing in organ transplantation.
• Impact of automation on the job market.
• Cloud gaming: A new era in the gaming industry.
• Genomic editing: Possibilities and ethical concerns.

New Technology Research Topics

Understanding the fast-paced world of technology requires us to keep up with the latest developments. Hence, we bring you burning  technology research paper topics. These ideas reflect the most recent trends and advances in technology, offering fresh perspectives for your research. Let's take a look at these compelling subjects!

• Potential of hyper automation in business processes.
• How is AI changing digital marketing?
• Brain-computer interfaces: The future of communication?
• Quantum supremacy : Fact or fiction?
• 5D data storage: Revolutionizing data preservation.
• Rise of voice technology in consumer applications.
• Using AI for mental health treatment.
• Implications of edge computing for IoT devices.
• Personalized learning with AI in education.
• Role of technology in reducing food waste.
• Digital twin technology in urban development.
• Impact of AI on patent law.
• Cybersecurity in the era of quantum computing.
• Role of VR in disaster management training.
• AI in talent recruitment: Pros and cons.

Unique Technology Research Topics

For those wanting to stand out with truly original research, we offer 100% authentic topics about technology. We understand that professors highly value unique perspectives. Below we've meticulously selected these technology paper topics to offer you something different. These are not your everyday technology subjects but rather unexpected gems ready to be explored.

• Digital ethics in AI application.
• Role of technology in countering climate change.
• Is there a digital divide in developing countries?
• Role of drones in disaster management.
• Quantum internet: Possibilities and challenges.
• Digital forensic techniques in cybersecurity.
• Impact of technology on traditional art forms.
• Biohacking: Can we really upgrade ourselves?
• Technology and privacy: An inevitable trade-off?
• Developing empathy through virtual reality.
• AI and creativity: Can machines be artists?
• Technology's impact on urban gardening.
• Role of technology in accessible tourism.
• Quantum biology: A frontier of science.
• Unmanned underwater vehicles: Opportunities and threats.

Informative Research Topics in Technology

If you are seeking comprehensive information on technologies, this selection will definitely provide you with insights. As you may know, every study should be backed up by credible sources. Technology topics for research papers below are very easy to investigate, so you will surely find a bunch of academic resources.

• Exploring  adaptive learning systems in online education.
• Role of technology in modern archaeology.
• Impact of immersive technology on journalism.
• The rise of telehealth services.
• Green data centers: A sustainable solution?
• Cybersecurity in mobile banking.
• 3D bioprinting : A revolution in healthcare?
• How technology affects sleep quality.
• AI in music production: A new era?
• Technology's role in preserving endangered languages.
• Smart grids for sustainable energy use.
• The future of privacy in a digital world.
• Can technology enhance sports performance?
• Role of AR in interior design.
• How technology is transforming public libraries.

Controversial Research Topics on Technology

Technological field touches upon areas where technology, ethics, and society intersect and often disagree. This has sparked debates and, sometimes, conspiracy theories, primarily because of the profound implications technologies have for our future. Take a look at these ideas, if you are up to a more controversial research topic about technology:

• Facial recognition technology: Invasion of privacy?
• Tech addiction: Myth or reality?
• The ethics of AI in warfare.
• Should social media platforms censor content?
• Are cryptocurrencies a boon or a bane?
• Is technology causing more harm than good to our health?
• The bias in machine learning algorithms.
• Genetic engineering: Playing God or advancing science?
• Will AI replace human jobs?
• Net neutrality: Freedom of internet or control?
• The risk of AI superintelligence.
• Tech companies' monopoly: Beneficial or detrimental?
• Are we heading towards a surveillance society?
• AI in law enforcement: Safeguard or threat?
• Do we rely too much on technology?

Easy Technology Research Paper Topics

Who ever thought the tech field was only for the tech-savvy? Well, it's time to dispel that myth. Here in our collection of simple technology research topics, we've curated subjects that break down complex tech concepts into manageable chunks. We believe that every student should get a chance to run a tech related project without any hurdles.

• Impact of social media on interpersonal communication.
• Smartphones: A boon or a bane?
• How technology improves accessibility for people with disabilities.
• E-learning versus traditional learning.
• Impact of technology on travel and tourism.
• Pros and cons of online shopping.
• How has technology changed entertainment?
• Technology's role in boosting productivity at work.
• Online safety: How to protect ourselves?
• Importance of digital literacy in today's world.
• How has technology influenced the music industry?
• E-books vs printed books: A tech revolution?
• Does technology promote loneliness?
• Role of technology in shaping modern communication.
• The impact of gaming on cognitive abilities.

Technology Research Topics Ideas for Students

As an experienced paper writing service online that helps students all the time, we understand that every learner has unique academic needs. With this in mind, the next section of our blog is designed to cater specifically to different academic levels. Whether you're a high school student just starting to explore technology or a doctoral candidate delving deep into a specialized topic, we've got different technology topics arranged by complexity.

Technology Research Topics for High School Students

High school students are expected to navigate complex topics, fostering critical thinking and promoting in-depth exploration. The proposed research paper topics on technology will help students understand how tech advancements shape various sectors of society and influence human life.

• How have smartphones changed our communication?
• Does virtual reality in museums enhance visitor experience?
• Understanding privacy issues in social media.
• How has technology changed the way we listen to music?
• Role of technology in promoting fitness and healthy lifestyle.
• Advantages and disadvantages of online learning.
• Does excessive screen time affect sleep quality?
• Do video games affect academic performance?
• How do GPS systems work?
• How has technology improved animation in films?
• Pros and cons of using smart home devices.
• Are self-driving cars safe?
• Technology's role in modernizing local libraries.
• Can technology help us lead more sustainable lifestyles?
• Can technology help improve road safety for teenagers?

Technology Research Topics for College Students

Think technology research topics for college are all about rocket science? Think again! Our compilation of college-level tech research topics brings you a bunch of intriguing, conversation-stirring, and head-scratching questions. They're designed to let you sink into the world of technology while also pushing your academic boundaries. Time to dive in, explore, question, and take your own unique stance on hot-button issues.

• Biometrics in identity verification: A privacy risk?
• Impact of 5G on mobile gaming.
• Are wearable fitness devices a true reflection of health?
• Can machine learning help predict climate change effects?
• Are digital currencies disrupting traditional finance?
• Use of drones in search and rescue operations.
• Impact of e-learning on academic performance.
• Does artificial intelligence have a place in home security?
• What are the ethical issues surrounding robotic surgery?
• Are e-wallets a safer option for online transactions?
• How has technology transformed news dissemination?
• AI in language translation: How accurate can it be?
• Personalized advertising: Boon or bane for online users?
• Are smart classes making learning more interactive?
• Influence of technology on homemade crafts and DIY culture.

Technology Research Topics for University Students

Are you browsing for university technology research ideas? We've got you covered. Whether you're about to dig deep into high-tech debates, or just taking your first steps, our list of technology research questions is your treasure chest.

• Blockchain applications in ensuring academic integrity.
• Impact of quantum computing on data security.
• Are brain-computer interfaces a future communication tool?
• Does digital currency pose a threat to the global economy?
• Use of AI in predicting and managing natural disasters.
• Can biometrics replace traditional identification systems?
• Role of nanotechnology in waste management.
• Machine learning's influence on climate change modeling.
• Edge computing: Revolutionizing data processing?
• Is virtual reality in psychological therapy a viable option?
• Potential of synthetic biology in medical research.
• Quantum cryptography: An uncrackable code?
• Is space tourism achievable with current technology?
• Ethical implications of gene editing technologies.
• Artificial intelligence in governance.

Technology Research Paper Topics in Different Areas

In the next section, we've arranged a collection of technology research questions related to different areas like computer science, biotechnology, and medicine. Find an area you are interested in and look through subject-focused ideas and topics for a research paper on technology.

Technology Research Topics on Computer Science

Computer science is a field that has rapidly developed over the past decades. It deals with questions of technology's influence on society, as well as applications of cutting-edge technologies in various industries and sectors. Here are some computer science research topics on technology to get started:

• Prospects of machine learning in malware detection.
• Influence of cloud computing on business operations.
• Quantum computing: potential impacts on cryptography.
• Role of big data in personalized marketing.
• Can AI models effectively simulate human decision-making?
• Future of mobile applications: Towards augmented reality?
• Pros and cons of open source software development.
• Role of computer science in advancing virtual reality.
• Natural language processing: Transforming human-computer interaction?
• Developing secure e-commerce platforms: Challenges and solutions.
• Green computing : solutions for reducing energy consumption.
• Data mining in healthcare: An untapped opportunity?
• Understanding cyber threats in the internet of things.
• Algorithmic bias: Implications for automated decision-making.
• Role of neural networks in image recognition.

Information Technology Research Topics

Information technology is a dynamic field that involves the use of computers and software to manage and process information. It's crucial in today's digital era, influencing a range of industries from healthcare to entertainment. Here are some captivating information technology related topics:

• Impact of cloud technology on data management.
• Role of information technology in disaster management.
• Can artificial intelligence help improve data accuracy?
• Cybersecurity measures for protecting personal information.
• Evolving role of IT in healthcare administration.
• Adaptive learning systems: A revolution in education?
• E-governance : Impact on public administration.
• Role of IT in modern supply chain management.
• Bioinformatics and its role in personalized medicine.
• Is data mining an invasion of privacy?
• Can virtual reality enhance training and development programs?
• Role of IT in facilitating remote work.
• Smart devices and data security: A potential risk?
• Harnessing IT for sustainable business practices.
• How can big data support decision-making processes?

Technology Research Topics on Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence, or AI as we fondly call it, is all about creating machines that mimic human intelligence. It's shaping everything from how we drive our cars to how we manage our calendars. Want to understand the mind of a machine? Choose a topic about technology for a research paper from the list below:

• AI's role in detecting fake news.
• Chatbots in customer service: Are humans still needed?
• Algorithmic trading: AI's impact on financial markets.
• AI in agriculture: a step towards sustainable farming?
• Facial recognition systems: an AI revolution or privacy threat?
• Can AI outperform humans in creative tasks?
• Sentiment analysis in social media: how effective is AI?
• Siri, Alexa, and the future of AI.
• AI in autonomous vehicles: safety concern or necessity?
• How AI algorithms are transforming video games.
• AI's potential in predicting and mitigating natural disasters.
• Role of AI in combating cyber threats.
• Influence of AI on job recruitment and HR processes.
• Can AI help in advancing climate change research?
• Can machines make accurate diagnoses?

Technology Research Topics in Cybersecurity Command

Cybersecurity Command focuses on strengthening digital protection. Its goal is to identify vulnerabilities, and outsmart cyber threats. Ready to crack the code of the cybersecurity command? Check out these technology topics for research designed to take you through the tunnels of cyberspace:

• Cybersecurity strategies for a post-quantum world.
• Role of AI in identifying cyber threats.
• Is cybersecurity command in healthcare a matter of life and death?
• Is there any connection between cryptocurrency and cybercrime?
• Cyber warfare : The invisible battleground.
• Mitigating insider threats in cybersecurity command.
• Future of biometric authentication in cybersecurity.
• IoT security: command challenges and solutions.
• Cybersecurity and cloud technology: A secure match?
• Influence of blockchain on cybersecurity command.
• Machine learning's role in malware detection.
• Cybersecurity protocols for mobile devices.
• Ethics in cybersecurity: Hacking back and other dilemmas.
• What are some steps to recovery after a breach?
• Social engineering: Human factor in cybersecurity.

Technology Research Topics on Biotechnology

Biotechnology is an interdisciplinary field that has been gaining a lot of traction in the past few decades. It involves the application of biological principles to understand and solve various problems. The following research topic ideas for technology explore biotechnology's impact on medicine, environment, agriculture, and other sectors:

• Can GMOs solve global hunger issues?
• Understanding biotech's role in developing personalized medicine.
• Using biotech to fight antibiotic resistance.
• Pros and cons of genetically modified animals.
• Biofuels – are they really a sustainable energy solution?
• Ethical challenges in gene editing.
• Role of biotech in combating climate change.
• Can biotechnology help conserve biodiversity?
• Biotech in beauty: Revolutionizing cosmetics.
• Bioluminescence – a natural wonder or a biotech tool?
• Applications of microbial biotechnology in waste management.
• Human organ farming: Possibility or pipe dream?
• Biotech and its role in sustainable agriculture.
• Biotech advancements in creating allergy-free foods.
• Exploring the future of biotech in disease detection.

>> Read more: Biology Topics to Research

Technology Research Paper Topics on Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is an area of science that involves the manipulation of genes to change or enhance biological characteristics. This field has raised tremendous ethical debates while offering promising solutions in medicine and agriculture. Here are some captivating topics for a technology research paper on genetic engineering:

• Future of gene editing: Breakthrough or ethical dilemma?
• Role of CRISPR technology in combating genetic diseases.
• Pros and cons of genetically modified crops.
• Impact of genetic engineering on biodiversity.
• Can gene therapy provide a cure for cancer?
• Genetic engineering and the quest for designer babies.
• Legal aspects of genetic engineering.
• Use of genetic engineering in organ transplantation.
• Genetic modifications: Impact on human lifespan.
• Genetically engineered pets: A step too far?
• The role of genetic engineering in biofuels production.
• Ethics of genetic data privacy.
• Genetic engineering and its impact on world hunger.
• Genetically modified insects: Solution for disease control?
• Genetic engineering: A tool for biological warfare?

Reproduction Technology Research Paper Topics

Reproduction technology is all about the science that aids human procreation. It's a field teeming with innovation, from IVF advancements to genetic screening. Yet, it also stirs up ethical debates and thought-provoking technology topics to write about:

• Advances in in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) technology .
• The rise of surrogacy: Technological advancements and implications.
• Ethical considerations in sperm and egg donation.
• Genetic screening of embryos: A step forward or an ethical minefield?
• Role of technology in understanding and improving fertility.
• Artificial Wombs: Progress and prospects.
• Ethical and legal aspects of posthumous reproduction.
• Impact of reproductive technology on the LGBTQ+ community.
• The promise and challenge of stem cells in reproduction.
• Technology's role in preventing genetic diseases in unborn babies.
• Social implications of childbearing technology.
• The concept of 'designer babies': Ethical issues and future possibilities.
• Reproductive cloning: Prospects and controversies.
• Technology and the future of contraception.
• Role of AI in predicting successful IVF treatment.

Medical Technology Topics for a Research Paper

The healthcare field is undergoing massive transformations thanks to cutting-edge medical technology. From revolutionary diagnostic tools to life-saving treatments, technology is reshaping medicine as we know it. To aid your exploration of this dynamic field, we've compiled medical technology research paper topics:

• Role of AI in early disease detection.
• Impact of telemedicine on rural healthcare.
• Nanotechnology in cancer treatment: Prospects and challenges.
• Can wearable technology improve patient outcomes?
• Ethical considerations in genome sequencing.
• Augmented reality in surgical procedures.
• The rise of personalized medicine: Role of technology.
• Mental health apps: Revolution or hype?
• Technology and the future of prosthetics.
• Role of Big Data in healthcare decision making.
• Virtual reality as a tool for pain management.
• Impact of machine learning on drug discovery.
• The promise of medical drones for emergency response.
• Technology's role in combating antimicrobial resistance.
• Electronic Health Records (EHRs): Blessing or curse?

>> More ideas: Med Research Topics

Health Technology Research Topics

Health technology is driving modern healthcare to new heights. From apps that monitor vital stats to robots assisting in surgeries, technology's touch is truly transformative. Take a look at these topics related to technology applied in healthcare:

• Role of mobile apps in managing diabetes.
• Impact of health technology on patient privacy.
• Wearable tech: Fad or future of personal health monitoring?
• How can AI help in battling mental health issues?
• Role of digital tools in promoting preventive healthcare.
• Smart homes for the elderly: Boon or bane?
• Technology and its impact on health insurance.
• The effectiveness of virtual therapy sessions.
• Can health chatbots replace human doctors?
• Technology's role in fighting the obesity epidemic.
• The use of blockchain in health data management.
• Impact of technology on sleep health.
• Social media and its effect on mental health.
• Prospects of 3D printing in creating medical equipment.
• Tele-rehabilitation: An effective solution for physical therapy?

>> View more: Public Health Topics to Research

Communication Technology Research Topics

With technology at the helm, our ways of communicating are changing at an unprecedented pace. From simple text messages to immersive virtual conferences, technology has rewritten the rules of engagement. So, without further ado, let's explore these communication research ideas for technology that capture the essence of this revolution.

• AI chatbots: Re-defining customer service.
• The impact of 5G on global communication.
• Augmented Reality: The future of digital marketing?
• Is 'digital divide' hindering global communication?
• Social media's role in shaping public opinion.
• Can holographic communication become a reality?
• Influence of emojis in digital communication.
• The cybersecurity challenges in modern communication.
• Future of journalism in the digital age.
• How technology is reshaping political communication.
• The influence of streaming platforms on viewing habits.
• Privacy concerns in the age of instant messaging.
• Can technology solve the issue of language barriers?
• The rise of podcasting: A digital renaissance.
• Role of virtual reality in remote communication.

Research Topics on Technology in Transportation

Technology is the driving force behind the dramatic changes in transportation, making journeys safer, more efficient, and eco-friendly. Whether it's autonomous vehicles or the concept of Hyperloop, there are many transportation technology topics for a research paper to choose from:

• Electric vehicles: A step towards sustainable travel.
• The role of AI in traffic management.
• Pros and cons of autonomous vehicles.
• Hyperloop: An ambitious vision of the future?
• Drones in goods delivery: Efficiency vs. privacy.
• Technology's role in reducing aviation accidents.
• Challenges in implementing smart highways.
• The implications of blockchain in logistics.
• Could vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles solve traffic problems?
• Impact of GPS technology on transportation.
• How has technology influenced public transit systems?
• Role of 5G in future transportation.
• Ethical concerns over self-driving cars.
• Technology in maritime safety: Progress and hurdles.
• The evolution of bicycle technology: From spokes to e-bikes.

Technology Research Paper Topics on Education

The intersection of technology and education is an exciting frontier with limitless possibilities. From online learning to interactive classrooms, you can explore various technology paper topics about education:

• How does e-learning affect student engagement?
• VR classrooms: A glimpse into the future?
• Can AI tutors revolutionize personalized learning?
• Digital textbooks versus traditional textbooks: A comparison.
• Gamification in education: Innovation or distraction?
• The impact of technology on special education.
• How are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) reshaping higher education?
• The role of technology in inclusive education.
• Cybersecurity in schools: Measures and challenges.
• The potential of Augmented Reality (AR) in classroom learning.
• How is technology influencing homeschooling trends?
• Balancing technology and traditional methods in early childhood education.
• Risks and benefits of student data tracking.
• Can coding be the new literacy in the 21st century?
• The influence of social media on academic performance.

>> Learn more: Education Research Paper Topics

Relationships and Technology Research Topics

In the digital age, technology also impacts our relationships. It has become an integral part of how we communicate, meet people, and sustain our connections. Discover some thought-provoking angles with these research paper topics about technology:

• How do dating apps affect modern relationships?
• The influence of social media on interpersonal communication.
• Is technology enhancing or hindering long-distance relationships?
• The psychology behind online dating: A study.
• How do virtual reality environments impact social interaction?
• Social media friendships: Genuine or superficial?
• How does technology-mediated communication affect family dynamics?
• The impact of technology on work-life balance.
• The role of technology in sustaining long-term relationships.
• How does the 'always connected' culture influence personal boundaries?
• Cyberbullying and its effect on teenage relationships.
• Can technology predict compatibility in relationships?
• The effects of 'ghosting' in digital communication.
• How technology assists in maintaining relationships among elderly populations.
• Social media: A boon or bane for marital relationships?

Agriculture Technology Research Paper Topics

Modern agriculture is far from just tilling the soil and harvesting crops. Technology has made remarkable strides into the fields, innovating and improving agricultural processes. Take a glance at these technology research paper topic ideas:

• Can drone technology transform crop monitoring?
• Precision agriculture: Benefits and challenges.
• Aquaponics and the future of sustainable farming.
• How is artificial intelligence aiding in crop prediction?
• Impact of blockchain technology in food traceability.
• The role of IoT in smart farming.
• Vertical farming : Is it a sustainable solution for urban food supply?
• Innovations in irrigation technology for water conservation.
• Automated farming: A boon or a threat to employment in agriculture?
• How satellite imagery is improving crop disease detection.
• Biotechnology in crop improvement: Pros and cons.
• Nanotechnology in agriculture: Scope and limitations.
• Role of robotics in livestock management.
• Agricultural waste management through technology.
• Is hydroponics the future of farming?

Technological Research Topics on Environment

Our planet is facing numerous environmental challenges, and technology may hold the key to solving many of these. With innovations ranging from renewable energy sources to waste management systems, the realm of technology offers a plethora of research angles. So, if you're curious about the intersection of technology and environment, this list of research topics is for you:

• Innovations in waste management: A technology review.
• The role of AI in predicting climate change impacts.
• Renewable energy: Advancements in solar technology.
• The impact of electric vehicles on carbon emissions.
• Can smart agriculture help solve world hunger?
• Role of technology in water purification and conservation.
• The impact of IoT devices on energy consumption.
• Technology solutions for oil spills.
• Satellite technology in environmental monitoring.
• Technological advances in forest conservation.
• Green buildings: Sustainable construction technology.
• Bioengineering: A solution to soil erosion?
• Impact of nanotechnology on environmental conservation.
• Ocean clean-up initiatives: Evaluating existing technology.
• How can technology help in reducing air pollution?

>> View more: Environmental Science Research Topics

Energy & Power Technology Topics for Research Paper

Energy and power are two pivotal areas where technology is bringing unprecedented changes. You can investigate renewable energy sources or efficient power transmission. If you're excited about exploring the intricacies of energy and power advancements, here are some engaging technology topics for research papers:

• Assessing the efficiency of wind energy technologies.
• Power storage: Current and future technology.
• Solar panel technology: Recent advancements and future predictions.
• Can nuclear fusion be the answer to our energy crisis?
• Smart grid technology: A revolution in power distribution.
• Evaluating the impact of hydropower on ecosystems.
• The role of AI in optimizing power consumption.
• Biofuels vs. fossil fuels: A comparative study.
• Electric vehicle charging infrastructure: Technological challenges and solutions.
• Technology advancements in geothermal power.
• How is IoT technology helping in energy conservation?
• Harnessing wave and tidal energy: Technological possibilities.
• Role of nanotechnology in improving solar cell efficiency.
• Power transmission losses: Can technology provide a solution?
• Assessing the future of coal technology in the era of renewable energy.

Research Topics about Technology in Finance

The finance sector has seen drastic changes with the rise of technology, which has revolutionized the way financial transactions are conducted and services are offered. Consider these research topics in technology applied in the finance sector:

• Rise of cryptocurrency: An evaluation of Bitcoin's impact.
• Algorithmic trading: How does it reshape financial markets?
• Role of AI and machine learning in financial forecasting.
• Technological challenges in implementing digital banking.
• How is blockchain technology transforming financial services?
• Cybersecurity risks in online banking: Identifying solutions.
• FinTech startups: Disrupting traditional finance systems.
• Role of technology in financial inclusion.
• Assessing the impact of mobile wallets on the banking sector.
• Automation in finance: Opportunities and threats.
• Role of big data analytics in financial decision making.
• AI-based robo-advisors vs. human financial advisors.
• The future of insurance technology (InsurTech).
• Can technology solve the issue of financial fraud?
• Impact of regulatory technology (RegTech) in maintaining compliance.

>> More ideas: Finance Research Topics

War Technology Research Paper Topics

The nature of warfare has transformed significantly with the evolution of technology, shifting the battlegrounds from land, sea, and air to the realms of cyber and space. This transition opens up a range of topics to explore. Here are some research topics in the realm of war technology:

• Drones in warfare: Ethical implications.
• Cyber warfare: Assessing threats and defense strategies.
• Autonomous weapons: A boon or a curse?
• Implications of artificial intelligence in modern warfare.
• Role of technology in intelligence gathering.
• Satellite technology and its role in modern warfare.
• The future of naval warfare: Autonomous ships and submarines.
• Hypersonic weapons: Changing the dynamics of war.
• Impact of nuclear technology in warfare.
• Technology and warfare: Exploring the relationship.
• Information warfare: The role of social media.
• Space warfare: Future possibilities and implications.
• Bio-warfare: Understanding technology's role in development and prevention.
• Impact of virtual reality on military training.
• War technology and international law: A critical examination.

Food Technology Topics for Research Papers

Food technology is a field that deals with the study of food production, preservation, and safety. It involves understanding how various techniques can be applied to increase shelf life and improve nutrition value of foods. Check out our collection of food technology research paper topic ideas:

• Lab-grown meats: Sustainable solution or a mere hype?
• How AI is enhancing food safety and quality?
• Precision agriculture: Revolutionizing farming practices.
• GMOs: Assessing benefits and potential risks.
• Role of robotics in food manufacturing and packaging.
• Smart kitchens: Streamlining cooking through technology.
• Nanofood: Tiny technology, big impact.
• Sustainable food systems: Role of technology.
• Food traceability: Ensuring transparency and accountability.
• Food delivery apps: Changing the face of dining out.
• The rise of plant-based alternatives and their production technologies.
• Virtual and augmented reality in culinary experiences.
• Technology in mitigating food waste.
• Innovations in food packaging: Impact on freshness and sustainability.
• IoT in smart farming: Improving yield and reducing waste.

Entertainment Technology Topics

Entertainment technology is reinventing the ways we experience amusement. This industry is always presenting new angles for research and discussion, be it the rise of virtual reality in movies or the influence of streaming platforms on the music industry. Here's a list of unique research topics related to entertainment technology:

• Impact of virtual reality on the movie industry.
• Streaming platforms vs traditional media: A comparative study.
• Technology in music: Evolution and future prospects.
• eSports: Rise of a new form of entertainment.
• Augmented reality in theme parks.
• The transformation of theater with digital technology.
• AI and film editing: Redefining the art.
• The role of technology in the rise of independent cinema.
• Podcasts: Revolutionizing radio with technology.
• Immersive technologies in art exhibitions.
• The influence of technology on fashion shows and design.
• Livestreaming concerts: A new norm in the music industry?
• Drones in entertainment: Applications and ethics.
• Social media as an entertainment platform.
• The transformation of journalism in the era of digital entertainment.

Technology Research Questions

As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology, numerous intriguing questions arise. Below, we present new research questions about technology that can fuel your intellectual pursuit.

• What potential does quantum computing hold for resolving complex problems?
• How will advancements in AI impact job security across different sectors?
• In what ways can blockchain technology reform the existing financial systems?
• How is nanotechnology revolutionizing the field of medicine?
• What are the ethical implications surrounding the use of facial recognition technology?
• How will the introduction of 6G change our communication patterns?
• In what ways is green technology contributing to sustainable development?
• Can virtual reality transform the way we approach education?
• How are biometrics enhancing the security measures in today's digital world?
• How is space technology influencing our understanding of the universe?
• What role can technology play in solving the global water crisis?
• How can technology be leveraged to combat climate change effectively?
• How is technology transforming the landscape of modern agriculture?
• Can technological advancements lead to a fully renewable energy-dependent world?
• How does technology influence the dynamics of modern warfare?

Bottom Line on Research Topics in Technology

Technology is a rapidly evolving field, and there's always something new to explore. Whether you're writing for the computer sciences, information technology or food technology realm, there are endless ideas that you can research on. Pick one of these technology research paper topics and jumpstart your project.

Trust professionals to ‘ write a research paper for me !’ Our team of expert writers is ready to assist you in crafting an exceptional research paper on any topic. Just reach out, and we'll provide you with high-quality work tailored to your needs.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

Cautious Optimism on OSTP Research Cybersecurity Requirements

The Office of Science and Technology Policy has released its final requirements for research security programs, which federal research funding agencies will have to apply to colleges and universities that average $50 million or more per year in federal research grants. The requirements include potentially positive guidelines for research cybersecurity at covered institutions.

In early 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released its initial proposal for a "research security program standard requirement." All federal research funding agencies would have to apply the requirement to colleges and universities that receive more than $50 million per year in federal research funding. Footnote 1 The development of these comprehensive research security mandates stems from National Security Presidential Memorandum – 33 (NSPM-33), "Supported Research and Development National Security Policy." When finalized, the "standard requirement" would establish the basic parameters for the research security programs that covered institutions must have in place to continue competing for federal research grants.

Most of the proposed framework addresses research security issues such as faculty conflicts of interest and commitment and research talent recruitment programs of foreign governments. However, it also includes a research cybersecurity section that essentially would make the cybersecurity guidelines for Federal contract information (FCI) the standards for higher education research cybersecurity. As the Policy team discussed in our review of this issue last summer, EDUCAUSE member feedback indicated that the FCI basic safeguards do not fit well with higher education research environments because they are primarily intended for administrative contexts and data. Footnote 2 EDUCAUSE urged OSTP to revamp its proposed research security program guidance and focus on allowing institutions to pursue a risk management approach to research cybersecurity. Rather than the one-size-fits-all checklist model that the FCI guidelines would impose, a risk management approach would enable institutions to prioritize cybersecurity measures and resources based on national security risks associated with research areas and projects.

EDUCAUSE was not alone in asking OSTP to alter its course and base its research security program guidance on risk management. The Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) also stressed the need for a risk management emphasis in other areas of higher education research security. Fortunately, OSTP heard the combined input of our respective associations. Rather than rushing forward with research security program requirements that largely reflected those in its original proposal, OSTP took roughly one year to rethink its guidance before releasing the final version on July 9, 2024. The final research security program guidelines do not base research cybersecurity program requirements on the FCI safeguards. Instead, OSTP points to a pending report on higher education research cybersecurity from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

As the first element of the standardized requirement, federal research agencies shall require institutions of higher education to certify that the institution will implement a cybersecurity program consistent with the cybersecurity resource for research institutions described in the CHIPS and Science Act, [18] within one year after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce publishes that resource. Footnote 3

Footnote 18 in the memorandum (in brackets above) identifies the relevant NIST report as NIST Interagency Report (IR) 8481: Cybersecurity for Research: Findings and Possible Paths Forward , which is currently available in "Initial Public Draft" (IPD) form. The CHIPS and Science Act provision from which the report stems required NIST to explore the resources it could develop to better support research cybersecurity at higher education institutions. Footnote 4 NIST conducted substantial outreach to EDUCAUSE and its members in pursuing the project, leading to a draft that largely incorporates the recommendations of our research cybersecurity community. It is a welcome development to see OSTP cite the report as the governing reference for research cybersecurity under its research security program guidelines.

Although OSTP's reliance on a report that reflects substantial EDUCAUSE member input provides a basis for cautious optimism regarding how federal research agencies will implement research cybersecurity requirements, there is still room for agency compliance efforts to jump the rails. The OSTP memorandum does not explain or provide parameters for what constitutes "a cybersecurity program consistent with" the NIST report (emphasis added). Footnote 5 Given the overall tenor of the guidelines, which stress the importance of federal research agencies providing substantial flexibility and discretion to higher education institutions in establishing and maintaining research security programs, research agencies might reasonably develop policies and procedures that allow institutions to draw from the range of resources identified in the NIST report—as well as models and frameworks similar to them—in determining the basis of their programs. However, the lack of guidance on what "consistent with" means may leave space for agencies to mandate that their grantees implement specific frameworks or measures presented in the NIST report. Such a development could produce substantial risks for institutions and agencies alike, given that not all resources identified in the draft NIST report will necessarily lead to optimal—or even appropriate—outcomes in all higher education research contexts.

Our concern about the potential for agencies to mandate inappropriate requirements is exacerbated by the fact that the NIST report was not written for the purposes for which OSTP is applying it. As previously mentioned, the CHIPS and Science Act charged NIST with identifying ways the agency could better support higher education research cybersecurity. Given that task, the current draft of the report—not surprisingly—focuses on highlighting a variety of options that institutions might explore to advance their research cybersecurity posture. This focus does not exactly match how OSTP wants to use the report in its research security program guidelines. The advisory nature of the NIST report may lend itself to the institutional flexibility and discretion that the OSTP memo implies should be the basis of federal agency approaches to research (cyber)security. However, the report does not provide clear direction about what cybersecurity should look like for research security programs that comply with NSPM-33. Without a definitive framework, both research agencies and higher education institutions may struggle to determine what constitutes compliance.

Fortunately, EDUCAUSE members should not have to wait long to get a sense of whether federal agencies that fund research will either try to be highly prescriptive or allow covered institutions to choose what elements of the NIST report—or options similar to them—will form the basis of their research cybersecurity programs. The memo from OSTP states that agencies will have six months from the date the memo was published to provide OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with their proposed implementation plans for the research security program guidelines. Once those agency plans are submitted, colleges and universities should be able to better understand what agencies' compliance regimes might look like. Agencies will then have another six months to implement their policies and processes, with institutions getting up to eighteen months from that point to ensure that they have compliant research security programs. Footnote 6 Based on these time frames, we should see research agency implementation plans by early January 2025, with the final execution of those plans due by mid-2025. Institutions would then have to achieve compliance with the relevant agency policies and processes by around December 2026.

Remember, though, that OSTP provides a unique timeline for its research cybersecurity requirements. As stated above, institutions will have one year from the publication of the NIST final report to ensure that they have research cybersecurity programs that are "consistent with" the report. With that in mind, NIST could try to align the release of its final report with the timeline for institutional compliance with OSTP's research security program guidelines. In this case, the overall measures mandated by the OSTP guidelines would have to be in place by the end of 2026. However, nothing in the OSTP memo precludes NIST from starting the research cybersecurity clock much sooner by releasing its final report at some point later this year or in early 2025. At this juncture, we will have to wait for NIST to provide more information about its plans, which will most likely include making some adjustments between the draft and final versions to account for how research agencies and higher education institutions will have to make use of the final report for compliance purposes.

EDUCAUSE will continue to monitor developments in this space and look for opportunities to inform OSTP, NIST, and agency implementation efforts. In the interim, EDUCAUSE members should review the draft NIST report for reference points that align with their current institutional research cybersecurity program and for resources they might find useful in strengthening their research cybersecurity posture given NSPM-33 and the OSTP research security guidelines that derive from it.

• Arati Prabhakar, Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Research Agencies, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs at Covered Institutions," (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, July 9, 2024), 3. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text. ↩
• EDUCAUSE letter to Stacy Murphy, Deputy Chief Operations Officer/Security Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy,  "Regarding Comment on Research Security Programs,"  June 5, 2023. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text. ↩
• Prabhakar, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs," 4. Jump back to footnote 3 in the text. ↩
• Jarret Cummings, "NIST Explores Developing Research Cybersecurity Resources for Higher Ed,"   EDUCAUSE Review , August 1, 2023. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text. ↩
• Prabhakar, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs," 4–5. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text. ↩
• Ibid., 9. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text. ↩

Jarret Cummings is Senior Advisor, Policy and Government Relations, at EDUCAUSE.

© 2024 EDUCAUSE. The content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-579: nsf small business innovation research / small business technology transfer phase i programs, program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: May 30, 2024
• Replaces: NSF 23-515

Program Solicitation NSF 24-579

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 18, 2024

     November 06, 2024

     March 05, 2025

     July 02, 2025

     November 05, 2025

Important Information And Revision Notes

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs (also known as America’s Seed Fund powered by NSF) provide non-dilutive grants for the development of a broad range of technologies based on discoveries in science and engineering with the potential for societal and economic impacts .

NSF proposals are confidential and will only be shared with a select number of reviewers and NSF staff (as appropriate). All reviewers have agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the proposal content. Proposals to NSF do not constitute a public disclosure. If selected for a Phase I award, the company will be prompted to write a publicly available abstract that summarizes the intellectual merit and broader impact of the project.

The proposer must receive an official invitation via the Project Pitch process to submit a full proposal. Small businesses can submit a Project Pitch at any time. Small businesses that receive an official invite must submit their full proposal within the next two deadlines of the email date of their invite; for example, if a Project Pitch invite is received on May 30, 2024, the proposer may submit their full proposal for either of the next two deadlines (September 18, 2024 or November 6, 2024). Visit the program website ( https://seedfund.nsf.gov/apply/project-pitch/ ) for more information.

The proposal submission system, Research.gov, will stop accepting proposals at 5:00 pm “submitting organization’s local time.” This is a firm deadline (no grace period). If your submission is late, you will not be able to submit again until the next deadline (and only if your Project Pitch invite remains valid). Proposers are strongly urged to submit well in advance of the deadline.

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs do not support clinical trials or proposals from companies whose commercialization pathway involves the production, distribution, or sale by the company of chemical components, natural or synthetic variations thereof, or other derivatives related to Schedule I controlled substances.

All proposals must be submitted through Research.gov .

SBIR and STTR proposals are nearly identical but differ in the amount of work required to be performed by the small business and a not-for-profit institution or a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) (as noted in the budget). For more information about the unique requirements for STTR awards, please refer to the Eligibility and Proposal Preparation sections of this solicitation.

NSF SBIR Phase I proposals submitted to this solicitation may, at NSF's discretion, be converted for award as an STTR Phase I.

For the purpose of this solicitation, the following definitions apply:

• Funding Agreement: As used in this solicitation, the funding agreement is a Grant – a legal instrument of financial assistance between NSF and a recipient, consistent with 31 USC 6302-6305 and as noted in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Introduction, Section D ("Definitions & NSF-Recipient Relationships").
• Small Business Concerns (SBCs): SBCs are independently owned and operated businesses that are not dominant in their field of operation. For this solicitation, firms qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the SBIR/STTR programs (see Section IV. "Eligibility Information" of this solicitation for more details). Please note that the size limit of 500 employees includes affiliates. The firm must be in compliance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and the Code of Federal Regulations .
• SBIR/STTR Data: As defined by the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive , SBIR/STTR Data is all Data developed or generated in the performance of an SBIR or STTR award, including Technical Data and Computer Software developed or generated in the performance of an SBIR or STTR award. The term does not include information incidental to contract or grant administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing or management information.
• SBIR/STTR Data Rights: The Federal Government may, use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data within the Government; however, the Government shall not use, release, or disclose the data for procurement, manufacturing, or commercial purposes; or release or disclose the SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government except as permitted by paragraph 10(B) of the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive 's Data Rights Clause or by written permission of the recipient.
• the application of creative, original, and potentially transformative concepts to systematically study, create, adapt, or manipulate the structure and behavior of the natural or man-made worlds;
• the use of the scientific method to propose well-reasoned, well-organized activities based on sound theory, computation, measurement, observation, experiment, or modeling;
• the demonstration of a well-qualified individual, team, or organization ready to deploy novel methods of creating, acquiring, processing, manipulating, storing, or disseminating data or metadata; and/or
• the novel integration of new theories, analysis, data, or methods regarding cognition, heuristics, and related phenomena, which can be supported by scientific rationale.
• Non-Dilutive Funding: financing that does not involve equity, debt, or other elements of the business ownership structure.
• Technical Risk: Technical risk assumes that the possibility of technical failure exists for an envisioned product, service, or solution to be successfully developed. This risk is present even to those suitably skilled in the art of the component, subsystem, method, technique, tool, or algorithm in question.
• Technical Innovation: Technical innovation indicates that the new product or service is differentiated from current products or services; that is, the new technology holds the potential to result in a product or service with a substantial and durable advantage over competing solutions on the market. It also generally provides a barrier to entry for competitors. This means that if the new product, service, or solution is successfully realized and brought to the market, it would be difficult for a well-qualified, competing firm to reverse-engineer or otherwise neutralize the competitive advantage generated by leveraging fundamental science or engineering research techniques.

Significant Revisions Made Since the Last Solicitation:

The maximum total Phase I award amount has been increased from $275,000 to $305,000. This amount is inclusive of all direct and indirect costs as well as the small business fee.

In an effort to increase the award amount, to increase the flexibility of the PI to make decisions based on the needs of their particular company, and to decrease the administrative burden associated with preparing and processing significant numbers of supplement requests, SBIR/STTR Phase I recipients should budget for Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) and National Innovation-Corps training (I-Corps TM ) (see below) within their Phase I budget. Other supplements to SBIR/STTR Phase I awards will not be allowed .

TABA provides an opportunity to assist small businesses in commercialization of their technologies. Up to $6,500 for TABA funding may be budgeted by the proposing small business for their well justified commercialization activities. TABA funding enables the recipient business to secure the services of one or more third-party providers to assist in one or more of the following commercialization activities: making better technical decisions on SBIR/STTR projects; solving technical problems that arise during SBIR/STTR projects; minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR/STTR projects; and/or commercializing the SBIR/STTR product or process, including securing intellectual property protections.

I-Corps training is highly recommended; The proposal budget should include $25,000 for this training. Beat the Odds Boot Camp (a condensed version of I-Corps) will no longer be offered.

The award duration has been extended; SBIR/STTR Phase I awards may be 6-18 months.

Publication, documentation, and dissemination costs are not allowed.

An Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (IP Rights Agreement) is required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution. A fully signed agreement is not required for STTR proposals at the initial proposal submission but will be required before a recommendation for an award can be made.

In addition to the two NSF Merit Review Criteria (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), additional solicitation specific review requirements related to Intellectual Merits, Broader Impacts, Company/Team, and Commercialization Potential have been clarified, see Section VI.A. An Elevator Pitch is no longer required in the Project Description.

Four documents: Biographical Sketch(es), Current and Pending (Other) Support forms, Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA), and Synergistic Activities must be submitted for the PI, Co-PI (if STTR), and each Senior/Key Personnel specified in the proposal. Biographical Sketches and Current and Pending Support forms must be submitted using SciENcv: Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae . Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) Information is submitted using the instructions and spreadsheet template . Additional information is given in the solicitation. Synergistic Activities. Each individual identified as a Senior/Key person must provide a document of up to one-page that includes a list of up to five distinct examples of synergistic activities that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation.

In accordance with Section 10632 of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. § 19232), the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must certify that all individuals identified as Senior/Key Personnel have been made aware of and have complied with their responsibility under that section to certify that the individual is not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program.

In accordance with Section 223(a)(1) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (42 U.S.C. § 6605(a)(1)), each individual identified as Senior/Key Personnel is required to certify in SciENcv that the information provided in the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support documents is accurate, current, and complete. Senior/Key Personnel are required to update their Current and Pending (Other) Support disclosures prior to award, and at any subsequent time the agency determines appropriate during the term of the award. See additional information on NSF Disclosure Requirements in the PAPPG, Chapter II.B. Each Senior/Key Person must also certify prior to proposal submission that they are not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program and annually thereafter for the duration of the award.

Letters of Support from potential product/service users or customers are NOT ALLOWED in SBIR/STTR Phase I proposals. Letters of Commitment from subawardees that confirm the role of the subaward organization in the project and explicitly state the subaward amount should be included in the Supplementary Documents.

Additional information on the due diligence process , used as part of the review and selection process, has been clarified in Section VI. The due diligence process may include requests for clarification of the company structure, key personnel, conflicts of interest, foreign influence, cybersecurity practices, or other issues as determined by NSF. Participation in due diligence does not ensure an award recommendation.

This solicitation contains many instructions that deviate from the standard NSF PAPPG proposal preparation instructions. In the event of a conflict between the instructions in this solicitation and the PAPPG, use this solicitation’s instructions as a guide.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

NSF Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer Phase I Programs (SBIR/STTR Phase I)

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs provide non-dilutive funds for use-inspired research and development (R&D) of unproven, leading-edge, technology innovations that address societal challenges. By investing federal research and development funds into startups and small businesses, NSF helps build a strong national economy and stimulates the creation of novel products, services, and solutions in the private sector; strengthens the role of small business in meeting federal research and development needs; increases the commercial application of federally-supported research results; and develops and increases the U.S. workforce, especially by fostering and encouraging participation by socially and economically-disadvantaged and women-owned small businesses. NSF seeks unproven, leading-edge technology innovations that demonstrate the following characteristics: The innovations are underpinned and enabled by a new scientific discovery or meaningful engineering innovation. The innovations still require intensive technical research and development to be fully embedded in a reliable product or service. The innovations have not yet been reduced to practice by anyone and it is not guaranteed, at present, that doing so is technically possible. The innovations provide a strong competitive advantage that are not easily replicable by competitors (even technically proficient ones). Once reduced to practice, the innovations are expected to result in a product or service that would either be disruptive to existing markets or create new markets/new market segments. The NSF SBIR/STTR programs fund broadly across scientific and engineering disciplines and do not solicit specific technologies or procure goods and services from startups and small businesses. The funding provided is non-dilutive. Any invention conceived or reduced to practice with the assistance of SBIR/STTR funding is subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. For more information, refer to the SBIR/STTR Frequently Asked Questions, #75 . NSF encourages input and participation from the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer which includes underrepresented and underserved communities. This program is governed by 15 U.S.C. 638 and the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. ). Introduction to Program: The SBIR and STTR programs, initiated at NSF, were established in 1982 as part of the Small Business Innovation Development Act. The NSF SBIR/STTR programs focus on stimulating technical innovation from diverse entrepreneurs and startups by translating new scientific and engineering discoveries emerging from the private sector, federal labs, and academia into products and services that can be scaled and commercialized into sustainable businesses with significant societal benefits. The NSF SBIR/STTR programs are now part of the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) , which was recently launched to accelerate innovation and enhance economic competitiveness by catalyzing partnerships and investments that strengthen the links between fundamental research and technology development, deployment, and use.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

NSF SBIR/STTR Inbox, telephone: (703) 292-5111, email: [email protected]

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

• approximately 230-235 awards for SBIR Phase I per year, pending the availability of funds
• approximately 45-50 awards for STTR Phase I per year, pending the availability of funds
• Approximately $70,000,000-$72,000,000 for SBIR Phase I
• Approximately $13,000,000-$15,000,000 for STTR Phase I
• Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Proposers must obtain an official invitation to submit a proposal. To receive the invitation, potential proposers must submit a Project Pitch and receive an official response (via email) from the cognizant Program Officer. Project Pitch invitations are valid for two deadlines after the date of the initial official invitation from NSF; for example, if an official invitation is received on May 30, 2024, the proposer may submit for either the September 18, 2024, or November 6 deadline. In this example, submissions after November 6, 2024 will require a new Project Pitch invitation. Firms qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the NSF SBIR/STTR programs (see  Eligibility Guide  for more information). Please note that the size limit of 500 employees includes affiliates. The firm must be in compliance with the  SBIR/STTR Policy Directive  and the Code of Federal Regulations ( 13 CFR Part 121 ). For STTR proposals, the proposing small business must also include a partner research institution in the project, see additional details below. In compliance with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 , Section 10636 (Person or entity of concern prohibition) ( 42 U.S.C. 19235 ): No person published on the list under section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 ( Public Law 105-261 ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note ) or entity identified under section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 ( 10 U.S.C. 113 note ; Public Law 116-283 ) may receive or participate in any grant, award, program, support, or other activity under the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships. Individuals who are a current party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program are not eligible to serve as a Senior/Key Person on an NSF proposal or on any NSF award made after May 20, 2024. See current PAPPG for additional information on required certifications associated with Malign Foreign Talent Organization. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must certify that all individuals identified as Senior/Key Personnel have been made aware of and have complied with their responsibility under that section to certify that the individual is not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program. The startup’s or small business’ research and development (R&D) must be performed within the United States. Startups and small businesses funded by NSF must be majority U.S.-owned companies. NSF does not fund proposals from companies that are majority-owned by one or more venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds, or private equity firms. Proposals from joint ventures and partnerships are permitted, provided the proposing entity qualifies as a small business concern (see Eligibility Guide for more information). “Collaborative Proposal from Multiple Organizations” (a special proposal type in Research.gov) are not allowed. Startups and small businesses that have a social mission in their charter are encouraged to apply. Socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses and women-owned small businesses are also encouraged to apply.

Who May Serve as PI:

The primary employment of the Principal Investigator (PI) must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the award, unless a new PI is named. Primary employment is defined as at least 51 percent employed by the small business. NSF normally considers a full-time work week to be 40 hours and considers employment elsewhere of greater than 19.6 hours per week to be in conflict with this requirement. The PI must have a legal right to work for the proposing company in the United States, as evidenced by citizenship, permanent residency, or an appropriate visa. The PI does not need to be associated with an academic institution. There are no PI degree requirements (i.e., the PI is not required to hold a Ph.D. or any other degree). A PI must devote a minimum of one calendar month of effort per six months of performance to an NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I project.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

An organization may submit only one NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I Project Pitch and/or proposal per submission deadline. The organization must wait for a determination from NSF (e.g., invite/not invite for a Project Pitch or award, decline, or return without review for a proposal) before submitting a new Project Pitch or proposal. This eligibility constraint is strictly enforced. If an organization exceeds this limit, the first Project Pitch/proposal that is received will be reviewed and any additional Project Pitches/proposals will be Returned Without Review. Previously declined proposals require a new Project Pitch be submitted and invited. If invited, these proposals must represent a significant revision to the previously submitted SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal and must include a Resubmission Change Description describing these revisions, in the Other Supplementary Documents section. Proposals that have been Returned Without Review may be submitted using the same Project Pitch invitation (assuming that the proposal is received within two (2) deadlines of the initial Project Pitch invitation from NSF).

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

For NSF SBIR – 1 PI, co-PIs are not allowed. For NSF STTR - 1 PI and 1 co-PI are required (the PI must be an employee of the proposing small business and the co-PI must be part of the STTR partner research institution). An individual may act as the co-PI on an unlimited number of proposals. An individual may be listed as the PI for only one proposal submitted at a time to this NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I solicitation.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

Full Proposals: This solicitation contains information that deviates from the standard NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of the solicitation for further information.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs focus on transforming scientific discovery into commercial potential and/or societal benefit through the development of products or services.

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs fund research and development (R&D) and are designed to provide non-dilutive funding to support small business concerns with technologies at their earliest stages. NSF SBIR/STTR awards are not government contracts. The NSF does not use its SBIR/STTR programs to procure goods or services for the government. Any invention conceived or reduced to practice with the assistance of SBIR/STTR funding is subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. For more information, refer to the SBIR/STTR Frequently Asked Questions, #75 .

The NSF SBIR/STTR programs do not have a specific topical or technology focus. Generally, the topics included in the NSF SBIR/STTR solicitation are intended to be broad enough to permit startups with science- and engineering-based innovations to compete for funding, transforming science and engineering discovery and innovation into both societal and economic impact. NSF encourages people from all backgrounds and geographic areas to apply for funding. At the conclusion of the project, a recipient company must submit a final annual project report to NSF to ensure that the company properly spent NSF funds on approved activities, as originally proposed. Recipient companies will also need to submit a project outcomes report for the general public. NSF does not purchase these project reports and does not benefit from these reports, beyond an oversight function. NSF does not test, verify, or otherwise use the technology developed under its SBIR/STTR awards.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I program is highly competitive. While success rates vary year-to-year, only a fraction of proposals submitted are selected for an award. Thus, there are many qualified businesses applying to the program each year that do not receive funding.

II. Program Description

The NSF SBIR/STTR program encourages startups and small businesses to submit proposals across nearly all areas of science and engineering. *

While startups and small businesses face many challenges, the NSF SBIR/STTR funding is intended to specifically focus on challenges associated with technological innovation; that is, on the creation of new products, services, and other scalable solutions based on fundamental science or engineering. A successful Phase I proposal demonstrates how NSF funding will help the small business create a proof-of-concept or prototype by retiring technical risk. Funding from NSF may only be used to conduct research and development (R&D) to demonstrate technical feasibility.

NSF seeks SBIR/STTR proposals that represent success in three distinct, but related merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, and Commercialization Potential.

The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge and leverages fundamental science or engineering research techniques to overcoming technical risk. This can be conveyed through the Research and Development (R&D) of the project. R&D is broadly defined in 2 CFR § 200.1, but specified for the NSF SBIR/STTR program as follows:

• the use of the scientific method to propose well-reasoned, well-organized activities based on sound theory, computation, measurement, observation, experiment, or modeling ;
• the novel integration of new theories, analysis, data, or methods regarding cognition, heuristics, and related phenomena.

NSF SBIR/STTR proposals are evaluated via the concepts of Technical Risk and Technological Innovation. Technical Risk assumes that the possibility of technical failure exists for an envisioned product, service, or solution to be successfully developed. This risk is present even to those suitably skilled in the art of the component, subsystem, method, technique, tool, or algorithm in question. Technological Innovation indicates that the new product or service is differentiated from current products or services; that is, the new technology holds the potential to result in a product or service with a substantial and durable advantage over competing solutions on the market. It also generally provides a barrier to entry for competitors. This means that if the new product, service, or solution is successfully realized and brought to the market, it should be difficult for a well-qualified, competing firm to reverse-engineer or otherwise neutralize the competitive advantage generated by leveraging fundamental science or engineering research techniques.

The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential benefit to society and contribution to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes as outlined in the NSF PAPPG Merit Review Broader Impacts Criteria.

The NSF SBIR/STTR program funds the development of new, high-risk technology innovations intended to generate positive societal and economic outcomes. Proposers should also consider the Broader Impacts Review Criterion at 42 U.S.C. §1862p-14:

• Increasing the economic competitiveness of the United States.
• Advancing of the health and welfare of the American public.
• Supporting the national defense of the United States.
• Enhancing partnerships between academia and industry in the United States.
• Developing an American STEM workforce that is globally competitive through improved pre-kindergarten through grade 12 STEM education and teacher development and improved undergraduate STEM education and instruction.
• Improving public scientific literacy and engagement with science and technology in the United States.
• Expanding participation of groups underrepresented in STEM.

The Commercialization Potential of the proposed product or service is the potential for the resulting technology to disrupt the targeted market segment by way of a strong and durable value proposition for the customers or users.

• The proposed product or service addresses an unmet, important, and scalable need for the target customer base.
• The proposed small business is structured and staffed to focus on aggressive commercialization of the product/service.
• The proposed small business can provide evidence of good product-market fit (as validated by direct and significant interaction with customers and related stakeholders).

More details and information regarding the NSF SBIR/STTR merit review criteria can be found in Section VI of this solicitation.

* The NSF SBIR/STTR program does not support clinical trials or proposals from companies whose commercialization pathway involves the production, distribution, or sale by the company of chemical components, natural or synthetic variations thereof, or other derivatives related to Schedule I controlled substances.

III. Award Information

Phase I proposals may be submitted for up to $305,000 in R&D funding intended to support projects for 6-18 months. This amount is inclusive of all direct and indirect costs as well as the small business fee, Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) funding, and the optional, but highly encouraged Innovation Corps (I-Corps).

IV. Eligibility Information

Additional Eligibility Info:

Required Project Pitch Invitation: Potential proposers must receive an invitation to submit a full NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal. Please see Project Pitch website for details. STTR Research Institution.  The  SBIR/STTR Policy Directive  requires that STTR Phase I proposals include an eligible research institution as a subawardee on the project budget. The STTR partner research institution is typically either a not-for-profit institution focused on scientific or educational goals (such as a college or university), or a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). For an NSF STTR Phase I proposal, a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern, and a minimum of 30% must be performed by a single partner research institution, with the balance permitted to be allocated to either of these, or to other subawards or consultants. Partnering. Proposing firms are encouraged to collaborate with experienced researchers at available facilities such as colleges, universities, national laboratories, and from other research sites. Funding for such collaborations may include research subawards or consulting agreements. Although partnering is encouraged, proposals should NOT be marked as a "Collaborative Proposal from Multiple Organizations" during submission. The employment of faculty and students by the small business is allowed; however, For an NSF SBIR Phase I proposal , a minimum of two-thirds of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business. The balance of the budget may be outsourced to subawards or consultants or a combination thereof. For an NSF STTR Phase I proposal , the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive requires proposals to include an eligible research institution as a subawardee on the project budget. The institution is typically either a not-for-profit institution focused on scientific or educational goals (such as a college or university), or a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). A minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business. A minimum of 30% must be performed by a single partner research institution; The balance (remaining 30%) may be allocated to the small business, partner research institution, or to other subawards or consultants. Government-Wide Required Benchmarks (applies to previous SBIR/STTR recipients only): Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate Benchmark. For Phase I proposers that have received more than 20 Phase I SBIR/STTR awards from any federal agency over the past five fiscal years, the minimum Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate over that period is 25%. Small businesses that fail to meet this transition requirement will be notified by the Small Business Administration and will not be eligible to submit a Phase I proposal for one (1) year. Commercialization Benchmark. The commercialization benchmark required by the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 only applies to proposers that have received more than 15 Phase II Federal SBIR/STTR awards over the past 10 fiscal years, excluding the last two years. These companies must have achieved the minimum required commercialization activity to be eligible to submit a Phase I proposal, as determined by the information entered in the company registry at SBIR.gov . Visit link for more information on required benchmarks .

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in Research.gov in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

This solicitation contains MANY instructions that deviate from the standard NSF PAPPG proposal preparation instructions. This solicitation contains the information needed to prepare and submit a proposal and refers to specific sections of the PAPPG ONLY when necessary (and noted throughout the solicitation). In the event of a conflict between the instructions in this solicitation and the PAPPG, use this solicitation’s instructions as a guide.

Phase I Proposal and Program Objectives: NSF supports innovative technologies showing promise of commercial and/or societal impact and involving technical risk, to be addressed with techniques drawn from fundamental science and engineering research.

Required Project Pitch: To submit a full NSF SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal, potential proposers must first submit a Project Pitch and receive an invitation. The Project Pitch is designed to inform potential proposers if they meet the program’s objectives to support innovative technologies that show promise of commercial or societal impact and involve a level of technical risk. If the Project Pitch does meet the program’s objectives, then an invitation to submit a full proposal will be sent to the small business. This official invitation is valid for the next two submission deadlines. Those Project Pitches not invited to submit a full proposal may resubmit a Project Pitch (with revisions to address any deficiencies) after the close of the next submission deadline.

To start this process, potential proposers must first create a log in and submit a Project Pitch via the online form . The cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer will use the Project Pitch to determine whether the proposed project is a good fit for the program.

Only one Project Pitch per submission deadline is allowed, and a small business with a pending Project Pitch, Open Invitation, or full SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal under review must wait to receive a response before submitting another Project Pitch.

Proposals submitted without a Project Pitch invitation will be Returned Without Review.

Project Activities Not Responsive to the Solicitation:

• Evolutionary development or incremental modification of established products or proven concepts;
• Straightforward engineering or test and optimization efforts that are not hypothesis driven;
• Evaluation or testing of existing products;
• Basic scientific research or research not connected to any specific market opportunity or potential new product;
• Business development, market research, and sales and marketing;
• Clinical trials;
• Research or commercialization pathways involving chemical components, natural or synthetic variations thereof, or other derivatives related to Schedule I controlled substances; or
• Non-profit business concerns.

A. Registrations

Small businesses applying for NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I funding must be registered in the following systems to submit a proposal to NSF.

The registrations below can take several weeks or even months to process, so please start early.

You must register your company name, physical address, and all other identifying information  identically in  each of these systems.  We recommend that you register your small business in the following order:

• NSF will validate that each proposer’s UEI and SAM registration are valid and active prior to allowing submission of a proposal to NSF. If a registration is not active, an organization will not be able to submit a proposal. Additionally, if the SAM registration is not renewed annually and is not valid, NSF will block any award approval actions.
• Any subawardees or subcontractors are also required to obtain a UEI and register in Research.gov. Entities can obtain a SAM UEI without full SAM registration. If you have a subrecipient that is not fully registered in SAM, but has been assigned a UEI number, please call the IT Help desk for further assistance.
• Small Business Administration (SBA) Company Registration.  A Small Business Concern Identification number (SBC ID) is required prior to submission of the proposal. SBA maintains and manages a Company Registry for SBIR/STTR proposers at  https://www.sbir.gov/registration/  to track ownership and affiliation requirements. All SBCs must report ownership information prior to each SBIR/STTR proposal submission and update the SBC if any information changes prior to award.
• Research.gov:  For more information, consult the "About Account Management" page at  https://www.research.gov/ .

Note: Each of these registrations is free through the federal government. Beware of scammers charging fees for SAM and/or SBA registrations.

B. Tips on the Proposal Preparation and Submission

Failure to comply with the below guidelines means that a proposal may be Returned Without Review. 

INCLUDE ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS.  Submit a proposal that is complete. Proposals must have each of the items listed below:

• Cover Sheet
• SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Questionnaire
• SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Certification Questions
• Project Summary
• Table of Contents (automatically generated)
• Project Description (no less than 10 pages and no more than 15 pages)
• References Cited
• Budget(s) (no more than $305,000 total)
• Budget Justification(s)
• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
• Biographical Sketch(es)
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) Information (Single Copy Document)
• Synergistic Activities
• Data Management and Sharing Plan
• Mentoring Plan (Conditionally required)
• Letter(s) of Support (NOT ALLOWED)
• IP (Intellectual Property) Rights Agreement (Required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution
• Other Personnel Biographical Information
• Company Commercialization History (if applicable)
• Letters of Commitment from Subawardees and Consultants
• Resubmission Change Description (if applicable)
• List of Suggested Reviewer s (Single Copy Document)
• List of Reviewers Not to Include (Single Copy Document)
• Deviation Authorization
• Additional Single Copy Documents

DO NOT  upload information beyond what is specifically required and permitted into the proposal (i.e., do not include marketing materials, research results, academic papers, patent applications, etc.).

DO NOT include samples, videotapes, slides, appendices, or other ancillary items within a proposal submission. Websites containing demonstrations and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) (if applicable) must be cited in the References Cited section. Note: reviewers are not required to access them. Please refer to the NSF PAPPG (Chapter II.C) for more details on accepted proposal fonts and format. The incorporation of URLs or websites within the proposal’s Project Description will not be accepted.

C. Detailed Instructions on Invited Proposal Preparation

Full Proposal Set-up: In Research.gov, complete the following steps.

• Select "Prepare & Submit Proposals,” then “Letters of Intent and Proposals”
• Funding Opportunity. Either filter by “SBIR” or “STTR”, and select radio button for Phase I solicitation. Next.
• Where to Apply. Select program: SBIR Phase II or STTR Phase II. Next. Select the appropriate SBIR or STTR program (Phase I or Phase II). Next.
• Proposal Type: SBIR or STTR. Next.
• Is your organization a sole proprietorship? Use radio buttons.
• Enter your Proposal Title.
• Enter Proposal Title, then click on Prepare Proposal
• You will now be on a new proposal page – Select Due Date (upper right corner),

For additional detailed instructions on how to submit, see the website: https://seedfund.nsf.gov/apply/full-proposal/

Cover Sheet. This section requests general information about the proposal and proposing organization.

Other Federal Agencies (if applicable). If this proposal is being submitted to another Federal Agency, state or local governments, or non-governmental entities, enter a reasonable abbreviation, up to 10 characters, for each agency or entity. Only the first 5 agencies you enter will appear on the PDF version of the proposal, but all should be entered below. IT IS ILLEGAL TO ACCEPT DUPLICATE FUNDING FOR THE SAME WORK. IF A PROPOSER FAILS TO DISCLOSE EQUIVALENT OR OVERLAPPING PROPOSALS, THE PROPOSER COULD BE LIABLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL, AND/OR CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.

Human Subjects (if applicable). According to 45 CFR 46 , a human subject is "a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research:

• Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or
• Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.”

NIH provides a Decision Tool to assist investigators in determining whether their project involves non-exempt human subjects research, meetings the criteria for exempt human subjects research, or does not involve human subjects research.

Projects involving research with human subjects must ensure that subjects are protected from research risks in conformance with the relevant Federal policy known as the Common Rule ( Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 690 ). All projects involving human subjects must either (1) have approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) before issuance of an NSF award; or (2) must obtain a statement from the IRB indicating research exemption from IRB review; or 3) must obtain a just in time IRB designation and documentation. This documentation needs to be completed during due diligence discussions, in accordance with the applicable subsection, as established in section 101(b) of the Common Rule. If certification of exemption is provided after submission of the proposal and before the award is issued, the exemption number corresponding to one or more of the exemption categories also must be included in the documentation provided to NSF. The small business has three basic options with regard to human subjects review:

• Establish your own IRB (see Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irbs-and-assurances.html#registernew .
• Use the review board of a (usually local) university or research institution, either via consultants to the project, a project subcontract, or directly through its own contacts;
• Use a commercial provider.

For projects lacking definite plans for the use of human subjects, their data, or their specimens, pursuant to 45 CFR § 690.118 , NSF can accept a determination notice that establishes a limited time period under which the PI may conduct preliminary or conceptual work that does not involve human subjects. See more information and instructions regarding this documentation in the PAPPG.

Live Vertebrate Animals (if applicable). Any project proposing use of vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal Welfare Act ( 7 USC 2131, et seq. ) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture ( 9 CFR 1 .1 -4.11 ) pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of vertebrate animals held or used for research, teaching or other activities supported by Federal awards.

In accordance with these requirements, proposed projects involving use of any vertebrate animal for research or education must be approved by the submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made. For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Public Health Service (PHS) Approved Assurance. See also PAPPG for additional information on the administration of awards that utilize vertebrate animals. This documentation must be completed before issuance of an NSF award.

SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Questionnaire. The Phase I Questionnaire must be filled in completely including: Phase I Information (SBIR/STTR Phase I Topic and required Project Pitch Number), Authorized Company Officer Information, Proposing Small Business Information, SBIR/STTR Award History, Affiliated Companies, and Other Information.

Other Information. Proprietary Information. To the extent permitted by law, the Government will not release properly identified and marked technical and commercially sensitive data.

If the proposal does not contain proprietary information, uncheck the box in the Phase I Questionnaire.

If the proposal does contain proprietary information identify the proprietary technical data by clearly marking the information and also providing a legend. NSF SBIR/STTR data, including proposals, are protected from disclosure by the participating agencies for not less than 20 years from the delivery of the last report or proposal associated with the given project. Typically, proprietary information is identified in the text either with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the proprietary paragraph, underlining the proprietary sections, or choosing a different font type. An entire proposal should not be marked proprietary.

SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Certification Questions. This form must be filled in completely.

Project Summary [One (1) page MAXIMUM]. The Project Summary should be written in the third person, informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. It should not be an abstract of the proposal. Do not include proprietary information.

The Project Summary is to be completed with headers on three separate lines for Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. To be valid, a heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. The document must be converted to pdf format to be uploaded into Research.gov.

• Overview: Describe the potential outcome(s) of the proposed activity in terms of a product, process, or service. Provide a list of key words or phrases that identify the areas of technical expertise to be invoked in reviewing the proposal and the areas of application that are the initial target of the technology. Provide the subtopic name.
• Intellectual Merit: This section MUST begin with "This Small Business Innovation Research (or Small Business Technology Transfer) Phase I project..." Address the intellectual merits of the proposed activity. Briefly describe the technical hurdle(s) that will be addressed by the proposed R&D (which should be crucial to successful commercialization of the innovation), the goals of the proposed R&D, and a high-level summary of the plan to reach those goals.
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impact is considered in two ways: 1) the impact on education, the environment, science, society, the nation, and/or the world and 2) the potential commercial impact. Discuss the expected outcomes in terms of both of these impacts. For the Commercialization Potential: describe how the proposed project will bring the innovation closer to commercialization under a sustainable business model. In this box, also describe the potential commercial and market impacts that such a commercialization effort would have, if successful.

Project Description [Ten (10) pages MINIMUM; fifteen (15) pages MAXIMUM]. The project description is the core of the proposal document. Ensure that the following headers: Intellectual Merits, Company/Team, Broader Impacts, and Commercialization Potential are used. Questions under each header are for your consideration in considering the scope and depth of the response – every proposal topic is different, and it is up to the proposer to provide a convincing/compelling case for a funding recommendation.

Intellectual Merit (recommend 7-10 pages, including the technical solution and R&D plan):

• What is(are) the proposed technical innovation(s)? What is the new scientific/engineering insight that underpins it? (Provide a description of the innovation including the novel scientific/engineering aspects that enable the realization of the final product.)
• What are the technical risks/barriers and how does the proposal address them? What are the go/no-go technical risks/barriers that are unique to your approach and are preventing the innovation from achieving the impact the team intends it to make?
• Please provide a detailed R&D plan, including a timeline, milestones, risk mitigation and quantitative success criteria.
• Explain the significance of the Phase I milestones and how they relate to the commercial objectives of the technology.

Company/Team (recommend 1-2 pages):

• Describe the company founders or key participants in this proposed project. What level of effort will these persons devote to the proposed Phase I activities? How does the background and experience of the team enhance the credibility of the effort? Have they previously taken similar products/services to market? Describe the company’s core competencies as related to this project. What capabilities (e.g., personnel, consultants, and subawardees) and resources (facilities, equipment, etc.) will need to be deployed to successfully achieve the Phase I objectives? Outline how the company and the project team have the necessary expertise, resources, and support to carry out the project and that they are committed to building a viable business around the product/service being developed. If your proposal includes consultants, within the text of the Project Description discuss how the requested consultant effort will contribute to the project. Describe your vision for the company and the company's expected impact over the next five years.
• If the company has existing operations, describe how the proposed effort would fit into these activities.
• Provide the date when the company was founded and describe the revenue history, if any, for the past three years. Include and explicitly state government funding and private investment in this discussion.

Broader Impacts (recommend 1-2 pages):

• What is the motivation for the company to take on this project?
• Clearly articulate how the proposed technology will result in a societal benefit. Which communities will benefit and on what timeline?
• How will the societal benefits be measured and tracked?
• What steps are being taken to recognize and minimize the unintended consequences of the proposed technology?

Commercialization Potential (recommend 1-3 pages):

• Is there a compelling potential business model?
• What is your initial target market and its size? How have you validated this market needs your technology?
• Provide a detailed plan on your pathway to generate revenue and to become a self-sustaining entity. Present a compelling case that the project will significantly advance the readiness of the technology and strengthen its commercial position.
• Describe the value proposition of the proposed technology.
• Describe your plans to address regulatory (including permitting) or safety standards and ethical considerations involved in developing your technology and bringing your product or service to market.
• Describe your intellectual property strategy and provide a brief rationale for why you chose this strategy.
• Provide a detailed description of the competitive landscape and your sustainable competitive advantage.
• Describe the company’s complete funding history.

Note: The incorporation of URLs or websites within the Project Description is not acceptable and the proposal may be Returned without Review.

References Cited. Provide a comprehensive listing of relevant references, including websites or relevant URLs, patent numbers, and other relevant intellectual property citations. A list of References Cited must be uploaded into the system. If there are no references cited in the proposal, please indicate this by putting the statement "No References Cited" into this module.

Budget(s). Proposers are required to submit budgets with their proposals, including specific dollar amounts by budget category. Budget justification(s) are used to explain these amounts in detail. The proposed Budget should reflect the needs of the proposed R&D project. Enter budget figures for each project year into Research.gov. The system will automatically generate a cumulative budget for the entire project.

You can add Subaward Organization(s) to your proposal (required for STTR submissions and allowed for SBIR submissions) and make changes to personnel information by navigating to the "Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations" page.

The total budget shall not exceed $305,000 for the SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal.

All activities on an NSF SBIR/STTR project, including services that are provided by consultants, must be carried out in the United States ("United States" means the 50 states, the territories and possessions of the U.S. Federal Government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).Based on a rare and unique circumstance, agencies may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside of the United States, for example, if a supply or material or other item or project requirement is not available in the United States. The Funding Agreement officer must approve each such specific condition in writing.

The total budget shall not exceed $305,000 for the Phase I proposal.

You can add additional senior/key personnel to your proposal (e.g., for STTR submissions), and make changes to personnel information by navigating to the "Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations" page.

Postdoctoral scholars and students (undergraduate and graduate) are generally listed on a subaward budget to a research institution. If they are employees of the company, they may be listed in Line A. Senior/Key Personnel (Line A), or Line B. Other Professionals or Other, as appropriate.

Secretarial/clerical effort is generally included as part of indirect costs. Salaries for secretarial/clerical should be budgeted as a direct cost only if this type of cost is consistently treated as a direct cost in like circumstances for all other project and cost objectives.

• Line C. Fringe Benefits. It is recommended that proposers allot funds for fringe benefits here ONLY if the proposer's usual (established) accounting practices provide that fringe benefits be treated as direct costs. Otherwise, fringe benefits should be included in Line I. Indirect Costs.
• Line D. Equipment . Equipment may NOT be purchased on an NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I grant. Equipment is defined as an item of property that has an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more (unless the organization has established lower levels) and an expected service life of more than one year.
• Line E. Travel. With the exception of attendance of the NSF SBIR/STTR Grantees’ Conference (which should be acknowledged), all budgeted travel must be necessary for the successful execution of the Phase I R&D effort. Travel for purposes other than the project R&D effort (e.g., marketing or customer engagements) is not permitted, EXCEPT for participation in I-Corps, see discussion below for Line G. Other. Foreign travel expenses are NOT permitted.
• Line F. Participant Support Costs. Participant support costs are NOT permitted.

Publication Costs/Documentation/Distrib . Publication, documentation, and dissemination costs are not allowed.

Consultant Services. Consultant services include specialized work that will be performed by professionals that are not employees of the proposing small business. See Budget Justification for information on inclusion of Letters of Commitment, Consultant Rate and Biographical Sketch. All consultant activities must be carried out in the United States (see above).

No person who is an equity holder, employee, or officer of the proposing small business may be paid as a consultant unless an exception is recommended by the cognizant Program Director and approved by the Division Director of Translational Impacts (TI).

Computer Services. Funds may be allocated for computer services. Requested services with a total cost exceeding $5,000 may require pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order or invoice) after the proposal is reviewed, as part of the cognizant Program Director’s due diligence efforts. Please see Section VI for details.

Subaward(s). Subawards may be utilized when a significant portion of the work will be performed by another organization and when the work to be done is not widely commercially available. Work performed by a university or research laboratory is one example of a common subaward. A subawardee research institution partner is mandatory for STTR proposals .

For NSF SBIR proposals , subaward funds do not count as funds spent by the small business. The total amount requested for subawards (when added to consultant funds) cannot exceed 1/3 of the total project budget.

For STTR proposals , a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern and a minimum of 30% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by a single subawardee research institution, with the balance permitted to be allocated to either of these, or to other subawards or consultants.

Subawards require a separate subaward budget and subaward budget justification, in the same format as the main budget. To enter a subaward budget in Research.gov, go to the Budget module tab and add Subaward Organization(s) by opening “ Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations .” Each subawardee will have its own budget pages for each year of the project.

Subawardees (the institution, not the individual PI or researcher) should also provide a Letter of Commitment that confirms the role of the subaward organization in the project and explicitly states the subaward amount. Provide this letter as part of the Supplementary Documents. Multiple letters should be combined as a single PDF before uploading.

Any subrecipients named in the proposal are also required to obtain a SAM UEI and register in Research.gov . Subrecipients named in the proposal, however, do not need to be registered in SAM. Entities can obtain a SAM UEI without full SAM registration. If you have a subrecipient that is not fully registered in SAM, but has been assigned a UEI number, please call the IT Help desk for further assistance.

An Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (IP Rights Agreement) is required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution. A fully signed agreement is not required for STTR proposals at the initial proposal submission but will be required before a recommendation for an award can be made. Provide this Agreement, as a PDF, as part of the Optional Documents.

No person who is an equity holder, employee, or officer of the proposing small business may be paid under a subaward unless an exception is recommended by the cognizant Program Director and approved by the TI Division Director.

Other. This line includes the purchase of analytical services, other services, or fabricated components from commercial sources. Requested services or components with a total cost exceeding $5,000 may require pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order or invoice) after the proposal is reviewed, as part of the SBIR/STTR Program Officer’s due diligence efforts. There are 3 other activities that may be included on G. Other Direct Costs - Other. The funds noted below may ONLY be spent on the commercial or business purposes explicitly permitted below.

• Hiring a certified public accountant (CPA) to prepare audited, compiled, or reviewed financial statements;
• Hiring a CPA to perform an initial financial viability assessment based on standard financial ratios so the recipient organization would have time to improve their financial position prior to submitting the Phase II proposal;
• Hiring a CPA to review the adequacy of the recipient's project cost accounting system; and/or
• Purchasing a project cost accounting system.
• NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps): The proposer is strongly encouraged to budget up to an additional $25,000 to cover costs related to undertaking the I-Corps program. I-Corps is an immersive, seven-week, entrepreneurial training program that facilitates the translation of invention to impact. This program provides direct, hands-on experience in customer discovery — a key step in the entrepreneurial process that involves talking to and getting critical feedback from potential customers, partners, and other industry stakeholders. The interviews allow the team to evaluate the commercial potential of their innovation for translation into a successful product and/or service. Other benefits of the I-Corps program include mentorship and networking opportunities. Simply list this item as “I-Corps" in the Budget Justification. I-Corps is a competitive program, acceptance into the program is not guaranteed as a result of an SBIR/STTR Phase I award. Costs that are allowable are limited to travel costs related to customer discovery as part of the I-Corps program (this could include costs associated with registration/attendance at events for the purpose of customer discovery) and salary/wages for team members who participate. All costs related to the I-Corps training must be in line with approved salary rates and other relevant Federal guidelines. Note: International travel for customer discovery cannot be reimbursed, nor can any salary/wages for work done while outside of the United States.
• SBIR/STTR Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) : Proposers are encouraged to include up to $6,500 to assist in technology commercialization efforts (as outlined in the current SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and H.R.5515 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 . Prior to expending funds for TABA, the recipient will be required to obtain approval from their cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer. Specifically, TABA funding is for securing the services of one or more third-party service providers that will assist with one or more of the following commercialization activities:
• Phase II commercialization plan research and preparation;
• Phase II broader impact plan research and preparation;
• Making better technical decisions on SBIR/STTR projects;
• Solving technical problems that arise during SBIR/STTR projects;
• Minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR/STTR projects; and/or
• Commercializing the SBIR/STTR product or process, including securing intellectual property protections.
• Line I. Indirect Costs . Indirect costs are defined as costs that are necessary and appropriate for the operation of the business, but which are not specifically allocated to the project. Common indirect cost expenses include legal and accounting expenses, employee health insurance, fringe benefits, rent, and utilities. If your small business has a Federally negotiated rate, please provide a copy of the negotiated indirect cost rate agreement. If your organization has no negotiated rate with a federal agency, and no previous experience with Federal indirect cost rate negotiation, you may claim (without submitting justification) a total amount of indirect costs (inclusive of fringe benefits) either up to 50% of total budgeted salary and wages on the project or equal to 10% de minimis on MODIFIED total direct costs on the project. Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC): MTDC means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs, and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs.
• Line K. Fee. Up to 7% of the total indirect and direct project costs may be requested as a small business fee (7% of Line J). The fee is intended to be consistent with normal profit margins provided to profit-making firms for R&D work. The fee applies solely to the small business receiving the award and not to any other participant in the project. The fee is not a direct or indirect "cost" item and may be used by the small business concern for any purpose, including additional effort under the NSF SBIR/STTR award (including items on the "Prohibited Expenditures" list below). Prohibited Expenditures including, but not limited to, Equipment, Foreign Travel, Participant Support Costs, and Publication Costs are not allowable expenditures as either direct or indirect costs. However, these expenses may be purchased from the small business fee funds (Line K).

Budget Justification(s). The Budget Justification is uploaded in the Budget Justification section of Research.gov as a single PDF file. Provide details for each non-zero line item of the budget, including a description and cost estimates. Identify each line item by its letter and number (e.g., Subawards). Each non-zero line item should be described in the Budget Justification, but several sections also require more specific information as detailed below. There is a five-page limit for each Budget Justification (including Subaward Budget Justifications, where required). Additional information to help prepare your proposal budget is available here .

Lines A. and B. Personnel . Provide the names, titles, and a brief description of responsibilities for the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and each of the Senior/Key Personnel. Also provide a concise description of their responsibilities on the project. Provide the actual annual, monthly, or hourly salary rate, the time commitment and a calculation of the total requested salary.

Line C. Fringe Benefits. Describe what is included in fringe benefits and the calculations that were used to arrive at the amount requested. It is recommended that proposers allot funds for fringe benefits here ONLY if the proposer's usual (established) accounting practices provide that fringe benefits be treated as direct costs. Otherwise, fringe benefits should be included in Line I. Indirect Costs.

Line E. Travel. Describe the purpose for domestic travel and acknowledge attendance at the NSF SBIR/STTR Grantees’ Conference. A good estimate for the NSF SBIR/STTR Grantees’ Workshop is $2,000 per person and is limited to $4,000 per year. No supporting detail is required for attendance at the Awardee Workshop at $2,000 (or less) per person. If the Conference is organized virtually only, proposers can (if awarded) reallocate these funds towards other project activities, pending the approval of the cognizant SBIR/STTR Program Officer.

For other trips, include the expected number of trips, number of persons traveling, length of each trip, purpose and destination of each trip, and a rough breakdown of the expected cost of each trip.

Line F. Participant Support Costs. Participant Support costs are not permitted as part of an SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal.

Line G. Other Direct Costs.

Materials and Supplies. Provide an itemized list of the materials and supplies, with the quantity, unit cost, and total cost for each item. Items with a total line item cost over $5,000 may require quote or pricing documentation after the proposal has been reviewed, as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer’s due diligence efforts.

Consultant Services. Provide a copy of the signed Letter of Commitment in the proposal’s Supplementary Documents section. Each consultant, whether paid or unpaid, must provide a signed statement that confirms availability, time commitment, role in the project, and the agreed upon consulting rate. The consulting rate under this solicitation can be a maximum of $1,000 per day (NSF defines a day as 8 hours). Consultant travel should be shown under the domestic travel category, Line E, but counts as an outsourcing expense for the purpose of determining whether the small business concern meets the minimum level of effort for an NSF SBIR/STTR proposal. The consultant agreement should identify the number of days and its associated daily rate.

Biographical sketches for each consultant may be requested by the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Director after the proposal is reviewed, as part of their due diligence efforts. Please see Section VI for details.

Subawards. Explicitly list who the research partner will be and provide a brief description of the work they will perform.

Other. The Budget Justification should indicate the specifics of the materials and supplies required, including an estimated cost for each item. Items with a total cost exceeding $5,000 may require pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order or invoice) after the proposal is reviewed, as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer’s due diligence efforts. Please see Section VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures for details. Companies should provide a detailed itemized list (a table works well) of all materials including item description, quantity, unit price and total price in the Budget Justification, and provide a total that matches the amount in this line.

Line I. Indirect Costs. Provide the calculations that were used to arrive at the amount requested. Please briefly indicate the major cost categories that are included as indirect costs.

Line K. Fee. Provide the calculation that was used to arrive at the amount requested.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources. Specify the availability and location of significant equipment, instrumentation, computers, and physical facilities necessary to complete the portion of the research that is to be carried out by the proposing firm in Phase I. If the equipment, instrumentation, computers, and facilities for this research are not the property (owned or leased) of the proposing firm, include a statement signed by the owner or lessor which affirms the availability of these facilities for use in the proposed research, reasonable lease or rental costs for their use, and any other associated costs. Upload images of the scanned statements into this section.

Many research projects require access to computational, data, analysis, and/or visualization resources to complete the work proposed. For projects that require such resources at scales beyond what may be available locally, researchers in all disciplines can apply for allocations for computer or data resources from over two dozen high-performance computational systems via the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support (ACCESS) program. See cognizant Program Officer or PAPPG for additional details. If a proposer wants to arrange the use of unique or one-of-a-kind Government facilities, a waiver must be obtained from the Small Business Administration to approve such use.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents. For the PI, Co-PI, and for each person in the “Senior/Key Personnel” section, the four required documents are listed below.

• Biographical Sketch(es). The biographical sketch is used to assess how well qualified the individual, team, or organization is to conduct the proposed activities. A biographical sketch must be provided separately for each individual (PI, co-PI (if STTR), and Senior/Key Personnel (individuals with critical expertise who will be working on the project and are employed at the proposing company or at a subaward organization). Proposers must prepare biographical sketch files using SciENcv (Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae) , which will produce a compliant PDF. Senior/Key Personnel must prepare, save, certify, and submit these documents as part of their proposal via Research.gov. Full requirements for these documents can be found in the current NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. Frequently Asked Questions on using SciENcv can be found here .
• Name of sponsoring organization.
• Total award amount (if already awarded) or expected award amount (if pending) for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs).
• Title and performance period of the proposal or award.
• Annual person-months (calendar months) devoted to the project by the PI or Senior/Key Personnel.

Please report:

• All current and pending support for ongoing projects and proposals (from any source, including in kind support or equity investment), including continuing grant and contract funding.
• Proposals submitted to other agencies. Concurrent submission of a proposal to other organizations will not influence the review of the proposal submitted to NSF.
• Upcoming submissions.
• The current Phase I proposal is considered "pending" and therefore MUST appear in the Current and Pending Support form for each PI and Senior/Key Personnel.
• Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information (Single Copy Document). This document must be provided for the PI, Co-PI (if STTR) and each Senior/Key Person. This document will not be viewable by reviewers but will be used by NSF to manage the selection of reviewers. Download the required Collaborators and Other Affiliations template and follow the instructions. Detailed information about the required content is available in the current PAPPG. Frequently Asked Questions on COA can be found here .
• Synergistic Activities. Each individual identified as a senior/key person must provide a PDF document of up to one-page that includes a list of up to five distinct examples that demonstrates the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples of synergistic activities may include but are not limited to the training of junior scientists and engineers in innovation and entrepreneurship; the development of new and novel products, tools, and/or services based on deep technologies; broadening participation of groups underrepresented in STEM; service to the scientific and engineering communities outside the individual’s company; and/or participation in the national and/or international commercial market.

Data Management and Sharing Plan. Proposals MUST contain a supplementary PDF labeled "Data Management and Sharing Plan," which should include the statement, "All data generated in this NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I project is considered proprietary." This single sentence is sufficient to fulfill the Data Management and Sharing Plan requirement, but proposers may add more detail about how the resulting data will be managed, if they desire. The PDF cannot exceed 2 pages.

Mentoring Plan (Conditionally required). If a proposal requests funding to support postdoctoral scholars or graduate students at a research institution (through a subaward), a Mentoring Plan MUST be uploaded to the system. The mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral scholars or graduate students supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization or at any subrecipient organization. Describe only the mentoring activities that will be provided to all postdoctoral scholars or graduate students supported by the project. The PDF cannot exceed 1 page.

Individual Development Plans (IDP) for Postdoctoral Scholars and Graduate Students. For each NSF award that provides substantial support to postdoctoral scholars and graduate students, each individual must have an Individual Development Plan, which is updated annually. The IDP maps the educational goals, career exploration, and professional development of the individual. NSF defines “substantial support” as an individual that has received one person month or more during the annual reporting period under the NSF award. Certification that a postdoctoral scholar(s) and/or graduate student(s) has and IDP must be included in the annual and final reports.

Optional. NOTE: Various subsections are REQUIRED depending on the type of proposal (SBIR or STTR), whether the company has a Commercialization History, whether this proposal is a resubmission, etc. Please read section requirements carefully.

• Letters of Support. Letters of Support are NOT allowed; Do not upload documents here.

(i) State specifically the degree of responsibility, and ownership of any product, process, or other invention or Innovation resulting from the cooperative research. The degree of responsibility shall include responsibility for expenses and liability, and the degree of ownership shall also include the specific rights to revenues and profits.

(ii) State which party may obtain United States or foreign patents or otherwise protect any inventions resulting from the cooperative research.

(iii) State which party has the right to any continuation of research, including non-STTR follow-on awards

• Other Personnel Biographical Information (Strongly recommended). This optional section can be used to provide additional biographical information about project participants who are not listed as Senior/Key Personnel for the small business or for a subawardee. Documents must use the format provided in the PAPPG instructions. Biographical sketches should be prepared using SciENcv .
• Company Commercialization History (required, if applicable). A Company Commercialization History is required for all proposers certifying receipt of previous SBIR/STTR Phase II awards from any Federal agency in Question 11 of the SBIR Phase I Certification Questions. All items must be addressed in the format given in the NSF Commercialization History Template . Changes to the NSF template, additional narratives and/or commercialization history documents from other agencies are not permitted.
• Letters of Commitment from Subawardees and Consultants (Strongly recommended). Please refer to Budget(s) – Subaward(s) for details.
• Resubmission Change Description (required, if applicable). A declined proposal may be resubmitted only after it has undergone substantial revision and only with the receipt of a new invited Project Pitch . A resubmitted proposal that has not clearly considered the major comments or concerns resulting from the prior NSF review may be Returned Without Review. The Foundation will treat the revised proposal as a new proposal, subject to the standard review procedures.

Note: The proposing company must indicate in Question 10 of the SBIR/STTR Phase I Certification Questions if the current proposal is a revision of a previously declined proposal. The Resubmission Change Description, uploaded in the Other Supplementary Documents, must detail the substantial revisions that have been made to the original submission.

List of Suggested Reviewers (Single Copy Document). This optional section can be used to suggest the names of reviewers who might be appropriate to assess the technical and commercial merits of the proposal. Reviewers who have significant personal or professional relationships with the proposing small business or its personnel should generally not be included.

List of Reviewers Not to Include (Single Copy Document). This optional section can be used to suggest names (or even specific affiliations) of reviewers that the proposer prefers not be involved in the review of their proposal.

Deviation Authorization (Single Copy Document). This section should generally not be used unless NSF staff have specifically instructed the proposer to do so.

Additional Single Copy Documents: Project Pitch Invitation (required). In this section, proposers must submit a copy of the email invitation from an NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer – in response to a submitted Project Pitch – inviting the company to submit a full proposal. Please convert this invitation email to a PDF before uploading.

Cost Sharing:

D. Research.gov Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this program solicitation via Research.gov. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects or proposal preparation and submission via Research.gov are available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

The NSF SBIR/STTR program has an additional criterion, Commercial Impact, to reflect the emphasis on commercialization and complement the standard NSF review criteria listed above. Commercial impacts (both economic and otherwise) for the NSF SBIR/STTR program focuses on the potential of the activity to lead to significant outcomes in the commercial market. The following criteria should be applied in the review of this criterion:

• Is there a significant market opportunity that could be addressed by the proposed product, process, or service?
• Does the company possess a significant and durable competitive advantage, based on scientific or technological innovation, that would be difficult for competitors to neutralize or replicate?
• Does the proposing company/team have the essential elements, including expertise, structure, and experience, that would suggest the potential for strong commercial outcomes?
• Will NSF support serve as a catalyst to improve substantially the technical and commercial impact of the underlying commercial endeavor?

NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I Award Considerations

Once the panel and/or ad hoc review of an individual NSF SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal has concluded and the proposal is considered potentially meritorious, a follow-on due diligence process may be conducted in which the PI will be asked to provide additional information and/or to answer questions specific to their proposal in order to inform the final decision. This due diligence process will address weaknesses and questions raised during the external merit review as well as by the cognizant SBIR/STTR Program Officer. The due diligence process may include requests for clarification of the company structure, key personnel, conflicts of interest, foreign influence, cybersecurity practices, or other issues as determined by NSF. Participation in the due diligence process does not ensure an award recommendation.

NSF SBIR Phase I proposals submitted to this solicitation which are considered meritorious, and which meet all the requirements of the NSF STTR Phase I program may, based on budgetary considerations and at NSF's discretion, be converted for award as an NSF STTR Phase I project. NSF may also, at its discretion, convert NSF STTR Phase I proposals to NSF SBIR Phase I proposals. The award mechanism for either will be a fixed price grant.

NSF requires each NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I recipient company to attend and participate in the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I Awardees Workshop.

Requirements Relating to Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM). Organizations are responsible for utilizing SAM to submit government-wide representations and certifications. Prior to proposal submission, all proposing organizations are required to have reviewed and certified compliance with the government-wide financial assistance representations and certifications maintained in SAM. Failure to comply with SAM certification and registration requirements will impact the submission and processing of the proposal. If a registration is not active, an organization will not be able to submit a proposal, nor will NSF be able to take approval actions on any submitted proposals or recommended awards. Additionally, payments will not be able to be processed and approved. An expired registration will impact an organization’s ability to submit proposals and/or receive award payments. Note that if an organization’s registration lapses, it will take longer to reactivate the registration than if the registration is still active when doing the revalidation and recertification.

SAM is the NSF system of record for organizational information, including financial and address information. The Legal Business Name and Physical Address information are automatically pulled from SAM and used by NSF to validate organizational information. All name and address changes must be handled via SAM. NSF has no control over SAM and cannot override SAM data or statuses

Debriefing of Unsuccessful Proposals. As outlined in Chapter IV of the PAPPG, a proposer may request additional information from the cognizant Program Officer or Division Director. Proposers may contact the cognizant Program Officer to set up a date/time for a debrief call.

Reconsideration . SBIR or STTR Phase I proposals are ineligible for reconsideration.

Resubmission. A proposer of a previously declined proposal must submit a new Project Pitch and, if invited, submit a new proposal after substantial revision, to be explicitly noted at submission. Proposals Returned Without Review may be corrected for solicitation compliance issues and resubmitted with the same invited Project Pitch (within two deadlines of the initial Project Pitch invite). If two submission deadlines have passed, the proposer will need to submit a new Project Pitch for review.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for infrastructure projects under an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

NSF SBIR/STTR recipients are subject to the Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Phase I Grant General Conditions (SBIR-I) dated May 20,2024. These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/sbir/sbiri_0524.pdf .

SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification:

SBIR/STTR prospective grantees will be notified by NSF to provide a signed SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification. The Federal government relies on the information provided by grantees to determine whether the business is eligible for an SBIR or STTR Program award. Certification will be used to ensure continued compliance during the life of the funding agreement ( https://seedfund.nsf.gov/assets/files/awardees/SBIR_STTR_Funding_Agreement.pdf ).

NSF SBIR/STTR Statement on Harassment:

The PI and any co-PI(s) identified on an NSF award are in a position of trust. These individuals must comport themselves in a responsible and accountable manner during the award period of performance, including but not limited to the following environments: the lab, online, or at locales such as field sites, facilities, customer discovery sites, or conferences/workshops. All personnel supported by an NSF award must remain in full compliance with grantee policies and/or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) Notification:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) maintains a Hotline to receive this information, which can be reached at https://oig.nsf.gov/contact/hotline . Disclosures can also be made via an anonymous phone line at (800) 428-2189. Upon request, OIG will take appropriate measures to protect the identity of any individual who reports misconduct, as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Reports to OIG may be made anonymously.

The mailing address of OIG is 2415 Eisenhower Ave, Alexandria, VA 22314 ATTN: OIG HOTLINE.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

A table entitled, NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support has been created to provide helpful reference information regarding pre-award and post-award disclosures. The table includes the types of activities to be reported, where such activities must be reported in the proposal, as well as when updates are required in the proposal and award lifecycle. A final column identifies activities that are not required to be reported.

NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I recipients are required to submit a report describing the technical accomplishments and outcomes of the Phase I project. The Phase I final annual project report will be due to NSF within 15 days following the end date of the award and is limited to 15 pages in length. A Phase II proposal requires a Phase I technical report to be uploaded as part of the Phase II proposal package in Research.gov. If the Phase II proposal is submitted prior to the completion of the Phase I award, an interim Phase I technical report may be uploaded as part of the Phase II proposal package in Research.gov. Please see more details here .

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090 Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 330 COMMENTS 321 questions with answers in EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY The topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: 1. Education. Science of education, history of education. Educational psychology, teaching practice. Physical education ... What 126 studies say about education technology J-PAL North America's recently released publication summarizes 126 rigorous evaluations of different uses of education technology and their impact on student learning. In recent years, there has been widespread excitement around the transformative potential of technology in education. In the United States alone, spending on education technology ... Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2024 Edition This editorial continues to landscape the trends and popular educational technology topics for 2023. We used the public internet data mining approach from previous years (Allman et al., 2023b; Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022; Kimmons et al., 2021).This year, we extracted and analyzed data from the Scopus research article database, K-12 school and district Facebook pages, and the open ... Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition This editorial continues our annual effort to identify and catalog trends and popular topics in the field of educational technology. Continuing our approach from previous years (Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons et al., 2021), we use public internet data mining methods (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018) to extract and analyze data from three large data sources: the Scopus research article database, the ... 15 EdTech research papers that we share all the time Selwyn, N. (2015) Technology and education - Why it's crucial to be critical. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson & L. Rowan (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Technology and Education (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke and St. Martins, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a The field of digital technology education research reached a peak ... The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics ... Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2023 Edition In this editorial, we present trends and popular topics in educational technology for the year 2022. We used a similar public internet data mining approach (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018) to previous years (Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons et al., 2021; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022), extracting and analyzing data from three large data sources: the Scopus research article database, the Twitter #EdTech ... Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2023 Edition This editorial continues to landscape the trends and popular educational technology topics for 2023. We used the public internet data mining approach from previous years (Allman et al., 2023b ... Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2023 Edition What Were Trending Topics in EdTech Journals in 2022? Research topics in the field of educational technology in 2022 were, with a few exceptions, noticeably consistent with those of previous years (see Table 1; Kimmons et al., 2021; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022).We compiled the titles of 2699 articles from top educational technology journals (n = 16) identified by Google Scholar and retrieved ... Identification and evaluation of technology trends in K-12 education The following research questions guided the work: Research questions. RQ 1 What are the educational technology trends across 2011 to 2021, as predicted by the HRs? RQ 2 ... and recent reviews of educational technology research. Understanding why each prediction was made by the HRs will also aid in the later evaluation of their prediction accuracy. Adopting technology in schools: modelling, measuring and supporting His research interests are in technology-enhanced learning and learning analytics, adaptive and collaborative learning technology and educational innovation. His research has been published in over 100 scientific articles and has won several awards, including the state science award of the Estonian Academy of Sciences in 2020, and the European ... How technology is reinventing K-12 education In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data. Technology is "requiring people to check their assumptions ... Educational Technology Educational technology refers not only to the hardware and software used in an educational setting, but how technological resources are used to support teaching and learning. RAND researchers form multidisciplinary teams to field rigorous studies of educational technology that provide actionable information to educators, policymakers, and product developers. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review 4. Applications of digital technologies in education. Digital technologies are a powerful instrument that can help improve education in various ways, such as making it easier for instructors to generate instructional materials and providing new methods for people to learn and collaborate. PDF 1:1 Technology and its Effect on Student Academic Achievement and ... This study set out to determine whether one to one technology (1:1 will be used hereafter) truly impacts and effects the academic achievement of students. This study's second goal was to determine whether 1:1 Technology also effects student motivation to learn. Data was gathered from students participating in this study through the Pearson ... PDF Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2022. This editorial continues our annual efort to identify and catalog trends and popular topics in the ield of educational technology. Continuing our approach from previous years (Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons et al., 2021), we use public internet data mining methods (Kimmons & Veletsianos ... New Educational Technologies and Their Impact on Students ... In the new millennium, education is rapidly changing due to the more and more pervasive use of technology to support teaching and learning. New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as internet, wikis, blogs, search engines, emails and instant messaging require new literacy frameworks and new contexts for learning and life. A digital approach to education implies pursuing new ... 170+ Research Topics In Education (+ Free Webinar) The use of student data to inform instruction. The role of parental involvement in education. The effects of mindfulness practices in the classroom. The use of technology in the classroom. The role of critical thinking in education. The use of formative and summative assessments in the classroom. 36 questions with answers in TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION Explore the latest questions and answers in Technology Education, and find Technology Education experts. Questions (36) ... Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 311-325. The Hottest Topics in Edtech for 2022! Here are the eight hottest topics for 2022, starting with No 8. 8. Augmented, mixed and virtual reality. The ISTE community has been excited about this topic for years now, but it's been elevated recently as tools for immersive learning become more affordable, accessible and easier for both teachers and students to use. of Questions in Educational Technology Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 637-662. doi : 10.1007/sl 1423-014-9355-4. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design ... questions can be viewed as a technology for education. Questions that we ask in the classroom, online, or in discussion can shape learning and develop skills in Home Overview. Educational Technology Research and Development is a scholarly journal focusing on research and development in educational technology. Publishes rigorous original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies on topics relating to applications of technology or instructional design in educational settings. 450+ Technology Research Topics: Best Ideas for Students Technology topics for research papers below are very easy to investigate, so you will surely find a bunch of academic resources. Exploring adaptive learning systems in online education. Role of technology in modern archaeology. Impact of immersive technology on journalism. The rise of telehealth services. Enhancing Student Learning with Technology: Trends and Innovations By presenting educational content through interactive challenges and rewarding progress, students are more likely to develop a deeper interest in the subject matter and retain the information better. Innovations Transforming Classroom Dynamics. Technology is ushering in a new era of dynamic learning and classroom experiences. Cautious Optimism on OSTP Research Cybersecurity Requirements The final research security program guidelines do not base research cybersecurity program requirements on the FCI safeguards. Instead, OSTP points to a pending report on higher education research cybersecurity from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NSF Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Any project proposing use of vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal Welfare Act (7 USC 2131, et seq.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture (9 CFR 1 .1 -4.11) pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of vertebrate animals held or used for research, teaching or ... essay homework paper phd project resume review study thesis