COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan
Date: 2018-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, action programme, data collection, digital technology, education policy, educational reform, information analysis, labour market, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.1.2018 SWD(2018) 12 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  on the Digital Education Action Plan {COM(2018) 22 final}  
 
 
1) Introduction 

This  staff  working  document  complements  the  Communication  on  the  ‘Digital  Education  Action 
Plan’. It is structured to reflect the three priorities set out in the Action Plan and provides analysis and 
evidence to underpin these priorities and the actions linked to them: 

  Priority 1: Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning; 
  Priority 2: Developing relevant digital competences and skills for the digital transformation; 
  Priority 3: Improving education through better data analysis and foresight. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  document,  the  word  'education'  is  generally  understood  as  a  sector  neutral 
term. However, the Digital Education Action Plan has a specific focus on initial education and training 
systems and covers schools, VET and higher education.  

Priority 1: Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning 

Digital technology enriches education and offers new learning opportunities. The internet can open the 
learning experience to an unprecedented wealth of information, and provides a wide range of resources 
and  tools  applicable  to  any  domain  of  knowledge  and  educational  sector.  The  abundance  of 
information allows all users to interact with learning content on their own or in formal and non-formal 
educational settings.  

Digital  technology  allows  citizens  to  be  not  just  passive  consumers,  but  also  creators  of  value,  for 
instance when creating and sharing digital outputs such as texts, visuals, videos, audio recordings and 
music,  or  apps  and  software.  Digital  technology  facilitates  problem-based  and  interactive  learning,1 
and  enables  a  personalisation  of  the  learning  experience.  Learning,  even  at  the  highest  levels  of 
specialisation,  is  becoming  increasingly  accessible  because  of  the  affordances  of  technology.  For 
instance,  this  happens  with  access  to  education2  offered  through  Massive  Open  Online  Courses 
(MOOCs), thus expanding the pool of students and opening opportunities for a diversified cohort of 
learners.  

Digital  technology  can  improve  results  in  education,3  in  particular  by  enabling  access  to  additional 
learning  resources,  and  supporting  disadvantaged  students,  such  as  those  from  low  socioeconomic 
backgrounds,4  or  with  disabilities,  or  living  in  remote  areas.  In  a  broader  way,  digital  technologies 
offer  new  ways  to  organise  and  structure  teaching  and  learning.5  All  sectors  of  education  are 

1 European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed EU 
agenda for higher education SWD(2017)264 https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-swd-2017-165_en.pdf  
2  Goodman,  J.,  Melkers,  J.,  &  Pallais,  A.  (2016):  Can  online  delivery  increase  access  to  education?  Harvard  Kennedy  School  Faculty 
Research Working Paper Series. RWP16-035.  
3 European Commission. (forthcoming). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. A Discussion of exemplary cases, JRC Science 
for Policy Report.  
4 European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed EU 
agenda for higher education. SWD(2017)164 https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-swd-2017-165_en.pdf 
5 European Commission. (2017). A renewed EU agenda for higher education. COM(2017)247  
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-com-2017-247_en.pdf 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
increasingly  making  use  of  digital 
personalisation of learning.6 

technologies 

to  stimulate  educational 

innovation  and 

Although  since  2011  all  EU  countries  have  adopted  strategies  for  using  digital  technology  in 
education,  there  is  a  long  way  to  go  before  the  full  potential  as  a  tool  for  learning  and  teaching  is 
reached. The impact of technology in changing educational practices is currently less evident than it 
was hoped for.7 

1.1 Ensuring equity in and quality of access and infrastructure 

Leveraging  the  potential  of  digital  technologies  for  education  is  first  and  foremost  a  question  of 
improving education. In this frame, the focus is – or should be – not on the digital technology per se, 
but rather on the pedagogy.8 Digital technology can in fact be integrated in education as an expensive 
upgrade of other tools, or otherwise being the trigger of innovation, thus enabling tasks and activities 
that could have not been possible without the uptake of digital tools.9 Nonetheless, access (in terms of 
both infrastructure and connectivity) remains the first layer of a digital divide in education in several 
parts of Europe.10 

A lack of access in schools cannot necessarily be balanced through connectivity and devices at home – 
as of 2016 only 85% of households had  internet access, with a household  connectivity rate between 
97% (LU, NL) down to 72% (LI, RO), 69% (EL) and 64% (BG).11 While nonetheless the majority of 
youth makes use of the internet12, it is clear that there are disparities between those young people from 
well-equipped  households  and  those  living  in  households  without  any  internet  access.  Large 
differences in terms of NGA (Next Generation Access) coverage can be particularly observed between 
rural and urban areas: access to NGA technologies allowing superfast broadband coverage was only 
available in 40% of rural homes in 2016 (compared to 30% in 2015).  13 The connectivity of schools 
thus  plays  an  important  role  in  ensuring  that  all  young  Europeans  have  access  to  the  same 
opportunities offered by the digital sphere.  

Data  referring  to  school  infrastructure,  considering  connectivity  and  devices,  has  been  collected  in 
201314.  Then,  the  student  to  computer  ratios  in  European  schools  ranged  from  3:1  to  7:1 
(students:computers). Laptops, tablets and netbooks were becoming pervasive in some countries, and 
interactive  whiteboards  started  to  be  present  for  a  minority  (over  100  students  per  interactive 
whiteboard).  The  Commission  study  however  highlighted  significant  differences  across  countries  in 
relation to digital equipment and its availability per students. While wide differences in ratio between 

6 European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed EU 
agenda for higher education SWD(2017)264 https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-swd-2017-165_en.pdf 
7 OECD (2016). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
Retrieved October 01, 2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en  
8 LLL Platform. (2017). Reimagining Education for the Digital Age.  http://lllplatform.eu/lll/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DigitalPaper_final-
1.pdf 
9 European Commission. (2012). Towards a mapping framework of ICT-enabled innovation for learning. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. 
EUR 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/towards-mapping-framework-ict-
25445  EN. 
enabled-innovation-learning  
10 European Commission. (2017). Satellite broadband for schools: Feasibility study. doi:10.2759/835661. 
ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=46134  
11 Eurostat. (2016).  Households - level of internet access. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=isoc_ci_in_h&language=en&mode=view  
12 Eurostat. (2016). Individuals - internet use http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=isoc_ci_ifp_iu&language=en&mode=view  
13 European Commission. (2017). Europe's Digital Progress Report 2017 – Connectivity. 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44389   
14 European Commission. (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s 
Schools https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/survey-schools-ict-education The upcoming 2nd survey is to be published in 2018. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
and within countries are still to be seen in the preliminary results of the upcoming second survey, to be 
published in 2018, it should also be noted that the uptake of digital technologies for education refers to 
a  wide  range  of  devices  and,  most  importantly,  of  practices.  For  instance,  educational  robotics  is 
currently a promising developing field. Robots are used in education to stimulate or accompany young 
people in developing a variety of competences, from STEM to humanities, and as a means to develop 
cognitive  and  social  skills.15  On  the  same  strand,  'making'  and  'tinkering',  concepts  from  the  maker 
movement,16 are increasingly finding their ways in different sectors of education as an innovative way 
to engage with digital technology from a design and inventor perspective.17 These practices are based 
on both technological developments and pedagogical innovation. At the same time, they provide a hint 
on how the infrastructure for educational purposes can be rich, varied and differentiated.  

The availability of infrastructure does not always equal the frequency of use of digital technology. In 
this respect, the Commission 2013 survey showed that large differences between Member States also 
exist related to teachers' regular use of digital technologies for their teaching. Whereas two thirds of 
teachers in Portugal teaching 13 year old pupils regularly used digital technology in their classes, only 
19 % in Poland reported doing so (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Teachers' use of digital technology in more than 25% of lessons in Grade 8 (2011-2012)18 

In  terms  of  connectivity,  household  survey  data  from  2013  indicated  that  while  more  than  72%  of 
individuals were making use of the internet at home and 32% at the place of work, only 10% indicated 
that  they  had  in  the  past  year  used  the  internet  at  a  place  of  education.19  In  some  Member  States, 
schools are already connected to broadband, whereas other member states are clearly lagging behind 
(see Figure 2). 

15 Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71. 
16  A  loose  group  of  "hobbyists,  engineers,  artists,  designers,  hackers,  and  craftsmen  are  exploring  new  ways  for  personal  expression  by 
hacking and remaking their physical world as they see appropriate." For an introduction, see: European Commission. (2017).  Overview of 
the Maker Movement in the European Union, EUR 28686 EN. Doi: 10.2760/227356.  
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/overview-maker-movement-european-union  
17  Vossoughi,  S.,  &  Bevan,  B.  (2014).  Making  and  tinkering:  A  review  of  the  literature. National  Research  Council  Committee  on  Out  of 
School Time STEM, 1-55. 
18 European Commission. (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s 
Schools https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/survey-schools-ict-education  
19 Eurostat, 2013: Individuals' internet use by place of use  http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/product?code=isoc_ci_ifp_pu   

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 2: Estimated percentage of schools lacking broadband in 2015 (<5 Mbps)20 

is  particularly  crucial  given 

Poor connectivity limits the opportunities that are offered by technology. Connecting schools to ultra-
fast  broadband 
single 
connection/subscription  that  serves  multiple  users  at  the  same  time  (e.g.  students  and  teachers), 
enhancing the need to ensure speed and quality of experience.21 Already now, a school of 20 classes 
with 20 pupils each would require speeds of 700 Mbps for simultaneous use.22 Being connected offers 
many  advantages  to  schools:  access  to  resources  and  specialised  material  in  multiple  formats; 
platforms  for  collaboration;  tools  for  inquiry-based  pedagogies  (e.g.  virtual  labs);  and  sophisticated 
online software (e.g. simulation, serious games, etc.).23 

rely  on  one 

schools  often 

that 

Schools  are  increasingly  requesting  bandwidth  demanding  applications  (such  as  video  conferencing, 
high-quality video streaming, or cloud computing). Video conferencing, for instance, can create great 
opportunities for both teachers and pupils, e.g. by inviting outside speakers/experts for a specific class 
who would otherwise not be available, or by linking students with others from different communities, 
backgrounds and cultures. In addition, so-called "next-generation" applications for innovative learning 
and teaching like virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) could require extremely fast Internet 
access  speed  close  to  1  Gpbs.24  A  growing  body  of  research  suggests  that  "immersive  learning" 
enabled  by  virtual  environments  may  offer  a  powerful  catalyst  to  increase  students'  learning 
experience. Virtual environments provide embodied experiences allowing to see, hear and feel digital 
stimuli as if in the physical world,25 and thereby allowing access to experiences that rely on scarce or 
access-limited  resources  (e.g. flying to the  moon) or that are physically impossible (e.g. exploring  a 
molecule from the inside).26 

20 European Commission. (2017). Satellite broadband for schools: Feasibility study. 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=46134   
21  European  Commission.  (2016).  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  communication  "Connectivity  for  a  competitive 
digital  single  market  –  Towards  a  European  Gigabit  Society"  SWD(2016)300.  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/5655ecd7-7a51-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1  
22 European Commission. (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Connectivity  for  a  Competitive  Digital  Single  Market  -  Towards  a  European 
Gigabit Society. COM(2016)587. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016AE5303  
23 OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing. 
24  European  Commission.  (2016).  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  communication  "Connectivity  for  a  competitive 
digital  single  market  –  Towards  a  European  Gigabit  Society"  SWD(2016)300.  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/5655ecd7-7a51-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1 
25 Ahn, S. J. G., Bailenson, J. N., & Park, D. (2014). Short-and long-term effects of embodied experiences in immersive virtual environments 
on environmental locus of control and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 235-245 
26 Greenwald, S., Kulik, A., Kunert, A., Beck, S., Frohlich, B., Cobb, S, & Snyder, A. (2017). Technology and applications for collaborative 
learning in virtual reality. CSCL 2017 Proceedings, p. 719 – 726. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
Broadband  infrastructure  must  therefore  keep  pace  with  the  schools'  growing  needs  for  broadband 
internet access. However, there is still a long way to go in order to achieve the target to connect all 
schools in Europe to high-speed broadband by 2025. Appropriate broadband infrastructure can only be 
considered as a "conditio sine qua non": it can help enhance great teaching and learning, but only if all 
aspects of digital integration in an organisation are considered.27 The EU broadband targets, set under 
the  European  Gigabit  Society  strategy,  foresee  that  by  2025,  all  schools,  transport  hubs  and  main 
providers  of  public  services  as  well  as  digitally  intensive  enterprises  should  have  access  to  Gigabit 
internet connectivity28.  

Accessibility and quality of connectivity are paramount to ensure equity. Disadvantaged students such 
as those from low-income or migrant backgrounds with limited amount of resources have less access 
to computers outside the school, start using digital devices later in life (e.g. only 69% of disadvantaged 
students used them before the age of 10, compared to 77% of medium socio-economic students and 
83% of students from more advantaged backgrounds), and use ICT less frequently outside of school to 
do schoolwork, and to communicate with classmates and teachers about schoolwork than their more 
advantaged  counterparts.29  Indeed,  access  to  technology goes  beyond  the  classroom:  it  applies  to  all 
educational sectors – thus being the first enabling conditions for all educational actors – and spills to 
the need of the household, where learning is also taking place. A hidden side of the digital divide has 
been labelled as "the homework gap",30 referring to the differences in access in the household and their 
consequences for self-study.  

1.2 Organisational change 

Even if access is a pre-condition, it does not necessarily enable educational change. Education systems 
are currently adapting to the changing nature of learning and the new demands spurring from the needs 
of  learners,  society,  and  the  labour  market.31  Thus,  the  current  trend  goes  towards  holistic  models 
targeting  systemic  rather  than  infrastructure  or  content  related  changes.  This  trend  is  supported  by 
research evidence, as it has been proven that interventions that are limited to providing students with 
access to technology yield largely mixed results.32 Analysis of 1:1 initiatives (i.e. initiatives that aim at 
equipping each student of a given school, class or age group with portable devices) underline that for 
these  interventions  to  bring  improvement  in  education,  the  initiative  must  be  systemic  and 
underpinned by pedagogical values.33 

27 European Commission. (2015). Promoting Effective Digital-Age Learning: A European Framework for Digitally-Competent Educational 
Organisations, DOI: 10.2791/54070. http://dx.doi.org/10.2791/54070  
28  European Commission. (2016).  Commission staff working document accompanying the communication "Connectivity for a competitive 
digital  single  market  –  Towards  a  European  Gigabit  Society"  SWD(2016)300.  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/5655ecd7-7a51-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1 
29 European Commission.  (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background: An analysis 
of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 28688 EN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/415251   
30 Meyer, L. (2016). Home connectivity and the homework gap. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 43(4), 16. 
31 OECD. (2015). Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen. Paris: OECD; Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change 
imperative for whole system reform. London: Corwin Press/SAGE. 
32 European Commission.  (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background: An analysis 
of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 28688 EN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/415251    
33  European  Commission  (2013).  Overview  and  analysis  of  1:  1  learning  initiatives  in  Europe,  JRC  Scientific  and  Policy  Reports. 
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=6199  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Deep  integration  of  technology  requires  significant  educational  innovation  and  implies  a  process  of 
planning for pedagogical, technological and organisational change.34 While in previous decades policy 
reform  on  digital  education  often  focused  on  the  number  of  devices  or  the  proportion  of  connected 
schools,  today  education  reform  in  Europe  tends  to  take  a  more  comprehensive  approach  which 
includes  in  particular  a  focus  on  pedagogy  and  on  how  technology  can  and  should  be  used.  Policy 
interventions thus move along those priorities. Third generation digital education policy aims not just 
to provide infrastructure and devices (first generation), or to accompany this provision with measures 
such as teacher training and content development (second generation), but works towards integrating 
digital  education  more  firmly  in  overall  education  and  innovation  policies.35  A  current  focus  is  in 
particular on ensuring that technologies augment and improve, rather than just replace learning in and 
outside  the  classroom36  and  the  teacher's  ability  to  do  so.37  Digital  technology  for  learning  is  more 
likely  to  have  a  positive  effect  if  educators  are  trained  to  use  them  effectively.38  A  high  share  of 
teachers at lower secondary education indicated in a survey that they have a moderate or high need for 
professional development in pedagogical digital competences. This surpassed any other training needs 
teachers were consciously aware of (see Figure 3).39  

Figure 3: Percentage of lower secondary education teachers indicating their moderate or high level of 
need for professional development in specific areas 

34  European  Commission  (2014).  Mainstreaming  ICT  enabled  Innovation  in  Education  and  Training  in  Europe-Policy  actions  for 
sustainability, scalability and impact at system level, JRC Scientific and Technical Research Reports, EUR 26601; European Commission 
(2013).  ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia. Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system 
level. JRC Scientific and Policy Report.  
35 European Commission. (forthcoming). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. A Discussion of exemplary cases, JRC Science 
for Policy Report. 
36 The nature of ICT-enabled innovation for learning is often described with progressive levels using terms such as incremental, radical or 
disruptive  as  suggested  in:  European  Commission.  (2012).  Towards  a  mapping  framework  of  ICT-enabled  innovation  for  learning.  JRC 
Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 25445 EN.  
37 European Commission. (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS): Main findings and implications for 
education policies in Europe. ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/.../study/.../ec-icils_en.pdf 
38 European Commission. (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS): Main findings and implications for 
education policies in Europe. ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/.../study/.../ec-icils_en.pdf 
39 OECD.  (2013). Talis Database. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/talis.htm 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Awareness  in  EU  Member  States  about  this  need  is  high40  and  this  is  the  concern  most  frequently 
raised in discussions of European policy makers working on digital issues.41 At policy level, this need 
has  been  stressed  repeatedly  and  has  been  identified  as  one  of  the  priority  areas  for  European 
cooperation  in  Education  and  Training.42  Competences  of  educators  refer  not  only  to  their  ability  to 
understand and use digital technology but rather to their capacity to use digital technology for teaching 
and  learning.  This  implies  acquiring  and  developing  professional  and  pedagogical  competences.  
Responding  to  this  need  identified  by  both  research  and  policy  makers  of  Member  States  and 
stakeholder  organisations,  the  European  Commission  developed  a  framework  for  the  Digital 
Competence  of  Educators.43  Effective  integration  of  digital  technologies  for  the  benefits  of  students 
and  staff  implies  a  reflective  approach44  that  includes,  besides  teacher  training,  curricula  and 
educational  materials  that  are  fit  for  digitally-supported  teaching  models,45  and  assessment  practices 
that benefit from the opportunities offered by digital tools. 

Indeed,  several  Member  States  (MS)  have  developed  digital  strategies  for  schools  to  support 
educational  organisation  to  improve  their  use  of  digital  technology.  For  instance,  the  Irish  Digital 
Strategy for Schools 2015-201046 underscores the need for a Digital Learning Framework that can be 
used by school leaders, subject departments and individual  teachers to guide and review progress in 
the embedding of digital technologies in all aspects of teaching and learning. There are other examples 
of Member States who developed self-assessment tools for schools' digital capacity (e.g. Opeka tool in 
Finland, Digital Schools of Distinction in Ireland, Digital mirror in Estonia, Castilla y Leon Region in 
Spain,  to  name  a  few).  Among  different  tools  that  support  the  self-assessment  of  digital  readiness, 
SELFIE  (Self-assessment  tool  for  digitally  capable  schools)47  is  an  example  of  an  organisational 
change approach. With a pilot involving 650 schools in 14 countries, SELFIE provides a practical tool 
for school to self-assess their digital readiness in several domains, namely: leadership and governance, 
infrastructure,  content  &  curricula,  assessment  practices,  professional  development,  teaching  & 
learning  practices,  collaboration  &  networking.  The  different  areas  of  SELFIE  provide  a  clear 
indication on the different aspects that underpin organisational change with the aim of harnessing the 
potential of technology in all aspects of education.  

There  is  a  growing  digital  gap  between  educational  organisations  in  the  way  they  are  reaping  the 
benefits  of  digital  technology.  One  solution  to  narrow  this  gap  is  the  promotion  of  a  mentoring 
scheme.  A  grassroots  school  environment  can  be  conducive  to  the  take  up  of  technologies  between 
schools with various levels of technological proficiency and readiness with the objective of supporting 
greater collaboration both within and between schools and peer-to-peer exchanges.  

The  methodology  of  the  Living  School  Labs48  has  been  successfully  used  in  the  past  and  can  be 
scaled-up.  It involved 12 Ministries of Education across Europe and created regional hubs which in 
some  countries  were  highly  effective  in  coordinating  activities.  Two  advanced  schools  in  each 

40 European Commission. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), JRC Science for Policy 
Report, EUR 28775 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu  
41This  is  reflected  for  instance  in  the  Key  Messages  of  the  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Skills  and  Competences 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups/digital-skills-competences_de 
42  2015/C  417/04:  Joint  Report  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategic  framework  for  European 
cooperation in education and training (ET 2020): New priorities for European cooperation in education and training.  
43  European  Commission  (2017).  European  Framework  for  the  Digital  Competence  of  Educators  (DigCompEdu),  JRC  Science  for  Policy 
Report, EUR 28775 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu 
44  Such  an  approach  is  proposed  in:  European  Commission.  (2017).  European  Framework  for  the  Digital  Competence  of  Educators 
(DigCompEdu), JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 28775 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu 
45  OECD.  (2015).  Students,  Computers  and  Learning:  Making  the  Connection.  Paris:  OECD  Publishing.  and  OECD.  (2017).  Innovating 
Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
46 Digital Strategy for Schools 2015-2010: http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Digital-Strategy-Action-Plan-2017.pdf 
47 European Commission (2017). SELFIE –Tool: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomporg/selfie-tool  
48 http://lsl.eun.org/ 

7 

 
 
                                                            
participating  country  were  mentoring  five  less  advanced  counterparts,  with  several  hundreds  of 
teachers  involved.  Virtual  trainings  were  also  offered  (Recordings  of  webinars  were  also  made 
available  on  the  website  and  these  have  been  watched  by  an  average  of  2500  people  and  the 
observation blog seen by over 200,000 people). The project provided a strong proof of concept for the 
whole-school  approach  in  adopting  ICT,  the  relevance  of  peer-learning  among  teachers,  the 
importance of schools leadership and regional hubs in mainstreaming change. This initiative provided 
a methodology that can be scaled up across Europe. 

1.3. Connecting innovators in education 

From the public consultation of the Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation, 68% of respondents indicated that 
improving  the  quality,  innovation  and  internationalisation  of  education  is  an  'extremely  relevant' 
objective to the challenges the field faces in the digital age.   

Digital technology is recognised as an enabler of innovation in education. In this context, innovation is 
perceived as  a newness that brings value.49 All educational  sectors benefit when  innovative process, 
practices, tools, experiences and materials are shared. Nevertheless, it is known that, although pockets 
of innovation exist both in education and research, they tend to operate in 'splendid isolation'.50  

For educators, it is neither common nor easy to communicate about their work.51 The same applies to 
those  who  bring  innovation  at  policy  level.  Innovation  –  especially  in  education,  where  it  often 
happens behind closed doors – thus faces the challenge to be visible, and consequently to widespread, 
and scale-up. Recent attempts to map  educational innovation initiatives in Europe have been carried 
out, for instance with the 'Open Book of Educational Innovation',52 which can serve as inspiration to 
further spur innovative approaches elsewhere. This approach – sharing of best practices – is one of the 
most common tools at EU level to exchange knowledge and experiences in education.  

Unlike  innovation  in  the  marketplace,  innovation  in  education  thrives  through  exchange.  Bringing 
together  different  actors  to  improve  education  allows  for  change  to  take  place  and  widespread. 
Collaboration and exchanges can happen in different ways: among stakeholders working on the same 
level  (for  instance,  bringing  together  educators,  or  creating  collaborative  actions  among  policy-
makers)  or  by  connecting  actors  that  work  at  different  levels  (for  instance,  matching  educators  with 
industry, or policy-makers and practitioners).  

Peer exchanges, both at policy  level and  between teachers,  are proven to support the mainstreaming 
(or wide-spreading) of innovation. At policy level, the uptake of computing in formal school curricula 
is  a  notable  example.  When  the  UK53  pioneered  the  political  decision  in  2014  to  make  computing 
compulsory for all schools from primary level, it set an example for other Member states to follow the 

49 Kirland, K. and Sutch, D. (2009). Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation. Bristol. Futurelab. 
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL61/FUTL61.pdf 
50 https://ec.europa.eu/research/openvision/pdf/rise/030616_pockets_of_excellence.pdf 
51  Licht,  A.H,  Tasiopoulou,  E.,  Wastiau,  P.  (2017).  Open  Book  of  Educational  Innovation.  European  Schoolnet.  Brussels. 
www.eun.org/documents/411753/.../Open_book_of_Innovational_Education.pdf  
52  Licht,  A.H,  Tasiopoulou,  E.,  Wastiau,  P.  (2017).  Open  Book  of  Educational  Innovation.  European  Schoolnet.  Brussels. 
www.eun.org/documents/411753/.../Open_book_of_Innovational_Education.pdf 
53  The  reform  took  place  in  England.  Note  that  since  devolution  of  political  power  from  1997  onwards,  different  approaches  to  National 
Curricula apply in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.  

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
same  trend.54  Indeed,  other  countries  followed  the  same  path  –  with  Ministries  of  Education  clearly 
stating that the example of the UK set a trend. Exchanges between Ministries of Education in Europe 
are managed through the Open Method of coordination.55 In this, the Commission and Member States 
cooperate in the form of Working Groups, which are designed to help Member States address the key 
challenges of their education and training systems through peer exchange. 

At  the  level  of  practitioners,  exchanges  between  teachers  and  educators  are  happening  in  several 
member states and at EU level. The biggest educational network in Europe is certainly eTwinning.56 In 
the  12  years  since  its  launch,  500,000  teachers  have  registered  to  use  it  as  a  place  to  exchange 
practices  and  organise  online  classroom-to-classroom  projects  with  their  pupils.  The  community  is 
based  on  the  principle  of  exchange  between  educators,  for  the  purpose  of  learning  from  each  other. 
The European Commission facilitated moreover the Teacher Academy57, which offers to all teachers 
in Europe the possibility to pursue free professional development in the form of MOOCs. In its two 
years of existence, it attracted thousands of teachers and boasts high completion rates above the global 
average. 

Open Educational Resources and Open Educational Practices are as well a form of peer exchange that 
supports the widespread of innovation. In Europe, OER projects have been initiated in many countries, 
with the Netherlands and the UK being recognised as the European pioneers in the field.58 

It is recognised that large scale and systemic innovation sees the alliances of the ‘bees’ (the creative 
individuals with ideas and energy) and the ‘trees’ (the big  institutions with the power and money to 
make things happen to scale).59 In the educational sector, connecting bees and trees entails connecting 
policy-makers and teachers. Currently, the School Education Gateway60 offers opportunities for such 
an exchange. Presented in 23 European languages, the School Education Gateway is a single point of 
entry for teachers, school leaders, policy makers, experts and other professionals in the field of school 
education.  

Innovation in education is reaching out to stakeholders beyond schools and educational organisations. 
Business-education partnerships are currently becoming more common. The initiative lead through the 
Pact4Youth,61 for instance, aims at making business-education partnership the new norm. A specific 
case  where  this  cooperation  lead  to  innovative  educational  approaches  can  be  seen  in  the  Future 
Classroom  Lab  (FCL),62  an  inspirational  learning  environment  that  challenges  the  role  of  pedagogy, 
technology  and  design  in  the  classrooms.  The  FCL  is  supported  by  a  network  of  Ministries  of 
Education in cooperation with industry partners. Moreover, the FCL inspired new uptakes in several 
member  states,  thus  creating  a  network  of  Future  Classroom  Labs  all  over  Europe  that  serve  as 
innovative hubs for their country or region. 

54 European Commission. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and practice. JRC 
Science for Policy Report, EUR 28295 EN; doi:10.2791/792158. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/developing-computational-thinking-compulsory-education-implications-policy-and-practice  
55 https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups_en 
56 www.etwinning.net 
57 https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/teacher_academy.htm 
58 http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/4149?src=email&freq=weekly 
59 Murray, R. Caulier-Grice, J. Mulgan, G. (2010). Open book of social innovation. Nesta. https://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/open-book-
social-innovation 
60 www.schooleducationgateway.eu 
61 https://www.csreurope.org/pactforyouth 
62 http://fcl.eun.org/ 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.4. Digital technologies to support mobility 

Mobility of students within the EU is a crucial factor to develop Europe’s highly skilled labour force 
in  order  to  strengthen  its  position  as  a  knowledge-based  economy.  International  student  mobility  is 
currently  very  concentrated  in  few  countries  in  the  case  of  degree  mobility,  while  more  equally 
distributed across Member States in relation to international credit mobility.63 Evidence on the benefits 
of student mobility shows that studying abroad helps a person cope more successfully with increasing 
international  dimensions  at  work  and  helps  with  career  enhancement.64  Evidence  shows  that 
international students are likely to stay and work in the host country once they have completed their 
studies,65  and  international  mobility  increases  their  probability  of  working  abroad  later  in  life.66 
Mobility  improves  international  competences,67  foreign  language  skills  and  intercultural  knowledge 
and promotes personal and academic growth.68 Besides these benefits, student mobility is also a prime 
mechanism to foster a sense of European identity and citizenship.69  

The  November  2017  European  Commission  Communication  on  Strengthening  European  Identity 
through Education and Culture70 identifies boosting mobility and facilitating cross-border cooperation 
as  one  of  the  key  areas  for  action.  The  Erasmus+  Programme  and  more  recent  initiatives  such  as 
Move2Learn - Learn2Move71 have been identified as positive examples that give young Europeans the 
chance  to  discover  and  learn  about  Europe,  improve  their  skills,  and  increase  their  chances  in  the 
labour market. However, currently only 3.7% of young people have the chance to take part in mobility 
activities of this kind.  

The  November  Communication  therefore  calls  for  doubling  the  number  of  participants  in  the 
Erasmus+ Programme by 2025 and reaching out to learners coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. 
Key challenges for such an expansion are the heterogeneity of institutions and legal frameworks in the 
school education sector and limitations on the possible duration of both teacher and learner mobility. 
Under  the  current  Erasmus+  Programme,  around  100,000  pupils  per  year  participate  in  short  group 
exchanges  of  one  to  two  weeks,  while  less  than  one  thousand  participate  in  individual  exchanges 
longer  than  two  months.  In  the  context  of  the  Erasmus+  Programme,  digital  technology  offers  a 
possibility for more sustainable cooperation projects, where physical mobility is complemented with 
more  frequent  virtual  interactions,  extending  the  exchanges  between  individuals  and  schools  over  a 
longer period of time.  

The success of the eTwinning platform72 proves the potential for such an action. The 2013 study on 
the  platform's  impact  found  that  it  is  "unique  in  this  scale  and  scope  and  has  no  precedent  or 

63European Commission. (2017). Student mobility in tertiary education, EUR 28867 EN. doi: 10.2760/675338.  
64  Teichler,  U.  (2007).  International  dimensions  of  higher  education  and  graduate  employment,  REFLEX  report.  REFLEX,  The  flexible 
professional in the knowledge society. New demands on higher, project supported by the VI framework programme of the EU, 199–220. 
65  Rosenzweig,  M.  (2008).  Higher  education  and  international  migration  in  Asia:  Brain  circulation.  Annual  World  Bank  conference  on 
development economics (pp. 59–100). 
66 Oosterbeek, H. and Webbinkz, D. (2011). Does Studying Abroad Induce a Brain Drain? Economica 78, 347–366 
67 Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schomburg, A. and Teichler, U. (2006).  The professional value of Erasmus mobility. Kassel, 
Germany: International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel. 
68 Sorrenti, G. (2017), The Spanish or the German apartment? Study abroad and the acquisition of permanent skills, Economics of Education 
Review, Vol. 60, pp. 142-158. 
69  Rodríguez-González,  C.;  Bustillo-Mesanza,  R.  and  Mariel,  P.  (2011)  The  determinants  of  international  student  mobility  flows:  an 
empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Education 62: 413-430. 
70 https://ec.europa.eu/education/news/20171411-strengthening-european-identity-through-education-and-culture_en 
71 Move2Learn - Learn2Move has been implemented through a link with eTwinning, by granting funds to schools carrying quality labels for 
their  previous  eTwinning  projects.  5000  participants  have  received  support  as  part  of  a  special  call,  providing  additional  proof  of  the 
potential demand for projects of this type. 
72 www.etwinning.net 

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
comparator within or outside Europe."73 The same study found a number of positive results at the level 
of  the  schools,  teachers  and  pupils  using  the  platform,  including  the  participants'  improvement  and 
development of digital competences. The participating teachers as well as the implementing services 
of Member States74 report that the inability to eventually complement the online eTwinning projects 
with  physical  interaction  is  a  lost  opportunity.  Physical  mobility provides  further  benefits,  including 
positive  impact  on  language  skills,  social  and  civic  competences,  cultural  awareness,  and  digital 
competences.75 

Digital technology can play a crucial role not only in allowing for blended approaches to mobility, but 
as  well  to  support  the  pragmatic  aspects  of  students'  mobility.  However,  the  benefits  that  digital 
technology  can  bring  are  currently  unmet,  as  pointed  in  the  "Student  mobility  in  a  digital  world" 
project.76  The  study  collected  data  from  students  participating  in  mobility  programmes  from  32 
countries and almost  400  universities. Student reported  difficulties in continued access to the digital 
services they needed during  their stay, with a  majority claiming that they used digital services from 
their home university rather than their host one.  

There  are  already  some  relevant  initiatives  at  European  level  for  reaping  the  benefits  of  digital 
technologies  in  students'  mobility.  The  mutual  recognition  of  electronic  identification  and  trust 
services  foreseen  in  the  eIDAS  regulation77  facilitates  cross-border  access  to  digital  services. 
Furthermore, the application of the Once Only Principle referred to in the e-Government Action Plan 
2016-2020,78 which is already included in the proposal for a Single Digital Gateway,79 could reduce 
the administrative burden that students face when moving abroad.  

In terms of certification, blockchain technology also appears as a new infrastructure to secure, share, 
and  verify  learning  achievements80.  A  blockchain  is  a  decentralized  and  distributed  digital  database 
that is used to record transactions in a secure and verifiable way. For certifications, a blockchain can 
keep a list of issuer and receiver of each certificate, together with the document signature (hash) in a 
public  database  (the  blockchain)  which  is  identically  stored  on  thousands  of  computers  around  the 
world.81 

Priority 2: Developing relevant digital competences and skills for the digital 
transformation  

The digital revolution had, has, and will continue to have a wide impact on the way Europeans live, 
work and study. This revolution is fast-paced not only for the rapid technological developments but as 

the 

(2013).  Study  of 

impact  of  Comenius 

school  partnerships  on  participating 

73 European Commission. (2013). Study of the impact of eTwinning on participating pupils, teachers and schools. 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ec23d4e3-e305-4d1c-83da-1989d35ec7e0/language-en  
74 The eTwinning National Support Services and the Erasmus+ National Agencies. 
75  European  Commission. 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ec8ce099-fec9-4563-a1ca-cd4db1b984ec/language-en  
76 Haywood and al. (2016). Students mobility in a digital world. https://www.coimbra-
group.eu/victorious/VIC%20Final%20Report%20print%20version.pdf  
77 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services 
for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC. 
78 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the  Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. Accelerating the digital transformation of government. 
79 The proposal for a Single Digital Gateway foresees the exchange of evidence for a limited number of digital public services, e.g. applying 
for a study grant from a public institution and requesting a change of address. See this proposal et http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-
1086_en.htm  and  discussions  on  the  "Once-Only  Principle"  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-wide-digital-once-only-
principle-citizens-and-businesses-policy-options-and-their-impacts  
80  European  Commission.  (2017).  Blockchain  in  Education.  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report,  European  Commission,  EUR  28778  EN. 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC108255/jrc108255_blockchain_in_education(1).pdf  
81 Smolenski, N. (2016a). Academic Credentials in an era of digital decentralisation. Learning Machine Research. 

schools. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
well for the speed in which digital technologies are appropriated (or "domesticated")82 by users. While 
it took 17 years for the television to reach 30% of US households, it took the Internet 7 years to reach 
the same penetration level.83 

The use of technology is underpinned by digital competence. Digital competence is one of the eight 
Key  competences  for  lifelong  learning.84  The  European  Digital  Competence  Framework  for  citizens 
lists  and  describes  21  competences  clustered  in  five  areas,  namely:  Information  and  data  literacy; 
Communication  and  collaboration;  Digital  content  creation;  Safety;  Problem  solving.  In  a  nutshell, 
being  digitally  competent  requires  being  able  to  search  for  information  and  data  and  evaluate  and 
judge it; being able to communicate and collaborate in various forms through digital means; being able 
to  create,  edit,  and  improve  digital  content  in  a  variety  of  forms  (from  text  to  audio  content  to  the 
ability to create computer programmes); keeping safe in the digital sphere and caring about the safety 
and  well-being  of  others,  of  devices,  and  of  the  environment;  being  able  to  solve  problems  through 
digital means (from technical to conceptual ones) and to innovate through technologies.85  

Living  in  a  digital  era  and  society  calls  for  the  need  of  all  citizens  to  acquire  and  keep  developing 
digital competence to keep abreast of technological developments and practices. Full participation in 
society  requires  a  set  of  competences  related  to  the  ability  to  use  digital  technology:  understood  as 
"life  skills",  they  are  comparable  to  literacy  and  numeracy.  Being  digitally  competent  is  nowadays 
both a requirement and a right.  Indeed, the Council recently acknowledged that digital competence is 
(together with literacy and numeracy) crucial for accessing and progressing in the labour market and 
for engaging in further education and training, besides playing an active role in society. 

Discourses  on  the  digital divide  evolved  from  a  focus  on  access  to  a  focus  on  competences.  Access 
was the first criterion to explain the digital divide, a concept which came into use in the 90s to allude 
to the differences in digital inclusion. Participation in the digital domain depends increasingly more on 
knowledge, skills and attitudes (in short: competence) than on access to and use of digital technology.  
Differences  in  digital  competence  unequal  the  ability  of  citizens  to  seize  the  opportunities  that  are 
offered by digital technology and to avoid the risks that come with use.   

Nowadays, digital technology is used by most people every day. In 2016, more than two thirds (71 %) 
of individuals in the EU-28 accessed the internet on a daily basis. If we consider the group of internet 
users (thus taking aside those who are totally digitally excluded), we realise that Internet use largely 
equals daily use: the proportion of daily users among internet users averaged 87 % in the EU28.86 In 
certain  countries,  like  Italy,  the  share  of  daily  users  is  very  similar  to  that  of  total  users.87  Uneven 
competences lead to discrepancies in how every citizen is exposed to threats. Currently, one in every 
four Europeans believes that their digital competence is insufficient for their daily lives.88 According 
to  the  Digital  Skills  Index,  44%  of  the  EU  population  has  an  insufficient  level  of  digital  skills,  and 
19% of the EU population has no digital skills.  

82  Roger  Silverstone  calls  'domestication'  the  process  by  which  new  technologies  is  'tamed'  or  appropriated  by  its  users,  see  Silverstone, 
Roger, Hirsch, Eric (Eds.) (1992). Consuming Technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London/New York: Routledge. 
83 Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. MIT press. 
84  European  Commission.  (2016).  Recommendation  on  key  competences  for  lifelong  learning.  2006/962/EC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Ac11090 
85 European Commission (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples 
of  use.  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report,  EUR  28558  EN.  http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106281/web-
digcomp2.1pdf_(online).pdf  
86 European Commission. (2017). The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  
87  OECD  (2016).  Innovating  Education  and  Educating  for  Innovation.  The  Power  of  Digital  Technologies  and  Skills.  Paris:  OECD 
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en 
88  European  Commission,  (2017)  Special  Eurobarometer  460:  Attitudes  towards  the  impact  of  digitisation  and  automation  on  daily  life. 
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/S2160_87_1_460_ENG  

12 

 
 
                                                            
Statistics  show  that  the  most  vulnerable  segments  of  the  population  –  the  very  young  –  are  also  the 
most  avid  internet  users.89  Households  with  dependent  children  are  more  likely  to  have  access  to  a 
computer and the internet at home.90 In the UK, 93% of all 5-15 year olds in the UK used the internet 
in 2013, with as many as four in five 5-7 year olds (82%). On average in Europe, children start using 
the  Internet  from  the  age  of  7;  between  the  age  of  9  and  16,  the  average  time  they  spend  online 
amounts to 88 minutes per day.91 According to recent studies on very young children (0-8 year olds), 
they seem to go online regardless of their level of digital competence, and regardless of their fluency 
(or lack thereof) in the use of digital technology.92 Children, although conversant with technology, are 
not necessarily digitally savvy: the myth of digital natives is certainly an exaggeration and it "obscures 
children’s  need  for  support  in  developing  digital  skills”.93  Furthermore,  young  people  with  an 
economic or social disadvantage tend to have weaker digital competence.94 

There are opportunities to be seized and risks to be avoided when making use of digital technology, 
and low level of digital competence has consequences on several aspects of daily life:  20 to 25 % of 
European  adults  aged  16  to  65  with  low  levels  of  proficiency  in  literacy,  numeracy  and  problem-
solving in technology-rich environments are less likely to take part in learning or to participate fully in 
the digitally driven economy and society.95 The reliance on digital technology for everyday activities 
has consequences on the choices of citizens as consumers.  There is a recognized need worldwide to 
educate citizens as critical consumers of internet services and electronic media, helping them to make 
informed choices96. The increasing sophistication of digital marketing practices calls for a new set of 
competences  that  citizens  need  to  embrace  in  the  digital  marketplace,  to  make  informed  choices,  to 
increase  their  welfare,  to  be  able  to  weigh  the  benefits  against  the  risks.  Consumers’  digital 
competences are outlined and described in the European Commission’s digital competence framework 
for  consumers.97  The  framework  does  not  suggest  that  competences  can  replace  regulations  and 
legislation that protect consumers, as both aspects  - enhancing competences and updating legislation - 
must go hand in hand in providing a safe purchasing and selling experience. The need for improved 
policy, law and action is  made in the report “When Free isn't”98, which  makes a strong  case for the 
need to protect children against unfair and damaging business practices online. 

When it comes to the need of digital competence for the labour  market, data  shows an  evident  gap.  
Only a small share of the EU's internet users has advanced software skills. In 2016, 28% of European 
internet users had no software-related skills99 (see Figure 4). 

89  Livigstone, S.: EU kids online report http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx  
90 Eurostat. (2015). Being Young in Europe Today. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-05-14-031 
91  European Commission. (2017). Creating a Better Internet for Kids  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/better-internet-
kids 
92 European Commission. (2015). Young Children (0-8) and digital technology. A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. EUR–
Scientific and Technical Research Reports.  http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC93239  
93 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). EU Kids Online II final report. www.lse.ac.uk/EUKidsOnlineFinalReport  
94 European Commission. (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS): Main findings and implications for 
education policies in Europe http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/study/2014/ec-icils_en.pdf  
95  Council  Recommendation  of  19  December  2016  on  Upskilling  Pathways:  New  Opportunities  for  Adults  (2016/C  484/01)  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2016_484_R_0001.  
96 OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA. Paris. OECD Publishing. 
97    European  Commission.  (2016).  The  Digital  Competence  Framework  for  Consumers.  http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-
detail.cfm?item_id=57486  
98 eNACSO (2016). When Free isn't Business, Children and Internet   http://www.enacso.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/free-isnt.pdf  
99 European Commission. (2017). Europe's Digital Progress Report, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44390  

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 4: Digital skills by competence dimension and level, 2016 (% of internet users) 

Source:  Commission  services  based  on  Eurostat,  European  Commission,  Europe's  Digital  Progress  Report  2017.  
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44390 

The lack of  digital competence has  a direct relevance to employability. In OECD countries, 42% of 
people  with  no  digital  competence  are  unemployed,  and  around  40%  of  people  think  that  their 
computer  skills  are  not  sufficient  to  find  a  new  job;100  while  at  the  same  time  40%  of  the  EU 
companies  do  not  find  appropriate  candidates.101  There  is  therefore  a  mismatch  between  offer  and 
demand that has as a crucial turning point the level of digital competence of the population.  

Figure 5: Individuals who judge their computer skills to be sufficient if they were to apply for a new 
job 

Source: OECD, Measuring the digital economy, a new perspective, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933148354 

100 OECD. (2014).  Measuring the digital economy, a new perspective. Paris. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933148354  
101 OECD and European Union (2015), The Missing Entrepreneurs 2015: Policies for Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship. Paris. OECD 
Publishing. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.1. Providing a wide and deep digital education for all 

Digital competence refers to the ability to be efficient, critical, and creative in a digital environment. 
The concept has been evolving since its appearance, going from a specialised competence in the 60s, 
relevant  for  computer  scientists,  to  being  a  relatively  widespread  operational  skill  mainly  for  the 
workplace  centred  on  the  use  of  a  limited  amount  of  applications  and  specific  software  in  the  80s. 
Nowadays, digital technology is used by almost everyone for almost any purpose and domain and the 
concept of digital competence widened.   

Being  digitally  competent  today  requires  having  a  wide  set  of  knowledge,  skills,  and  attitudes  that 
touch  upon  several  aspects  of  the  digital  domain,  as  illustrated  in  the  European  Digital  Competence 
Framework for citizens which lists and describes 21 competences. These competences unroll into in 8 
proficiency levels, from foundation to highly specialised.102  

The  teaching  of  digital  competences  is  a  common  element  of  school  education  across  Europe,103 
increasingly  even  from  primary  school  age.104  Already  in  2012,  almost  all  Member  States  had  a 
national  policy to develop  digital competence in formal education. Moreover, in the  majority of EU 
countries  digital  competence  already  had  in  2012  a  cross-curricular  status,  i.e.  requiring  teachers  to 
adopt  digital  technology  across  the  different  curriculum  subjects  and  promoting  the  development  of 
digital  competence  alongside  specific  subject  competences.105  The  recent  study  “All  in  the  same 
boat”106  reveals  that  digital  competence  is  developed  in  formal  education  across  Europe,  very  often 
from  primary  schools.  However,  there  are  rarely  stand-alone  curricula  for  teacher  training  in  the 
matter,  thus  leading  to  the  risk  of  a  teaching  workforce  that  might  not  have  the  appropriate  and 
specific  subject-matter  knowledge.  In  this  line,  the  recently  published  European  digital  competence 
framework for educators107 describes the key components of educators' digital competence. Moreover, 
as digital competence is a wide domain, there is the underlying risk that its development might only be 
catered on some specific aspects (for instance: operational skills, as it was the case until very recently), 
thus  leaving  aside  all  the  diversified  knowledge,  skills,  and  attitudes  that  students  need  to  become 
empowered and safe digital citizens.   

Recent  curricular  reforms  in  Europe  spur  from  the  need  to  include  several  aspects  of  digital 
competence in education and provide students with the ability to understand how computer works. In 
this  wave,  coding  and  computing  are  seen  as  providing  children  with  the  knowledge  and  skills  they 
need  to  understand  digital  technology  from  a  different  perspective,  by  being  able  to  create  digital 
outputs rather than merely consume them. Although young people are avid consumers of technology, 
only  13%  of  young  people  have  written  a  computer  programme,108  ranging  from  2%  in  Romania  to 
almost 30% in Denmark. 

102  European  Commission.  (2017).  DigComp  2.1:  The  Digital  Competence  Framework  for  Citizens  with  eight  proficiency  levels  and 
examples of use, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 28558 EN. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106281/web-
digcomp2.1pdf_(online).pdf  
103 Balanskat, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing, our Future. Brussels. European Schoolnet.  
104 European Commission, (2016),  Developing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/developing-computational-thinking-compulsory-
education-implications-policy-and-practice  
105  Eurydyce.  (2012)  Developing    Challenges  and  Opportunities  for  Policy  Eurydice  Report  at  School  in  Europe:  Key  Competences  
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/145en.pdf  
106  Informatics Europe (2017) Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All in the Same Boat? http://www.informatics-
europe.org/news/382-informatics-education-in-europe-are-we-on-the-same-boat.html  
107  European Commission (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), JRC Science for Policy 
Report, EUR 28775 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu  
108 Source: Eurostat, 2016. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
From  the  curricular  development  side,  an  upsurge  in  the  integration  of  computing  in  compulsory 
education  is  evident.  Several  countries  underwent  curricular  reforms  that  addressed  the  inclusion  in 
curricula  of  elements  of  computing  since  2014.109  In  this  recent  wave  of  curricula  reforms,  at  least 
eight  European  countries  (DK,  FR,  FI,  HR,  IT,  MT,  PL,  UK)  have  recently  concluded  a  reform 
process  that  includes  computation  or  coding.  At  least  six  others  (CZ,  GR,  IE,  NL,  NO,  SE)  are 
planning to introduce computing or coding into compulsory education.110  

Besides curricular reform, there is an array of initiatives that emerge in different educational settings at 
local,  national  and  international  levels  with  the  aim  to  bring  coding  and  computing  to  children. 
Initiatives  arising  outside  formal  education  have  been  the  first  to  fill  the  gap  between  the  perceived 
need for computing and the lack of systemic educational provision.111 These initiatives stem from the 
need  of  moving  away  from  a  digital  consumer  perspective  and  engage  people  (especially  youth)  in 
using  technologies  for  creative,  productive  purposes.  Among  these  initiatives  at  European  level, 
notable ones are CoderDojo (Ireland);112 Bebras (Lithuania);113 and the EU Code Week.114 The latter is 
a  grassroots  movement  run  by  volunteers  who  promote  coding  in  their  countries  as  Code  Week 
Ambassadors. The aim is to bring coding and digital literacy to everybody in a fun and engaging way. 
The Young Advisors of the Digital Agenda launched the initiative in 2013. Since then, participation in 
this initiative evolved as follows:  

 
 
 
 

in 2013: 10,000 people, 3,000 events in 26 countries; 
in 2014: 150,000 people, 4,200 events, 36 countries; 
in 2015: 580,000 people, 7,600 events, 46 countries; 
in 2016: 970,000 people, 20,000 events, +50 countries. 

In 2017 Malta, Italy, Estonia and Poland had the most EU Code Week events per capita. In absolute 
numbers, Italy (+16,000) and Poland (2,400) had the most events with a high involvement of schools. 
Bringing  this  initiative  to  schools  in  other  countries  could  enhance  much  wider  participation  and 
provide most children with equal opportunities in developing a specific aspect of digital competence.  

As  there  is  evidence  of  educational  reforms  that  go  "wide",  i.e.  addressing  all  aspects  of  digital 
competence,  there is  at the same  time  a need  to go  "deep", i.e.  to explore specific aspects  of digital 
competence.  In  other  words,  if  all  citizens  (and  students)  need  to  acquire  the  wide  set  of  digital 
competences, some of them will need to have the chance to develop into more advanced levels.  

In formal education, there are at least six countries (AT, PT, CY, LT, HU, SK) with a long-standing 
tradition  in  Computer  Science  education,  mainly  in  upper  secondary  schools.115  Engaging  students 
from  secondary  schools  in  advanced  digital  competence  development  is  fundamental  to  be  able  to 
enlarge  the  cohort  of  youth  who  can  undertake  a  specialised  education  in  informatics  and  computer 
science at tertiary level, in order to respond to the current shortage of ICT specialists.  

109 Balanskat, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2015 & 2016). Computing, our Future. Brussels. European Schoolnet. 
110 European Commission. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and practice. JRC 
Science for Policy Report, EUR 28295 EN; doi:10.2791/792158. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/developing-computational-thinking-compulsory-education-implications-policy-and-practice 
111 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education  - Implications for policy and practice. JRC 
Science for Policy Report, EUR 28295 EN; doi:10.2791/792158. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/developing-computational-thinking-compulsory-education-implications-policy-and-practice 
112 https://coderdojo.com  
113 Bebras: International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking, http://bebras.org/ 
114www.codeweek.eu/ 
115 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education  - Implications for policy and practice. JRC 
Science for Policy Report, EUR 28295 EN; doi:10.2791/792158. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/developing-computational-thinking-compulsory-education-implications-policy-and-practice.  

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
Between 2005 and 2015, employment of ICT specialists in the EU grew by 2.2 million to reach 7.7 
million in 2015. This amounts to a 35% increase in the share of ICT jobs in total employment, from 
2.6% to 3.5%. The compound annual growth rate over the same period stood at about 3% (allowing 
for breaks in the time series). This is to be compared to the much slower growth in total employment, 
which returned to pre-crisis levels only in 2014.  

All  EU  Member  States  have  seen  an  important  increase  in  ICT  specialist  employment  over  the  past 
decade  (2005  to  2015).  In  absolute  terms,  the  largest  increases  occurred  in  DE  (659,000),  FR 
(381,000),  the  UK  (192,000)  and  IT  (135,000).  However,  growth  in  ICT  specialist  employment  has 
also been very substantial in many smaller countries. According to 2015 data, the Member States with 
the highest shares of ICT specialists in total employment are FI (6.5%), SE (6.1%), NL and the UK 
(both  5%).  Despite  the  positive  evolution  in  recent  years,  as  shown  in  Figure  6,  the  gap  between 
demand and supply of ICT specialists in the EU is expected to grow from 373 000 in 2015 to about 
500,000  by  2020.116  In  other  words,  the  employment  potential  of  specialised  ICT  skills  remains 
underexploited. 

Figure  6:  Employment  of  ICT  specialists  in  the  EU,  in  absolute  terms  ('000)  and  as  share  of  total 
employment, 2005-2015 

Source:  Empirica  (2017).  Innovation  leadership  skills  for  the  high-tech  economy  –  Demand,  supply  and  forecasting.  High-Tech  and 
leadership skills for Europe Conference – Brussels, 26th, January 2017 

The  constantly  changing  landscape  of  digital  devices  and  software  poses  a  particular  challenge  to 
education – from formal, to tertiary to VET and workplace. All kinds of skills can quickly be outdated 
and  individuals  will  need  to  continuously  develop  their  abilities  further  throughout  life.  Formal 
education  can  only  lay  the  foundations  by  providing  the  fundamental  digital  competence  that  all 
learners require to engage with the dynamic digital world they live in.  

2.2. Mitigating the negative effects of digital transformation 

As citizens' life and data move online, all Europeans will encounter both the risks and opportunities 
that  the  digital  transformation  brings.  Digital  technology  will  continue  to  integrate  further  into  our 
physical  and  mental  activities  and  all  generations  will  benefit  from  becoming  confident  digital 
citizens, empowered by the opportunities offered by digital technology, and at the same time aware of 

116 Empirica. (2017). Innovation leadership skills for the high-tech economy – Demand, supply and forecasting. High-Tech and leadership 
skills for Europe Conference – Brussels, 26th, January 2017.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and resilient to the side-effects of digitalisation. In particular, private data becomes more vulnerable in 
an online environment  and  individuals need  to understand how  to  manage their online presence  and 
keep accounts, information and devices safe. Although 'safety-by-design' and regulatory frameworks 
are  envisaged  and  necessary,  citizens  are  required  to  develop  specific  habits  for  a  safer  digital  life, 
including  password  management,  digital  identity  management,  and  awareness  in  the  use  of  internet 
and devices.117  

Beyond technical threats, the information and connections individuals encounter in the digital sphere 
can  be  harmful.  Digital  technology  is  misused  for  manipulation,  radicalisation  and  brainwashing, 
including  propaganda,  political  manipulation  and  even  recruitment  for  terrorist  purposes.  The 
'weaponisation'  of  social  media  for  state-sponsored  propaganda  and  interference  in  elections  or 
national policy is today a reality.118 False information ("fake news") and commercial, interest-group or 
politically driven misinformation is increasingly prevalent.119 Information threats include trends such 
as 'post-truth' and 'alternative facts' that undermine the support for scientific analysis. Debunking false 
information,120 legislation, and policing of manipulation are necessary but can usually occur after the 
fact.  

The younger part of the population is the most exposed and yet the most vulnerable. One out of three 
Internet users is a child.121 They go online at an ever younger age, using a diverse range of devices, 
and  for  various  purposes:  increasingly  to  search  for  information  and  to  learn  through  different  tools 
and  services.  Children  aged  5-15  who use  the  internet  spend  more  than  15  hours  online  in  a  typical 
week, with most children aged 12-15 have three or more media devices of their own. Around half of 
all  11  to  16  year-olds  have  encountered  one  or  more  of  the  most  frequent  internet  risks.  Only  a 
minority  of  8-15  years  old  can  identify  sponsored  links  in  search  engine  results,  despite  their  being 
distinguished  by  a  green  box  with  the  word  ‘Ad’  in  it.  With  rapid  technological  developments,  new 
risks  emerge.122  For  example,  internet  connected  toys  can  offer  opportunities  for  playing,  learning, 
health and educational support thanks to their interactive and personalised features, but they also raise 
questions about safety, security, privacy and trust.123 The majority of parents whose child goes online 
tend  to  agree  that  the  benefits  of  the  internet  outweigh  the  risks,  however  they  are  increasingly 
concerned about online risks such as cyberbullying, sharing personal details with strangers, exposure 
to  content  which  encourages  children  to  harm  themselves,  inappropriate  online  content  and  the 
possibility of their child to be radicalised online.124 

The European Commission has been at the forefront in making the Internet a safer and better place for 
children.  The  European  Strategy  for  a  Better  Internet  for  Children125  sets  out  a  series  of  actions  for 
online  safety,  combining  financial  support,  legislation  and  self-regulation,  involving  Member  States, 
industry and civil society. Under this framework, the EC co-funds a pan-European network of Safer 

117 The Europol. (2017) Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment provides an overview of common risks. 
118    Oxford  Internet  Institute.  (2017)  Troops,  Trolls  and  Troublemakers:  A  Global  Inventory  of  Organized  Social  Media  Manipulation 
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/Troops-Trolls-and-Troublemakers.pdf   
119  Oxford  Internet  Institute.  (2017)  Computational  Propaganda  Worldwide:  Executive  Summary  Computational  Propaganda  Worldwide: 
Executive Summary http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/06/Casestudies-ExecutiveSummary.pdf  
120 Such as the European External Action Service's EU vs Disinformation campaign: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/about/  
121  Livingstone  S.,  Carr, 
https://www.cigionline.org/publications/one-three-internet-governance-and-childrens-rights  
122  Ofcom.  (2017).  Children  and  parents:  media  use  and  attitudes  report  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-
research/childrens/children-parents-2017  
123  European  Commission.  (2017).  Kaleidoscope  on  the  Internet  of  Toys:  Safety,  security,  privacy  and  societal  insights,  JRC  Technical 
Research, EUR 28397 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/kaleidoscope-internet-toys-safety-security-privacy-and-societal-insights  
124  Ofcom.  (2017)  Children  and  parents:  media  use  and  attitudes  report  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-
research/childrens/children-parents-2017  
125  European  Commission.  (2012).  European  Strategy 
market/en/european-strategy-deliver-better-internet-our-children  

for  Children,  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

and  Children’s  Rights 

for  a  Better  Internet 

Internet  Governance, 

(2015)  One 

and  Byrne, 

in  Three: 

J. 

J. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
Internet  Centres,  coordinated  at  EU  level  by  Insafe  and  INHOPE,126  along  with  the  core  platform 
betterinternetforkids.eu  as  a  single  entry  point  for  online  tools  and  services  for  EU  citizens  and  the 
Safer  Internet  community.  The  Centres  deliver  a  range  of  awareness-ranging  activities,  including 
developing resources, hosting trainings and events for children and young people, and those that care 
for  them,  such  as  parents,  carers,  teachers,  educators  and  other  professionals  in  the  children’s 
workforce. In 2016, Safer Internet Centres reached over 3 million people through events and trainings.  
The  Centres'  helplines  received  more  than  36,000  contacts  connected  to  online  issues  such  as 
cyberbullying  and  sextortion.127  The  European  Commission's  annual  Safer  Internet  Day  is  now 
celebrated  in  over  130  countries  on  all  continents.  In  2016,  more  than  20  million  EU  citizens  were 
reached through various events and activities.  

Fake  news  is  an  increasing  concern,  and  particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  protecting  and 
empowering vulnerable groups of online users such as children. The proliferation of false information 
has  been  made  possible  by  the  velocity  at  which  such  news  may  spread,  and  the  global  reach  they 
might  attain  through  new  channels,  namely  social  media.  Close  to  half  of  12-15  years  old  who  use 
these channels for news find it difficult to tell whether a story is true. A quarter of users aged 8-11 and 
12-15 believe that if a website is listed by a search engine it can be trusted.128 

Meanwhile, digital technology penetration is increasing. There will be 6 billion devices connected in 
the EU by 2020. Yet 51% of European citizens feel not at all or not well informed about cyber threats. 
86% of Europeans believe that the risk of becoming a victim of cybercrime is increasing. This increase 
gives way to new risks and increase current vulnerabilities. The consultation to the Review of the 2006 
Recommendation  on  Key  Competences  for  Lifelong  Learning  carried  out  in  2017  yield  interesting 
results. Respondents stressed that the digital competences citizens require include particular media and 
digital  literacy.  They  believed  that  a  focus  on  digital  and  media  literacy  is  a  way  to  respond  to  the 
digital risks, by ensuring that children are aware how to responsibly and safely use the internet and are 
empowered to become digital citizens.  

2.3. Attracting more girls to study ICT through digital and entrepreneurship education 

In the EU, women are underrepresented in ICT professions: less than one in five ICT professionals are 
female.129  While  both  girls  and  boys  have  similar  levels  of  interest  and  competence  in  digital 
technology, fewer girls go on to develop this interest for their studies or for a career. This phenomenon 
is the result  of a number of factors which deter young women from the field already at a secondary 
school age. Several studies point towards the lack of information campaigns about the potential of a 
career  in  ICT  as  of  primary  importance.  According  to  a  research  conducted  in  2015  specifically 
focusing  on  the  low  number  of  females  in  cybersecurity,  77  percent  of  young  women  stated  that 
neither a high school teacher nor guidance counsellor ever mentioned it as a potential career option.130 
Moreover, a survey conducted by PwC revealed that the two principal reasons why girls were put off 
ICT careers had to do with the fact that they didn't know what it involved and they didn't think they 

126 https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/policy/insafe-inhope  
127 Better Internet for Kids (2017), Annual Report  https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/bikannualreport2016-17/  
128  Ofcom.  (2017)  Children  and  parents:  media  use  and  attitudes  report  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-
research/childrens/children-parents-2017  
129 83.9% of employed ICT specialists are male, 16.1% female (Source: Eurostat, 2015). 
130  Cybersecurity Nexus. (2017). State of Cyber Security 2017. https://cybersecurity.isaca.org/state-of-cybersecurity  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
were creative enough to work in the field.131 These factors, together with the perception of ICT as a 
male-dominated field result in many girls hesitant to engage with digital education at a higher level. 
Interest  of  girls  is  lost  well  before  they  make  choices  on  university  careers:  the  interest  of  girls  in 
STEM subjects begins when they are between 11 and 12 but drops significantly when they are 15 or 
16 years old,132 right at the moment where critical study (and career) choices are about to be made. 

There is also a large gender gap in Europe in the entrepreneurship, management and technology sector 
resulting from the fact that too few girls choose STEM disciplines and careers. Women constitute 52% 
of  the  European  population.  In  2015,  women  made  up  13%  of  the  graduates  in  ICT-related  fields 
working  in  digital  jobs  compared  to  15%  in  2011.  In  2005,  22%  of  European  ICT  specialists  were 
women. In 2015, this has dropped to 16%.133 

Figure 7: ICT specialists and jobs by gender 

Moreover, women are still underrepresented among tech entrepreneurs in decision-making positions. 
When it comes to the tech sector, women make up only approximately 15% of tech-sector jobs in the 
European Union, and at senior management and company board levels their participation is even lower 
with a few exceptions in certain European countries. Although women are often early adopters of new 
technology,  they  are  rarely  at  their  inception.  An  example  is  that  a  mere  9%  of  European  app 
developers are female. These figures make women the largest untapped entrepreneurial and leadership 
potential in Europe. 

However,  there  is  a  huge  potential  to  change  these  numbers  once  education  is  properly  exploited. 
Education  plays  a  crucial  role  in  shaping  the  future  (digital)  entrepreneurs  and  economic  leaders. 
Evidence  shows  that  people  can  learn  to  be  entrepreneurial  and  relevant  skills  and  attitudes  can  be 
developed  through  education.  In  fact,  pupils  attending  entrepreneurship  education  programmes  are 
50%  more  willing  to  create  start-ups  compared  to  students  who  did  not  receive  such  training.  To 
overcome stereotypes, girls and young women require positive examples, role models and support to 
realise  that  digital  might  be  the  right  career  choice  for  them.  Therefore,  raising  the  share  of  female 
STEM  and  ICT  students  and  active  female  ICT  professionals  can  help  unleash  Europe's  digital 
potential and ensure that women take an equal part in shaping the digital world.   

131 Frost and Sullivan. (2017). The 2017 Global Information Security Workforce Study: Women in Cybersecurity. 
https://iamcybersafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WomensReport.pdf 
132  Microsoft.  (2017)  Why  Europe’s  girls  aren’t  studying  STEM  https://www.microsoft.com/empowering-countries/en-us/gender-
equality/what-keeps-girls-from-pursuing-a-stem-career/  
133 European Commission. (forthcoming). Women in Digital Age. EC - SMART 2016 0025. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 Figure 8:  Level of Digital Skills by Gender and Age in EU28 

2.4. Advanced digital competence for all sectors 

Advanced digital competence is not only relevant for ICT professions. High-level digital competences 
are  necessary  in  a  variety  of  disciplines  and  jobs.  Knowledge  specialisation  and  differentiation  has 
increased and will continue to increase.134 This specialisation is driven equally by new technological 
developments and by a changing labour market that sees the obsolescence of old jobs and the creation 
of new ones, plus a shift towards the need to be digitally skilled in most if not all professions.  

Regardless  of  the  sector,  digital  technology  is  widely  used  in  the  workplace.  The  vast  majority  of 
European  workplaces  use  desktop  computers  (93%),  broadband  technology  to  access  the  internet 
(94%),  portable  computers  (75%)  and  other  portable  devices  (63%).  Much  smaller  proportions  of 
workplaces use an intranet platform (22%), CNC (Computer numerical control) machine or tools (8%) 
or programmable robots (5%). Specific sector-based trends can be observed. 

The proportion of workplaces requiring their employees to possess digital competence varies greatly 
according to the type of job and the type of digital competence. The demand for digital competence is 
clearly related to the job role of the worker, and the evidence gathered through the European Digital 
Skills Survey135 indicates that in some job categories more than 90% of jobs require specific types of 
digital  skills  at  least  to  a  basic  level.  Advanced  digital  skills  are  mostly  demanded  for  professionals 
(54% of workplaces), technicians (52%) and to a lesser extent clerical workers (45%), managers and 
building workers (31% of workplaces in both cases) who are required to have this type of digital skills, 
while  they  are  considered  much  less  important  for  all  other  occupations.  Specialist  digital  skills  are 
required mostly for workers employed as professionals and technicians (43% and 44% respectively), 

134  Muller, J. (2014)  The future of knowledge and skills in science and technology higher education  
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-014-9842-x 
135 European Commission. (2017): ICT for work:  Digital skills in the workplace. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ict-work-
digital-skills-workplace  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  to  a  lesser  extent  as  managers  (33%  of  workplaces).    Advanced  and  specialist  digital  skills  are 
very  much  related 
information  and 
communication) and are more likely to be required in larger workplaces. 

to  specific  sectors  (in  particular  manufacturing  and 

15%  of  workplaces  report  the  existence  of  digital  skill  gaps  in  their  workforce,  indicating  that  a 
proportion of their employees are not fully proficient in carrying out tasks involving the use of digital 
technologies. One third of workplaces  with digital skills gaps express concern about the impact that 
gaps could have on the workplace performance (36%). The type of impact most frequently reported is 
a  loss  of  productivity  (46%)  followed  by  an  expected  decrease  in  the  number  of  customers  (42%). 
Large  workplaces,  and  workplaces  in  the  manufacturing  or  construction  sectors  are  more  likely  to 
report  digital  skill  gaps.  Overall,  the  density  of  the  digital  skills  gap  varies  greatly  according  to  the 
type  of  digital  skills  in  relation  to  the  different  occupations,  thus  showing  the  trend  of  a  need  for 
specific digital skills that related to each sector. Larger digital skills gaps are more likely to be found 
in  the  high-skilled  (managers,  technicians)  and  in  medium-skilled  (clerical  workers,  sales  workers) 
occupations,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  the  low-skilled  occupations,  with  the  exception  of  workers  in 
elementary  occupations.  Skill  gaps  related  to  advanced  digital  skills  are  more  concentrated  among 
sales workers (18%), technicians (17%), plant machine operators (17%), clerical workers (16%) and 
elementary  occupations  (15%).  Skills  gaps  related  to  specialist  digital  skills  are  more  concentrated 
among sales workers (23%), followed by elementary occupations (18%) and technicians (16%).  

Advanced digital skills are needed (and lacking) in tertiary education and research. This is evident in 
the current transition towards Open Science. Research nowadays can be carried out and disseminated 
via  an  open  science  approach,  which  entails  a  shift  from  publishing  in  proprietary  journals  to 
publishing on open access journals.136 Open science, as per the Open Education Framework,137 is part 
of  the  research  dimension  of  open  education  and  is  about  removing  barriers  to  access  to  data  and 
research outputs, and also about broadening participation in research.  

This shift from proprietary to open publications is important because it means that research results can 
be shared to all. Open Science is about open access, but it also enables  open research collaboration, 
open  data  and  citizens'  science.138  This  shift  of  practices  from  close  to  open  can  only  take  place  if 
researchers  become  knowledgeable  of  how  they  can  share  their  research  results,  not  only  in  open 
access journals but also by open research practices which can become an intrinsic part of their day-to-
day  academic  activities.  This  requires  specialised  and  advanced  digital  skills  to  be  developed  in  the 
frame of research. An open educator139/scientist implements openness along four main activities, such 
as:  open  learning  and  open  research  design;  OER  (open  educational  resources);  co-creation  of 
knowledge,  collaboration  and  open  publications;  and  implementation  of  open  assessment  practices 
such as peer-to-peer review and collaborative evaluation. Hence, training academic staff and research 
students to become open educators and open scientists becomes essential.140 Open Science skills can 
be regrouped into four categories, namely:  

Scientific 

136  European  Commission.  (2017)    Open  innovation,  open  science,  open  to  the  world  (2017)  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1  
137European Commission. (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions (OpenEdu Framework). 
JRC 
27938. 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101436/jrc101436.pdf    
138  European Commission (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions (OpenEdu Framework). 
EUR 27938. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101436/jrc101436.pdf    
139  IRRODL.  (2016)  In  search  for  the  Open  Educator:  Proposal  of  a  definition  and  framework  to  increase  openness  adoption  among 
university educators http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2736/3941 
140  European  Commission.  (2017).  Going  Open: Policy  Recommendations  on  Open  Education  in  Europe,  JRC  Science  for Policy  Report. 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/open-education  

Technical 

Research 

Reports, 

EUR 

and 

J. 

22 

 
 
                                                            
  Skills and expertise necessary for open access publishing; 
  Skills and expertise regarding research data, data production, management, analysis/use/reuse, 
dissemination  and  a  change  of  paradigm  from  “protected  data  by  default”  to  “open  data  by 
default”, respecting legal, and other constraints;  

  Skills and expertise to act in and beyond one’s own scholarly and disciplinary community;  
  Skills  and  expertise  resulting  from  a  general  and  broad  concept  of  citizen  science,  where 
researchers interact with the general public to enhance the impact of science and research.141  

At least two out of four of those skills require a highly specialised proficiency in digital competence.  

Priority 3: Improving education through better data analysis and foresight 

Good policy making requires a solid base of evidence and well-developed predictions to inform and 
guide  policy  decisions  and  implementation.  Stakeholders  consulted  for  the  Communication  that  this 
SWD supports142 stressed that a better quality and more prolific data at EU level could support EU and 
national work. As digital change in education is accelerating, foresight work and an improved use of 
data to understand the status quo and progress over time can allow for informed, timely and responsive 
decision making.  

Digital  technology  is  increasingly  used  both  for  teaching  and  learning  and  for  administrative 
processes,  reporting  and  management.  This  implies  that  a  large  amount  of  data  is  for  the  first  time 
collected  or  aggregated  in  a  digital  format  and  can  be  used  to  inform  policy.  Data  analytics  at 
institutional, regional and national level can help to predict issues and prepare interventions or targeted 
support.  A  wealth  of  data  is  already  available:  both  sectoral  data,  such  as  the  one  collected  for 
educational purposes, and general data, such as figures on populations, individuals' life pathways, or 
societal  and  economic  trends.  The  latest  is  already  available  in  structured  national  or  European 
datasets143 but not yet harnessed for the benefits of education. There is moreover a third typology of 
data that is available in uncollated forms that could be analysed to provide useful insights  – such as 
data  on  labour  market  skills  needs  that  can  be  identified  through  online  job  vacancies.144  This  point 
was developed in the New Skills Agenda, highlighting the need for sound evidence of the skills which 
will be required in the future to support policy-making, investments and reforms.145 

Data  needs  to  be  collected  and  more  importantly,  analysed,  used,  and  shared  with  care:  the  use  of 
administrative  or  individual  data  can  be  perceived  as  intrusive  or  a  violation  of  trust,  and  can  set 
wrong  incentives  for  both  reporting  and  educational  interventions.146  Data  can  also  easily  be 
misunderstood or misconstrued, where for example simple indicators are misinterpreted as reflecting 
broader  institutional  performance  or  used  to  rank  individuals  or  institutions.147  At  individual  and 
institutional  level,  data  can  improve  decision  making  and  reveal  hidden  trends  (for  instance,  predict 
drop-out) and enable early interventions. Increasing data collection at institutional level can also lead 
to better real-time data at national or regional level, which then allows for more timely and targeted 

141 https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_skills_wgreport_final.pdf  
142 Future of Learning Stakeholder Meeting, 23 October 2017. 
143 Such as the European Open Data Portal: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/  
144 Cedefop. (2016). Using labour market information - Guide to anticipating and matching skills and jobs VOLUME 1. 
145  European  Commission.  (2016).  A  new  Skills  Agenda  for  Europe,  COM/2016/0381  final.  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0381 
146  Key  Messages  on  Learning  Analytics  by  the  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Skills  and  Competences,  October  2016: 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/2016-pla-learning-analytics_en.pdf 
147 Policy & Policy Recommendations for Learning Analytics  – A literature survey (STELA project, 2016) ;  Policy recommendations for 
Learning Analytics from Three Stakeholder Workshops (LACE Project, 2015) 

23 

 
 
 
                                                            
interventions.148 At policy level an improved data flow can help understand current and future needs – 
e.g.  trends  in  educational  technologies  or  labour  market  needs  –  and  help  policy  to  develop  timely 
responses. At the same time, data collection and analysis need to take into account data protection and 
privacy concerns.  

Comparative  data  at  EU  level  helps  motivate  change  across  Member  States,  identify  the  impact  of 
specific policies, and promote good practices across borders. Foresight at EU level can be particularly 
beneficial to support Member States. It can draw on a larger evidence base and provide a more birds-
eye and forward-looking perspective. Moreover, a EU-wide take  on foresight in  education allows to 
overcome  the  limits  and  constraints  of  a  single  national  education  system.  This  of  course  does  not 
preclude the need for foresight work at national level.  

As  of  today,  there  is  a  relatively  small  body  of  prospective  work  focussed  on  what  will  happen  to 
education on the medium or long term. Moreover, there is a prevalence of a US-centred perspective, 
notably  with  the  New  Horizon  Report  series.149  There  appears  to  be  a  lack  of  prospective  work  in 
education and training in particular in the Central and Eastern and South European countries.150 

3.1. Improving comparative data on digital education 

Launched  in  2009,  the  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  (ET 
2020) covers seven targets for 2020, in the fields of early leaving from education and training; tertiary 
education attainment;  early childhood education and care; employment  rate  of recent graduates; low 
achievement  in  reading,  mathematics  and  science;  and  learning  mobility.  The  benchmarks  are 
monitored based on data from the EU Labour Force Survey, UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat (UOE) joint 
data collection and the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). A number 
of  data  sources,  studies,  international  surveys,  and  secondary  analyses,  also  provide  snapshot 
information  or  are  used  to  monitor  progress  in  additional  priority  areas  currently  not  covered  by 
targets,  such  as  languages,  adults’  skills,  migration,  teachers,  investment  in  education  and  training, 
ICT in education, entrepreneurship in education and VET. 

Cross-European  data  evidence  underpinning  policy  concerns  is  however  not  always  easy  to  find,  or 
readily available. For instance, a surge in migration and refugees in the last years highlighted the need 
for  better,  richer  and  more  current  data  on  migrants  and  refugees  to  allow  for  active  measures  to 
respond to the number of newcomers to education.151 Fine-grained data on locations of individuals is 
normally available through national registers, but its use for educational planning might in many cases 
either not be possible or not be done for administrative, logistic or legal reasons. Better data provision 
and analysis can help identify the challenges faced by individuals, institutions, and education systems 
and propose possible solutions. 

A long term perspective allows to yield returns on education policy interventions. Short policy cycles 
and  changes  in  government  priorities  can  lead  to  policy  initiatives  to  be  discontinued  or  to  the 
resources required to support them being reduced, thus undermining the impact of the interventions. 
The long-term vision in education policy can be complemented by short-term achievable goals.  The 

148 European Commission. (2016). Research Evidence on the Use of Learning Analytics: Implications for Education Policy. 
149 www.nmc.org 
150 Support to a network of experts in prospective analysis in education (ICF Consulting Services report for the European Commission, 2016 
(unpublished) 
151  Estimates  of  the  German  Kultusministerkonferenz  indicated  that  out  of  800.000  refugees  reaching  Germany,  325.000  new  school-age 
children 
2015 
https://www.kmk.org/aktuelles/artikelansicht/kultusministerkonferenz-mit-bildung-gelingt-integration.html  

integrated 

education 

system 

course 

had 

the 

the 

be 

of 

in 

in 

to 

24 

 
 
 
                                                            
accomplishment of these goals should be integrated in an evaluation framework defined at the start of 
the policy. This allows for concrete results and achievements to be demonstrated to decision-makers 
and  the  public  to  determine  funding  and  policy  priorities.  In  addition,  early  consideration  of 
sustainability, e.g. in the  form of a sustainability plan, can increase the chances of policies having a 
long-term impact.152 

A  number  of  scoreboards  such  as  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)153  or  Eurostat 
statistics  are  providing  regular  data  on  the  progress  in  Basic  Digital  Skills,  the  number  of  STEM 
graduates, or the use of computers for educational purposes. These indicators however do not provide 
deeper  insights  into  the  different  approaches  or  the  impact  of  digital  technology  on  the  learning 
experience  and  learning  outcomes.  There  are  indications,  for  instance,  that  the  use  of  digital 
technology  for  some  purposes  and  with  some  intensity  can  help  students'  learning  outcomes,  in 
particular those students from low socio-economic background.154 

Both  the  role  that  digital  technologies  can  play  in  education,  as  well  as  the  need  for  all  students  to 
develop digital competences to thrive in today's world, are increasingly evident. However progress on 
digital  education,  while  of  high  interest  to  both  national  and  EU  level  policy,  is  not  collected  in  a 
coherent  and  comparable  manner.  Such  data  can  demonstrate  where  progress  has  been  made  – 
indicating e.g. success and failure of funding programmes – where action is needed and what kind of 
action is likely to bring the highest pay-off.  

The  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  Education,  the  last  in-depth  analysis  of  the  uptake  of  technology  in 
classrooms across Europe, is based on data collected in late 2011155. This analysis was based on over 
190,000 responses from students, teachers and head teachers collected and analysed during the school 
year  2011-12.  It  provided  detailed  and  reliable  benchmarking  on  the  use  of  information  and 
communication technologies (ICT) in school education across Europe, from infrastructure provision to 
use, confidence and attitudes. The study provided valuable insights, such as the proportion of  'highly 
digitally-equipped' schools, the proportion of students in a given school year who had never or almost 
never  used  a  computer  in  their  school  lessons,  or  the  correlation  between  frequency  of  ICT-based 
learning activities students took part in during class, and the schools' formal policies on ICT use. Work 
to update this data through a new survey has started and results will be published in 2018. However, 
more needs to be done to ensure that data collection on digital technologies in education is improved 
and in particular that data is collected in a sustainable and continuous way in all educational sectors.  

PISA data is a fix point of educational policy across the EU, as well  as globally, and the basis for a 
large number of studies analysing the impact of various policies and classroom activities and their link 
to  learning  outcomes.  In  2015  over  half  a  million  15-year-olds  in  72  countries,  including  all  EU 
countries, took the PISA test. Drawing  on this scaled  approach, a dedicated ICT  module, developed 
with  the  support  of  the  European  Commission,  will  ensure  that  a  new  and  deep  dataset  becomes 
available,  indicating  how  technology  impacts  learning  outcomes  across  the  globe.  This  will  enable 
new  kinds  of  comparative  research  to  evaluate  and  provide  feedback  for  policy  making  across  the 
globe. 

152 European Commission. (forthcoming). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. A Discussion of exemplary cases, JRC Science 
for Policy Report.  
153 http://digital-agenda-data.eu/datasets/desi/indicators#desi-dimensions 
154  European  Commission.  (2017).  Digital  technologies  and  learning  outcomes  of  students  from  low  socio-economic  background:  An 
Analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report. EUR 28688 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-
research-reports/digital-technologies-and-learning-outcomes-students-low-socio-economic-background-analysis   
155 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/survey-schools-ict-education  

25 

 
 
                                                            
3.2.  Learning analytics and (Big) Data for Education 

Initiatives on data use in education should be differentiated into two key parts, work towards learning 
analytics that aims to improve educational practice in teaching and learning, and the use of (Big) Data 
for  education,  which  aims  to  generate  insights  for  policy  and  decision  making  or  serves  to  identify 
good  practices.  Many  initiatives  using  technology  in  education  are  not  evaluated  in  a  way  that  also 
takes  account  of  the  results  of  other  initiatives  and  available  data.  Therefore,  little  is  known  about 
which practices work and which are more efficient for different groups and education systems.  

Using big data generated from digital platforms can help understand user behaviour and find evidence 
on  how  to  leverage  innovation  in  education.  Data,  if  interpreted  and  used  correctly,  can  provide 
valuable  insights.  For  instance,  an  analysis  of  anonymised  data  of  the  eTwinning  teacher  network 
provided inspiring information on the possible development of teachers' network and on the needs and 
challenges of the teaching profession.156 Big data in education, however, also causes issues related to 
data protection and privacy, especially when the question is about the data of children157. For instance, 
the  American  "inBloom"  project,  with  a  funding  over  $100  Million,  had  to  be  wound  down  after 
protests  from  parents  and  teachers  about  what  they  perceived  to  be  intrusive  data  collection  and 
analysis.158  

Member States' taskforces hold a key position for legal experts to exchange with educators, technical 
experts  and  other  stakeholders  to  identify  the  role  that  technologies  such  as  Learning  Analytics  and 
Artificial  Intelligence  can  play  in  education,  while  data  protection,  privacy  and  possibly  wrong 
incentives  arising  from  data  use  or  publication  are  properly  considered.  For  example,  the  French 
Commission  nationale  de  l'informatique  et  des  libertés  (CNIL)'s  Innovation,  Studies  and  Foresight 
Department (PIEP) & Labs conducts regular meetings with stakeholders such as universities and the 
French  Ministry  of  Education  to  provide  advice  on  current  investigations  and  experimentations. 
Similarly, the Finnish Ministry of Education organises a task force on Learning Analytics which also 
involves industry actors, as well as researchers, to help identify relevant issues and solutions for policy 
and interoperability. 

Most  current  data  sources  used  for  monitoring  the  educational  system  and  to  generate  insights  for 
policy  are  focused  on  longitudinal  studies,  relying  mostly  on  comparisons  between  time  periods. 
While  showing  change  over  time,  and  across  geographical  units,  such  sources  do  not  provide  clear 
insights into the rate of change. They can moreover suffer from a ‘collection to publication lag’, from 
collection to publication. Published data thus relate to the past, but as it ‘ages’ through  time, it often 
has  residual  authority  well  beyond  its  ‘temporal  decay’:  it  is  the  ‘latest  available’  data  and  is  often 
used  as  a  key  reference.  An  example  is  the  above-mentioned  2013  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in 
Education,  based  on  data  collected  in  late  2011.  Results  from  this  survey  are  as  of  today  the  most 
current evidence on a number of indicators of ICT availability and use in schools at both EU and in 
many  cases  national  level.159  As  such,  it  still  provides  a  valuable  perspective  and  has  been  used  for 
further analysis. For instance, a 2016 study estimated the current provision of internet connectivity in 
European schools from this basis and by comparison with smaller available datasets.160 However, it is 

156  Vuorikari,  R.,  Garoia,  V.,  Punie,  Y.,  Cachia,  R.,  Sloep,  P.  (2012).  Teacher  Networks.  Brussels.  European  Schoolnet. 
http://service.eun.org/teachers-newsletter/TellNet_Teacher_Networks_web.pdf 
157 European Commission (2016). Research Evidence on the Use of Learning Analytics: Implications for Education Policy, JRC Science for 
Policy  Report,  EUR  28294  EN.  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/research-evidence-use-
learning-analytics-implications-education-policy 
158 The Legacy of inBloom, Working Paper (Data & Society, 2017) https://datasociety.net/pubs/ecl/InBloom_feb_2017.pdf   
159 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ict-education-essie-survey-smart-20100039  
160 European Commission. (2017). Satellite broadband for schools: Feasibility study. doi:10.2759/835661. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
also known that current trends and changes in education, both at the level of policies and practices, are 
changing the educational landscape, thus resulting in these results to be outdated.  

This presents challenges as the governance of education systems becomes more complex, and as more 
actors and stakeholders (students, teachers and administrators, politicians, interest groups, researchers 
etc.) are involved. Big data analysis can be an important contributor to improve the evidence for policy 
making, as data generated in real time can be rapidly aggregated for monitoring or focused analysis of 
problems, successful approaches or other insights at education system level.161 

Learning  analytics  can  help  improve  learning  and  is  expected  to  trigger  profound  changes  in 
assessment  procedures  and  approaches.  However  the  technology  is  still  being  developed  and  tested. 
Learning  analytics  of  data  logs  is  in  the  focus  of  much  of  the  educational  research.162  The  Learning 
Analytics  Community  Exchange  (LACE)  project  generated  valuable  insights  on  the  use  of Learning 
Analytics in class, analysing the take-up of learning analytics across Europe and ethical concerns, and 
demonstrating  that  learning  analytics  can  improve  learning  outcomes  and  improve  learning  support 
and teaching.163 Comprehensive learning management systems have possibilities to generate amounts 
of  both  structured  and  unstructured  data,  which  can  be  combined  to  get  a  more  accurate  view  of  a 
student’s  learning  process,  performance  and  achievements.  164  Ethical  aspects  are  to  be  considered 
when using big data and learning analytics.165 

As an emerging trend, big data analytics require more policy-oriented research, to identify risks and 
challenges.  There  are  issues  that  should  be  addressed  when  dealing  with  big  data,  namely:  storage, 
management, and processing. Using big data for purposes of educational assessment raises ethical and 
morals  concerns:  the  ownership  of  the  mixture  of  data  collected  from  different  sources  could  be  a 
problem. Another question for the sector is how learning analytics will affect pedagogy and didactics. 
The impact of technological advancements linked to learning analytics and big data on pedagogy and 
teaching practices remains to be seen.  

The  way  technologies  are  used  in  education  reflects  the  structures  and  constrains,  including  social 
perspectives,  through  which  they  are  created.166  More  comprehensive  research  is  needed  to  address 
this  link  and  identify  the  impact  of  data  use  on  educational  attitudes,  processes  and  pedagogy.  The 
current evidence shows for instance that automatic feedback to students that includes comparisons to 
peers can push students to improve their responsibility for learning and academic performance.167 Data 

161  European  Commission.  (2017).  Big  data  for  monitoring  educational  systems  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/94cb5fc8-473e-11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  
162 Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: 
An issue brief. Washington, DC: Office on Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education; DiCerbo, K. E., & Behrens, J. T. (2014). 
Impacts  of  the  digital  ocean  on  education.  London:  Pearson;  Knight,  S.,  Shum,  S.  B.,  &  Littleton,  K.  (2013).  Epistemology,  pedagogy, 
assessment  and  learning  analytics.  In  Third  conference  on  Learning  Analytics  and  Knowledge  (LAK  2013)  (pp.  75–84).  Leuven:  ACM; 
Mislevy, R. J., Behrens, J. T., Dicerbo, K. E., & Levy, R. (2012). Design and discovery in educational assessment: Evidence-centered design, 
psychometrics, and educational data mining. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 4, 11–48; Pereira, H. A., De Souza, A. F., & De Menezes, 
C. S. (2016). A computional architecture for learning analytics in game-based learning. Conference paper. 2016 IEEE 16th Conference on 
Advanced  Learning  Technologies;  Rowe,  E.,  Asbell-Clarke,  J.,  Baker,  R.  S.,  Eagle,  M.,  Hicks,  A.  G.,  Barnes,  T.  M.,  Brown,  R.  A.,  & 
Edwards,  T.  (2017).  Assessing  implicit  science  learning  in  digital  games.  Computers  in  Human  Behavior,  76,  617–630;  Siemens,  G.,  & 
Baker, R. S. D. J. (2013). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. In Second Conference 
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012) (pp. 252 – 254). Vancouver, BC: ACM. 
163 http://evidence.laceproject.eu/ 
164  Cope,  B.,  &  Kalantzis,  M.  (2015).  Sources  of  evidence-of-learning:  Learning  and  assessment  in  the  era  of  big  data.  Open  Review  of 
Educational Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 194–217. 
165  European  Commission.  (2017).  Big  data  for  monitoring  educational  systems  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/94cb5fc8-473e-11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  
166 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). Assessment and pedagogy in the era of machine-mediated learning. In T. Dragonas, K. J. Gergen, S. 
McNamee,  &  E.  Tseliou  (Eds.),  Education  as  social  construction.  Contributions  to  theory,  research  and  practice  (pp.  350–374).  Chagrin 
Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications. 
167  Fritz,  J.  L.  (2016).  Using  analytics  to  encourage  student  responsibility  for  learning  and  identify  course  designs  that  help  (Ph.D.). 
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United States — Maryland. http://umbc.box.com/johnfritzdissertation 

27 

 
 
                                                            
analysis  based  on  student  writing  is  one  of  many  examples  illustrating  the  range  and  complexity  of 
data sources that can provide insights on learning and performance across a range of disciplines. 

Learning analytics can support game-based learning and apply techniques to detect "implicit learning", 
for  instance  to  support  Physics  teaching.168  Such  analysis  can  also  provide  insights  on  less  tangible 
elements, such as the behaviour and emotions of the players or learners.169 

Successful use of learning analytics and  big data analysis for education requires however more than 
just data and algorithms. Visualisation tools and training for educators and policy makers on how to –
correctly and carefully – interpret data are equally important.170 

3.3. User-driven innovation in tackling educational challenges 

Innovation is an ongoing process in education. Despite a frequently portrayed image of  education as 
inherently  conservative  or  resistant  to  change,  educators,  schools,  actors  are  largely  innovating  and 
furthering  change  to  respond  both  to  a  new  technological  landscape  and  new  demands  regarding 
teaching  and  learning.171  Education  systems  cover  a  large  scale  of  individuals,  organisations,  and 
institutions – there are for instance around 2 Million teachers172 and more than 20 Million students in 
school education in the European Union. Systemic change that reaches all of education can be slow.  
Education  also  has  a  responsibility  to  ensure  that  students  receive  similar  opportunities  and 
possibilities and no one is left behind. Accordingly, curricula and teaching methods tend to be changed 
progressively,  rather  than  radically.  Reforms  require  the  involvement  of  several  stakeholders  and 
generally allow time for the participation of several educational actors.  

The role of technology can be particularly contentious: as technological innovations often stem from 
non-education contexts, their penetration in education is sometimes hindered by resilience to change. 
In particular, the commercial element is considered, such as a lock-in of data and educational content 
in specific platforms, vendor control or marketing over software and devices, misuse of learner data or 
the involvement of vendors in teacher training or lesson design.173 It takes time for technologies to be 
adapted  to  educational  practices  and  for  pedagogical  approaches  to  be  developed.174  Technological, 
pedagogical, and policy solutions that directly address the needs of students and staff can however find 
quick uptake and are often shared within peer networks in education.175  

Ensuring  that  good  practices  are  developed  and  scaled  requires  listening  to  educators'  and  other 
stakeholders' experiences, challenges and views, so that the technical, pedagogical or policy solutions 
respond to the needs and experiences of practitioners on the ground. A co-design and exchange where 
solutions and pedagogical uses are developed in parallel can lead to especially good results. It is not 
surprising that several of the most used learning management systems and other educational solutions 

168 Rowe, E., Asbell-Clarke, J., Baker, R. S., Eagle, M., Hicks, A. G., Barnes, T. M., Brown, R. A., & Edwards, T. (2017). Assessing implicit 
science learning in digital games. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 617–630. 
169 Hawlitschek, A., & Köppen, V. (2014). Analyzing player behavior in digital game-based learning: Advantages and challenges. In Busch, 
C.  (Ed.),  Proceedings  of  8th  European  conference  on games  based  learning  ECGBL2014  (p.  199).  Academic  Conferences  and  Publishing 
International, 199 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9090/044c7f186ca66e2a589186ef68f180c2110a.pdf  
170  Policy  recommendations  for  learning  analytics  from  three  stakeholder  workshops  (Learning  Analytics  Community  Exchange  (LACE), 
2015) 
171  OECD.  (2016).  Innovating  Education  and  Educating  for  Innovation:  The  Power  of  Digital  Technologies  and  Skills.  Paris.  OECD 
Publishing. 
172 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Secondary_education_statistics  
173  Key  messages  on  Working  in  partnership  to  tackle  the  digital  skills  gap  (ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Skills  and  Competences, 
2017) 
174  A  common 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/2016-pla-bring-your-own-device_en.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/201708-mobile-learning_en.pdf  
175 eTwinning is one such network allowing cross-European collaboration and exchange 

the  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Skills  and  Competences,  e.g. 
and 

the  key  messages  of 

theme  of 

28 

 
 
 
                                                            
are free and open source software, which allow for contributions and feedback from all stakeholders 
and  have  been  taken  up  despite  competing  software  offers  promoted  through  large  marketing 
campaigns.176  

Ensuring  participation  and  involvement  of  educators  in  the  decision  and  design  process  can  also 
counter a frustration among teachers who feel their voices, views and experiences are not always heard 
and  considered.177  In  other  sectors,  hackathon-like  approaches  have  had  significant  impact  and 
generated both policy and technical solutions that responded directly to the needs identified by experts 
on  the  ground.  The  Climathon,  an  annual  event  organised  since  2015  by  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation  and  Technology's  KIC  InnoEnergy,178  has  each  year  focused  attention  and  action  on 
climate issues, created an active community, and generated practical technical and policy solutions to 
important challenges.179  

Applying this model to education can allow educators, learners, and other educational stakeholders to 
both  raise  challenges  and  suggest  solutions.  It  can  moreover  help  to  steer  policy  level  actions  and 
technical development towards improving digital education.  

3.4. Foresight: from lagging behind to anticipating change 

Foresight  is  a  discipline  that  offers  a  structured  approach  to  develop  an  understanding  of  likely 
developments  in  the  mid-to  long-term  future.  It  aims  to  identify  potential  pathways  and  identifies 
choices  and  preparatory  work  required  to  ensure  successful  uptake  in  the  future.  It  involves  the 
broadest  possible  range  of  stakeholders  to  develop  an  understanding  of  the  likely  future  ('future 
intelligence') and the challenges and opportunities this future and the transition process towards it will 
represent.180 It is a versatile process that combines tested forward-looking methodologies to provide a 
context in which present assumptions and established paradigms can be challenged in an  exploratory 
manner.  

Foresight  in  Education  is  an  already  explored  tool  that  allows  the  construction  of  shared  visions. 
Anticipation  is  another  valuable  feature  of  this  policy-planning  method.  Rather  than  to  formulate 
policy reactions to technological innovations once their effects reach educational environments, both 
educators and policy proactively prepare for technological change before wide uptake.181 Technology 
foresight  provides  a  forum  where  key  actors  and  stakeholders  can  collaboratively  explore  the 
dynamics  of  technological  change  and,  most  importantly,  think  about  how  they  can  act  to  affect 
desired  change.  Thus,  the  purpose  of  technology  foresight  is  twofold:  to  produce  outcomes  that 
describe upcoming  changes and trends, and to inspire whole communities to pursue certain  types of 
change.  

Change is not always linear. Accordingly, foresight on technology predicts the next steps of on-going 
technological  developments,  while  at  the  same  time  considering  societal  responses.  In  other  words, 
forecasting change has a technological dimension, that looks into new devices and tools that are going 
to be available in the market in the near future; and a societal dimension, that considers practices and 
changes that happen within society. These changes can be related to the penetration of technology or 

176 Such as Moodle (http://moodle.org/), Anki (http://ankisrs.net/), or Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/)  
177 Listen to Us: Teacher Views and Voices (Centre on Education Policy, 2016) 
178 https://climathon.climate-kic.org   
179 https://climathon.climate-kic.org/images/downloadables/Climathonbrochure.pdf  
180 The Commission's Futurium project is one example of general foresight https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en  
181 Thayer (2014).Constructing Optimal Futures for Education - Technology Foresight in Educational Policy and Planning. Nordic Journal of 
Digital Literacy 02 / 2014 (Volum 9) https://www.idunn.no/dk/2014/02/constructing_optimal_futuresfor_education_-_technology_for  

29 

 
 
 
                                                            
rather come from new behavioural patterns or shifts in norms and values. In education, this implies, 
for  instance,  that  students,  educators,  parents  and  other  educational  stakeholders  might,  for  various 
reasons,  embrace  or  reject  new  digital  technologies,  or  it  might  refer  to  the  adoption  of  new 
pedagogies, or in shifting priorities for the education sector.   

The  use  of  foresight  in  education  has  been  justified  in  several  ways.  First,  with  the  widespread 
argument  that  educational  organisation  are  slow  in  adopting  technological  change,  second,  with  the 
hypothesis  that  young  people  who  grew  up  with  digital  technology  learn  differently;  third,  as  the 
change of technology is exponential, education will increasingly be lagging behind; fourth, the remit 
of  education  to  prepare  young  people  for  the  future.182  Participative  and  predictive  approaches  can 
help look beyond current technological paradigms and, thus, build the capacity to inspire and motivate 
key  players  to  consider  implications  and  applications  of  existing  and  emerging  technologies,  and 
moreover to proactively pursue new pathways towards preferred future possibilities. 

The  ultimate  goal  of  foresight  is  to  help  stakeholders  and  policy  makers  decide  what  they  want 
educational  environments  to  look  like  in  the  medium  to  long-term  future.  This  knowledge  and 
understanding  will  allow  them  to  take  steps  to  reach  this  prospective  image  of  the  likely  or 
envisageable  future. A notable example of foresight in the domain  of education is the New Horizon 
Report  series183.  Since  2002,  NMC  Horizon  Project  from  the  New  Media  Consortium  identifies  and 
describes  emerging  technologies likely to have a large impact on education around the globe with a 
five years horizon. In 2014, the New Media Consortium and the European Commission cooperated in 
a study that specifically focused on the prospective impact of technologies on schools in Europe. The 
NMC  Horizon  Report  Europe:  2014  Schools  Edition184,  examined  six  key  trends,  six  significant 
challenges and six important developments in educational technology that were very likely to impact 
educational change processes in European schools between 2014 and 2018. The experts participating 
in  the  study  agreed  on  two  imminent  trends:  the  changing  role  of  schoolteachers  as  a  result  of  ICT 
influence,  and  the  impact  of  social  media  platforms  on  learning.  A  more  recent  special  report,  "The 
Future of Learning", published as a supplement in The Times, describes three upcoming trends: skills 
mismatch,  re-skilling,  and  robotics.  More  specifically,  it  investigates  how  to  combat  the  skills  crisis 
with  lifelong  learning  programmes,  why  companies  should  upskill  employees  and  how  robots  can 
teach workers new skills.185 

The  identification  of  trends  and  their  analysis  is  the  first  step  in  speculation  and  prediction,  and 
provides  the  basis  for  strategic  planning  and  for  policy  making  to  anticipate  change,  thus  enabling 
educational policies to lead innovation rather than lagging behind.  

182 Thayer. (2014).Constructing Optimal Futures for Education - Technology Foresight in Educational Policy and Planning. Nordic Journal 
of Digital Literacy 02 / 2014 (Volum 9) https://www.idunn.no/dk/2014/02/constructing_optimal_futuresfor_education_-_technology_for 
183 https://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/  
184  European  Commission  &  The  New  Media  Consortium.  (2014).  Horizon  Report  Europe:  2014  Schools  Edition,  EUR  26673  EN. 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/horizon-report-europe-2014-schools-edition  
185 Raconteur. (2017). The future of learning, supplement of The Times, September 2017. https://www.raconteur.net/future-learning-2017  

30