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 Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and training for the digital age
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: action programme, cooperation in the field of education, digital literacy, digital technology, distance learning, education, education policy, international cooperation, organisation of teaching, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 209 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   Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027         Resetting education and training for the digital age                   {COM(2020) 624 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2 

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 

2. Progress and achievements in the area of digital education to date ................................... 6 

2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan ...................................................................................... 11 

2.2 Challenges in the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan ........................................... 12 

3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis .................................................................................. 14 

3.1 Challenges in managing remote emergency education .................................................. 17 

4. Priorities and direction for strategic action ...................................................................... 22 

5. Supporting evidence ......................................................................................................... 24 

5.1 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning ..................................................... 24 

5.1.1 Infrastructure and connectivity ................................................................................... 26 

5.1.2 Digital capacity in educational institutions across the EU ......................................... 29 

5.1.3 Educators’ digital competence .................................................................................... 33 

5.1.4 Quality of digital education content ............................................................................ 36 

5.2 Digital competence development ................................................................................... 39 

5.2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU ................................................................. 41 

5.2.2 Addressing the gender gap .......................................................................................... 51 

5.2.3 Advanced digital skills and emerging areas of digital competence ............................ 53 

6. Implementation and monitoring ....................................................................................... 58 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................................. 62 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................... 65 

ANNEX 3: EUROPEAN DIGITAL COMPETENCE FRAMEWORKS ................................................ 90 

ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 93 

ANNEX 5: LITERATURE AND SOURCES ................................................................................... 99 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

This staff working document accompanies the Communication on the Digital Education Action 
Plan 2021-2027 and provides evidence and analysis of the opportunities and challenges that the 
digital transformation brings to education and training today. 

The  EU’s  first  framework  for  digital  education  was  launched  in  2018  through  the  Digital 
Education Action Plan, with 11 actions focusing on the formal education sector. The 2018 Action 
Plan  contributed  to  an  emerging  policy  dialogue  and  was  welcomed  by  Member  States,  but  its 
short-term duration (2018-2020) and limited budget meant that the actions could not reach their 
full potential and achieve the impact needed. 

This staff working document outlines the lessons learnt from implementing the 2018 Action Plan 
and discusses the latest developments in digital education. It explains why stronger action at EU 
level  is  needed,  taking  into  account  early  evidence  from  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  the  more  
structural challenges faced by digital education in Europe. It is based on data, research and policy 
documents  published  in  the  last  two  years  and  input  received  through  extensive  stakeholder 
consultations  with,  among  others,  representatives  of  Member  States  and  EFTA  countries, 
international and pan-European umbrella organisations, Members of the European Parliament and 
the  general  public.  The  experiences  and  educational  implications  of  the  COVID-19  crisis  were 
the  focus  of  a  public  consultation,  which  received  2,716  replies  and  more  than  130  position 
papers.  

The COVID-19 crisis led to a sudden and large-scale use of digital learning practices. The range 
of solutions put in place to ensure continuity of education and training was wide, including low- 
and high-tech practices, with marked differences within and between countries. Higher levels of 
digital  capacity  and  experience with  alternative  and flexible forms  of learning led to faster  and 
better  responses.  Evidence  shows  differences  between  levels  and  sectors  of  education  and 
training: in most cases, higher education institutions continued their lessons virtually, while many 
schools  and  vocational  and  training  (VET)  providers  lacked  expertise  and  struggled  to  offer 
distance  and  online  learning  opportunities  to  all  their  students.  On  average,  9%  of  15-year-old 
students do not have a quiet place to study in their homes, and there are significant gaps related to 
availability  of  computers  and  connectivity,  especially  for  children  from  low-income  families, 
disadvantaged backgrounds and remote areas. At present, there is not enough data on whether the 
distance  and  online  learning  practices  put  in  place  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  have 
ensured  effective  and  equitable  access  to  quality  learning  opportunities.  The  rapid  switch  to 
distance  and online teaching  and learning saw innovative practices emerge, but  also  significant 
challenges for those educators lacking the competences and confidence to use digital technologies 
in  an  effective  way.  Results  of  the  public  consultation  show  overwhelmed  parents,  educators 
struggling  to  ensure  a  structured  process  while  keeping  students  engaged,  and  learners  lacking 
interaction  and  unable  to  access  suitable  devices  and  reliable  internet  connection.  Looking 
beyond  the  crisis,  the  vast  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  considered  that  the  switch  to 
distance  and  online  learning  would  accelerate  the  transformation  of  education  and  training 
systems and called for stronger support and guidance at EU level. 

This  staff  working  document  supports  the  action  plan  outlined  in  the  Communication  on  the 
Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. Evidence is presented in two main sections:  

  Using digital technologies for teaching and learning: while most EU Member States have 
developed  strategies  in  the  field  of  digital  education,  few  undertake  regular  monitoring  and 
evaluation to review these strategies or update them to respond, for example, to developments 
in  technology  and  related  learning  needs.  Using  digital  technologies  effectively  in  teaching 
and learning practices is a complex process and requires planning, ongoing monitoring, and a 
strong  focus  on  learner-driven  pedagogy.  Evidence  confirms  that  providing  students  and 
2 

 
 
 
educators  with  appropriate  infrastructure  and  connectivity  is  essential.  However,  the 
proportion of students attending highly equipped and connected schools differs widely across 
Europe,  ranging  from  35%  to  52%  or  72%  depending  on  the  level  of  education  (ISCED 
1,2,3), and is higher in the Nordic countries. Evidence confirms that the older the students, the 
higher  the  likelihood  that  they  attend  a  school  with  a  fast  internet  connection,  with  large 
differences  between  and  within  EU  countries.  Research  clearly  shows  that  investment  and 
development  in  infrastructure  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  systemic  organisational  change 
underpinned  by  pedagogical  values.  This  includes  measures  to  reinforce  educators’  digital 
competences through flexible and sustained professional development opportunities, yet only 
39%  of  teachers  in  the  EU  felt  well  or  very  well  prepared  to  use  digital  technologies  for 
teaching. If properly designed and planned, online learning courses and Massive Open Online 
Courses (MOOCs) can help meet the lifelong learning needs of an ever-growing population 
of learners, and yet European countries are late adopters of such opportunities, with an offer 
unevenly  distributed  across  Member  States  and  none  of  the  EU  MOOC  platforms  being 
amongst the five leading global platforms. Structural challenges exacerbated by the COVID-
19 crisis and the sudden switch to digital  education modes has confirmed the need to boost 
the  digital  capacity  of  Europe’s  education  and  training  systems  and  to  work  together  to 
support the development of a high performing digital education ecosystem.    

  Digital competence development: well before the COVID-19 crisis, evidence was clear on 
the need to  support digital  competence development  of adults  and  young  people in  Europe. 
Today  more  than  ever,  being  digitally  competent  is  both  a  necessity  and  a  right.  However, 
digital  skills  levels  across  Europe  remain  unsatisfactorily  low,  with  44%  of  EU  citizens 
having  an  insufficient  level  of  digital  skills.  In  addition,  digital  divides  related  to  gender, 
socio-economic background and urban/rural areas persist. At present, more than a third of the 
EU labour force lacks  the basic digital skills  required in  most jobs  across  sectors,  and over 
half  of  EU  companies  report  difficulties  in  filling  vacancies  for  ICT  specialists.  The  digital 
skills  level  of  European  students  is  higher  compared  to  that  of  the  overall  population  and 
labour force, but more than one third of 13-14 year olds who participated in the International 
Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  did  not  have  a  high  proficiency  level  in  digital 
competence.  At  the  same  time,  the  availability  of  computing  and  informatics,  as  either 
compulsory or elective subjects is not uniform across Europe and less than 5% of graduates 
and  students  at  higher  education  level  are  studying  or  have  completed  ICT-related 
programmes. The COVID-19 crisis is likely to have an impact on the level and future demand 
for digital skills. However, more research is needed to see whether the increased use of digital 
technologies will lead to more critical, confident, and creative usage or to greater inequalities 
and negative experiences with technology. To thrive in a technology-driven economy, Europe 
needs  a  digitally  competent  workforce  and  a  large  pool  of  digital  talent  with  basic  and 
advanced  digital  skills,  including  those  related  to  emerging  technologies  such  as  Artificial 
Intelligence.  

This staff working document presents the challenges described above in detail and outlines how 
the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 will be implemented and monitored. Five annexes 
provide: further information on how the initiative was prepared (Annex 1); views of the consulted 
stakeholders (Annex 2); the European frameworks on digital competence (Annex 3); a glossary 
of key terms (Annex 4); references and main sources (Annex 5).   

3 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

Digital technologies are changing the world at an incredible speed and are reshaping how people 
in Europe live, work and study. Ongoing digital transformation impacts many parts of our daily 
life, from the ever-increasing integration of digital technologies in all sectors of the economy to 
the  societal  impact  of  emerging  technologies  such  as  Artificial  Intelligence  (AI).  Connected 
devices  and  intelligent  systems  surround  us  and  support  activities  in  terms  of  access  and 
exchange of information, communication and collaboration, modes of work, business operations 
and, finally yet critically, learning opportunities.  

Like  other  sectors,  education  and  training  is  undergoing  a  process  of  change.  When  properly 
planned  and  designed,  the  use  of  digital  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning  offers  many 
opportunities, including the possibility to open up to a more diverse cohort of learners, increase 
flexibility,  personalisation  and  inclusion,  and  offer  more  interactive  and  engaging  forms  of 
cooperation and communication. At the same time, it brings challenges: educators need to master 
the  digital  environment  to  design  high  quality  and  engaging  learning  experiences  and  learners 
also need to be technologically savvy1. Education and training systems have an essential role to 
play  in  embracing  digital  technologies  and  enabling  societies  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  digital 
transformation,  while  avoiding  the  risks  that  may  come  from  digital  exclusion  or  inappropriate 
use of technology.  

In  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  crisis,  digital  technologies  are  supporting  individuals  and 
organisations  in  their  daily  tasks,  allowing  for  business  continuity,  including  in  the  field  of 
education and training. However, the sudden and large-scale use of digital technologies to ensure 
continuity of teaching and learning has shown major discrepancies between and within Member 
States and has brought  to the fore the benefits and risks of digitalisation. Today more than ever, 
ensuring inclusive and quality education and training that responds to the lifelong learning need 
to develop the competences necessary for future life and employment requires that education and 
training institutions use digital technologies in a critical, purposeful and effective way.  

In  this  staff  working  document,  digital  education  covers  two  different  but  interlinked 
dimensions 2 :  the  pedagogical  use  of  digital  technologies  to  support  and  enhance  teaching, 
learning  and  assessment  (including  in  face-to-face  or  blended  practices3,  but  also  for  remote 
education 4 ),  and  the  development  of  digital  competence.  Recognised  as  one  of  the  key 
competences for lifelong learning5, being digitally competent involves the confident, critical and 
responsible use of and engagement with digital technologies for learning, work, and participation 
in  society6.  It  includes  a  set  of  knowledge,  skills  and  attitudes  essential  for  any  learner  at  any 
stage of their personal and professional life.  

1 Paniagua A., Istance D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies. 
Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
2 While developing the renewed Digital Education Action Plan, it became apparent that definitions pertaining to digital education 
are being used fluidly, often changing depending on context and audience. Terms used to refer to a specific aspect of digital 
education vary not only when comparing approaches but also because influenced by organisational policy, the recent proliferation 
of sector guidance, or because of a dislike of other terms relating to the same concept. Definitions of terms used in this staff 
working document are provided in a glossary in Annex 4. 
3 Blended learning is a pedagogical approach mixing face-to-face and online learning, with some element of learner control over 
time, place, path, and pace. See the glossary in Annex 4 for further information. 
4 In this staff working document, remote education is used as a broad term which compromises, among others, the possibility to 
organise and deliver teaching and learning activities at distance (e.g. by using radio, TV or electronic resources) or online (e.g. 
requiring learners to use a connected device). See the glossary in Annex 4 for further information.  
5 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01. 
6 According to the DigComp Framework, digital competence includes information and data literacy, communication and 
collaboration, media literacy, digital content creation, safety, intellectual property related questions, problem solving and critical 
thinking. See Annex 3 for further details.  

4 

 
 
 
The  Political  Guidelines  of  the  European  Commission  President  Ursula  von  der  Leyen 7 
underlined the need for Europe to lead  the green and digital transitions8 and announced the 
update of the Digital Education Action Plan as a key initiative to help unlock the potential of 
digital  technologies  for  education  and  to  address  a  widening  digital  skills  gap9.  Education  and 
training is called upon to contribute to a European society powered by digital solutions that are 
strongly  rooted  in  our  common  values  and  respond  to  the  lifelong  needs  of  people  and 
organisations 10.  In this context, the crisis period has shown the essential role of technology for 
educational  continuity  and  the  need  to  work  together  to  make  education  and  training  systems 
resilient and  future-ready.  Boosting the level of  digital  competences and  capabilities to  support 
the effective and pedagogical use of digital technologies is a key enabling factor in improving the 
quality, inclusivity and effectiveness of education and training11.  

The EU framework for digital education was set in 2018 with the first Digital Education Action 
Plan12, an integral part of the European Education Area13. While limited in scope and duration to 
assess its overall impact, the 2018 Action Plan has received strong support, including  from  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Considering  its  achievements  and  the 
COVID-19  disruptions,  stakeholders  and  Member  States  are  now  seeking  a  more  ambitious 
approach to addressing challenges and harnessing opportunities for the future. Consequently, the 
Communication on repairing and preparing for the next generation14 announced the adoption of a 
renewed Digital Education Action Plan in the context of the recovery plan. The aim is to address 
and support the increased responsibility of Europe’s education and training systems in managing 
the aftermath of COVID-19, in parallel with the ongoing digital transformation. 

In  recent  years,  digital  education  policies  have  evolved  at  both  European  and  national  level. 
Almost  all  Member  States  now  have  national  and/or  regional  strategies  for  digital  education15. 
Examples include the ‘INcoDe.2030  -  National  Digital  Competences  Initiative’ in  Portugal,  the 
‘Pacte  pour  un  Enseignement  d’Excellence’  in  the  French  Community  of  Belgium,  and  the 
‘DigitalPakt Schule’ in Germany. In some cases, digital competence is part of broader strategies 
on lifelong learning, as in Estonia, or sustainable development, as in Poland16. Many countries are 
currently  in  the  process  of  updating  their  digital  strategies,  and  the  disruptions  caused  by  the 
COVID-19 pandemic will undoubtedly lead to a deeper reflection on the role digital technologies 
can play in supporting teaching and learning to make sure that no one is left behind.  

7 President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political 
Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.  
8 Commission’s Communication on the European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final) and the new Skills Agenda (COM(2020)441 
final/2) recognise the links between the green and digital transitions and the need to exploit synergies between them.  
9 Mission Letter to Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/gabriel_en.  
10 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on Shaping Europe's digital future. COM(2020) 67 final. 
11 Efforts  under  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  and  those  under  the  new  sSkills  Agenda  (COM(2020)441  final/2)  and  the 
accompanying proposal for a Council Recommendation on VET (COM (2020) 275) will all contribute to the overall objective set 
out in the Skills Agenda, to ensure that 70% of 16 to 74 year olds have at least basic digital skills by 2025. 
12 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. 
13 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture. COM(2017) 673 final. 
14 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation. COM/2020/456 final. 
15 In 2019, only six countries did not have a strategy on digital education. European Commission (2019). Digital Education at 
School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
16 A full list of strategies for digital education is available in Annex 4 of European Commission (2019). Digital Education at 
School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders consulted in the preparation of this initiative, through both a public consultation and 
targeted consultations, highlighted that the European Commission can play an important role in 
advancing  these  discussions  and  setting  a  common  vision  by  leveraging  good  practices  and 
linking  European  and  national  initiatives  that  promote  innovation  in  teaching,  learning  and 
assessment17.  

Stronger  support  and  guidance  at  EU  level  is  needed  to  learn  from  the  experiences  so  far, 
including more recently from the COVID-19 crisis, and to boost the level of preparedness for the 
future. Common efforts and a comprehensive approach are needed to harness digital technologies 
for  effective  and  inclusive  education  and  training  and  to  enable  Europeans  of  all  ages  and 
backgrounds to live and thrive in the digital age. 

This staff working document accompanies the Communication on the renewed Digital Education 
Action Plan 2021-2027. It provides analysis and evidence that supports its priorities and actions 
and  addresses  the  challenges  arising  from  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  the  wider  digital 
transformation.  The  renewed  Action  Plan  presents  a  long-term  vision  for  digital  education  and 
covers formal (primary, secondary, tertiary, and adult education, including VET), non-formal and 
informal education (youth work, community-based organisations, libraries, cultural and creative 
spaces,  etc.).  It  takes  a  lifelong  learning  perspective,  addressing  the  needs  of  children,  young 
people and adults, learners as well as education and training staff.  

2. Progress and achievements in the area of digital education to date 
As part of the European Education Area18, in January 2018, the European Commission adopted 
the first Digital Education Action Plan19. It set out 11 actions for the 2018-2020 period, aiming to 
help  Member  States  meet  the  challenges  and  opportunities  stemming  from  the  use  of  digital 
technologies in education and training.  

The  2018  Action  Plan  focused  on  formal  education  (i.e.  primary  and  secondary  schools,  VET, 
and higher education) and covered three priority areas:  

 
 
 

Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning; 
Developing digital competences and skills; 
Improving education through better data analysis and foresight. 

The  first  priority  aimed  to  support  the  use  of  digital  technology  in  education,  fostering  its  full 
potential as a tool for teaching and learning. The second priority addressed the development  of 
digital  competence  as  a  ‘life  skill’,  crucial  for  playing  an  active  role  in  society,  engaging  in 
further  education  and  training,  and  accessing  the  labour  market.  The  third  priority  focused  on 
foresight, and how improving the use of data in education can support policymaking.  

Welcomed  by  Member  States,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  and 
stakeholders  at  large,  the  2018  Action  Plan  contributed  to  an  emerging  policy  dialogue  and 
confirmed the EU's added value in this field. The implementation of its actions is ongoing until 
the  end  of  2020.  The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  state  of  implementation  of  each 
action to date. 

17 See Annex 2 for further details. 
18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture. COM(2017) 673 final. 
19 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. 

6 

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

1. Connectivity 
in Schools  

2. SELFIE  

Scope: high-speed internet for schools.  
Objective: support connectivity in schools through voucher schemes. 
Achievements:  three  calls  of  Wifi4EU  (Free  Wi-Fi  for  Europeans)  were 
launched  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  Programme20.  So  far,  7,980 
municipalities  have  received  vouchers  to  install  free  Wi-Fi  access  points  in 
public spaces, including schools. A series of newsletters and webinars helped 
raise awareness of the opportunities under this action.  
Next steps: the final call of Wifi4EU was launched in June 2020.  
Lessons learnt: Wifi4EU was designed for municipalities, with schools being 
only  indirect  beneficiaries.  Nevertheless,  experience  has  shown  that  a 
significant  proportion  of  municipalities  made  use  of  the  Wifi4EU  funding  to 
install free Wi-Fi access points in schools. In fact, 37.5% of all access points 
installed as a result of the first three Wifi4EU calls were installed in schools. 

Scope:  online  tool  to  help  schools  (upper  primary,  secondary  and  VET)  to 
review how they use digital technologies for teaching and learning and to plan 
for improvements. 
Objective: reach one million teachers, trainers and learners and promote peer 
learning through a mentoring scheme for innovation in schools. 
Achievements:  released  in  October  2018,  the  SELFIE  tool  is  available  in  32 
languages  and  has  been  extended  to  countries  beyond  the  EU  (notably  the 
Western  Balkans).  So  far  used  by  more  than  650,000  students,  teachers  and 
school  leaders,  SELFIE  has  received  extensive  support  and  interest  from 
Ministries  of  Education.  A  call  for  a  mentoring  scheme  for  innovation  in 
schools  was  published  in  November  2019  and  its  evaluation  is  currently 
ongoing.  
Next steps: the SELFIE tool is regularly updated with new features, based on 
user  feedback.  The  latest  release  included  questions  related  to  remote 
education. Support material to help schools use their results from SELFIE are 
being  developed.  A  pilot  project  to  extend  SELFIE  for  work-based  learning 
systems  in  VET  is  currently  taking  place.  The  projects  funded  through  the 
mentoring scheme will start between November 2020 and January 2021. 
Lessons learnt: implementation has been highly successful, which shows that 
the action meets  a direct need for schools (primary and secondary, including 
teachers  and  plan  for 
technology  use,  support 
VET) 
organisational  change.  Feedback  from  stakeholders  highlights  the  need  to 
further  support  the  development  of  digital  capacity  of  schools  by  providing 
more support materials. Anonymised and aggregated data from the tool could 
be used to support policymaking.  

to  reflect  on 

3. Digitally 
signed 
credentials  

Scope: digital authentication of qualifications.  
Objective:  create  a  framework  for  digitally-signed  credentials,  i.e.  proof  of 
individual learning achievement. 

20 The WiFi4EU initiative aims to provide free public Wi-Fi connectivity for citizens and visitor networks in 6,000-8,000 
communities across the EU by the end of 2020. Its funding comes from the Connecting Europe Facility, a funding instrument to 
promote growth, jobs and competitiveness through targeted infrastructure investments at EU level. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
4 Higher 
Education Hub  

5 Open Science 
Skills 

6 EU Code 
Week in 
schools  

Achievements: the technical framework is under development and piloted by 
18 Member States in 2020.  
Next steps: the final version of the framework will be released after the pilot 
and published though Europass21 and the certifying institutions. 
Lessons learnt: the action addresses the lack of digital solutions for storing and 
validating credentials, diplomas and certificates. Interest from Member States 
is  high  but,  as  the  pilot  is  ongoing,  it  is  too  early  to  draw  conclusions, 
especially regarding uptake by end users. 

Priority 2: Developing digital competences and skills 

Scope: higher education institutions’ use of digital technologies. 
Objective: create a Europe-wide platform for digital higher education. 
Achievements: the OpenU project (Online Pedagogical resources for European 
Universities)  is  funded  through  Erasmus+  and  started  in  April  2019.  It  is 
implemented by a consortium of 20 partners from 11 countries.  
Next  steps:  by  the  end  of  2021,  a  European  hub  for  online  and  blended 
learning, virtual mobility and exchange of best practices will be created. 
Lessons learnt: the action is based on one Erasmus+ project, which limits the 
scale of the potential outcomes to the capacity of the consortium to deliver on 
the objectives of the call.  

Scope: open science skills.  
Objective: training for students and staff on open science skills. 
Achievements:  a  call  to  support  open  science  skills  development  was 
published through Erasmus+. Three proposals were received but none satisfied 
the  minimum  quality  criteria.  In  2020,  the  open  science  skills  training  will 
therefore be delivered through European University alliances.  
Next  steps:  the  development  of  course  material  and  training  modules  for 
students  and  staff  is  ongoing,  supported  by  several  European  University 
alliances,  which  have  committed  to  sharing  resources,  training  and  best 
practice on the effective implementation of open science. 
Lessons learnt: lack of demand for this action.  

Scope: coding and digital creativity. 
Objective:  increase  schools’  participation  in  EU  Code  Week,  a  grassroots 
initiative  promoting  computational  thinking,  coding  and  the  creative  and 
critical use of digital technologies.  
Achievements: there have been two editions, with 116,000 coding activities in 
more  than  80  countries,  involving  6.9  million  people,  mainly  from  schools 
(48%  of  participants  were  female).  It  is  estimated  that  10%  of  EU  schools 
were involved. The action is supported by teacher training and other activities 
that help and support organisers. 
Next steps: the 2020 edition of EU Code Week will take place between 10 and 
25  October  2020,  combined  with  a  European  Parliament  pilot  project  in  six 
countries  (LV,  ES,  IT,  IE,  RO,  SI)  and  a  closing  event  in  Brussels  (BE)  in 

21 Europass (https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/) is a service helping individuals to communicate their skills and qualifications 
effectively by using standardised document templates.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 Cybersecurity 
in Education  

8 Training for 
girls  

2021.  
Lessons  learnt:  implementation  has  been  successful,  contributing  to  the 
development  of  teachers'  and  young  people’s  digital  skills  through  activities 
planned  in  cooperation  with  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  from  different 
Member States.  

Scope: online safety, cyber hygiene and media literacy. 
Objective: an awareness campaign and a blended course for 6,000 secondary 
school teachers. 
Achievements:  #SaferInternet4EU,  a  campaign  combining  actions  from 
different stakeholders at EU and national level to improve awareness of digital 
challenges/opportunities for children, involved 30 million people in 2018 and  
33 million people in 2019. In 2020, the EU-funded network of Safer Internet 
Centres in Member States carried out a Better Internet for Kids (BIK)22 mini-
campaign in response to COVID-19; this included educational resources. 
Next  steps:  a blended learning course for teachers on cybersecurity has  been 
piloted and will be rolled out in the second half of 2020. 
Lessons  learnt:  #SaferInternet4EU  continues  to  reach  a  growing  audience, 
which  shows  the  clear  need  to  deepen  efforts  to  foster  online  safety.  The 
design,  implementation  and  delivery  of  the  blended  learning  course  on 
cybersecurity,  however,  has  seen  delays  and  required  mitigation  measures  to 
achieve the expected results. 

Scope: overcoming the digital gender gap. 
Objective: workshops on digital and entrepreneurship skills for 20,000 female 
students (aged 12-18). 
Achievements: a series of workshops were organised and reached 4,104 girls 
in 16 countries (10 Member States, 6 candidate and other European countries).  
Next  steps:  additional  workshops  will  take  place  for  12,275  girls  in  2020-
2021.  
Lessons learnt: the objective of this action remains highly relevant; however, 
the  delivery  mechanisms  of  the  workshops  were  not  efficient  due  to  public 
procurement  rules  and  needed  mitigation  measures  to  achieve  the  expected 
results.  

Priority 3: Improving education through better data analysis and foresight 

9 Studies on 
ICT in 
education  

Scope: use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in schools. 
Objective:  publish  a  study  on  the  use  of  ICT  in  schools,  revise  the  OECD’s 
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) questionnaire on use 
the  feasibility  of  benchmarks  on  digital  and 
of  ICT  and  explore 
entrepreneurship competences. 
Achievements: a report on the use of ICT in schools was published in March 
201923. Two technical notes explaining the feasibility of new benchmarks on 
digital and entrepreneurship competences were also published.   
Next steps: the new optional PISA questionnaire on ICT use is in a pilot phase 

22 Better Internet for Kids: betterinternetforkids.eu portal 
23 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10 Artificial 
Intelligence and 
analytics  

11 Strategic 
foresight  

and will be included in PISA 202224. 
Lessons  learnt:  the  publication  of  studies  providing  recent  data  on  digital 
education and competence was a good initial step, but more efforts are needed 
to  improve  the  availability  of  comparable,  cross-national  data  and  ensure 
continuous monitoring of the level of digital competence across the EU.  

Scope: artificial intelligence and learning analytics in education. 
Objective:  launch artificial intelligence and  analytics pilot  projects  to  predict 
future skills and skills shortages. 
Achievements: two pilots took place: the first focused on a skills gap analysis 
in the energy storage sector and resulted in an online system to match people 
with jobs and available courses or training25. The other led to the development 
of two proofs of concept to predict future skills shortages.   
Next steps: both pilot projects will be further tested and developed in late 2020 
and recommendations on how to use them in the future will be produced. 
Lessons learnt: the action was limited to two pilot projects with limited scope; 
these are still ongoing and so it is too early to draw conclusions. 

Scope: exploring trends in digital education. 
Objective: publish foresight papers, launch an education hackathon. 
Achievements: a foresight paper on AI in education was published in 201826; a 
second on makerspaces was published in 201927 and a third one on teachers in 
the digital age is under development28. The Digital Education Hackathon was 
piloted  in  November  2019;  1,700  people  from  21  countries  joined  the  event, 
identifying  and  presenting  solutions  to  60  challenges  in  24  hours.  The  event 
gathered  130  solutions  in  total  and  resulted  in  33  winners  at  local  level,  10 
finalists  and  three  global  winners  who  each  received  a  5,000-euro  award  to 
implement their ideas.  
Next  steps:  the  third  foresight  paper  on  teachers  in  the  digital  age  will  be 
published in autumn 2020, along with a report on future assessment in primary 
and  secondary  education.  The  second  edition  of  the  Digital  Education 
Hackathon will take place in November 202029. 
Lessons  learnt:  the  foresight  papers  helped  increase  the  body  of  prospective 
work available in Europe. Further work on the topic is needed and should be 
better  communicated,  disseminated  and  discussed  with  practitioners.  The 
Digital  Education  Hackathon  was  highly  successful.  Feedback  from 
stakeholders highlighted the need to continue and expand this initiative. 

Table 1: State of play of the 2018 Digital Education Action Plan  

24 OECD (2019). Upgrading the ICT questionnaire items in PISA 2021. OECD Education Working Paper No. 202 
25 The beta version of the ‘SkillCharge’ system developed in the framework of action 10 of the 2018 Action Plan is available at 
https://skillcharge.innoenergy.com   
26 Joint  Research  Centre  (2018).  The  impact  of  Artificial  Intelligence  on  Learning,  Teaching  and  Education.  Policies  for  the 
future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
27 Joint Research Centre (2019), Makerspaces for Education and Training. Exploring future implications for Europe. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 
28 Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations 
based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
29 More information is available at: https://digieduhack.com/en/ 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
As Table 1 shows, a full evaluation of the outcomes of the 2018 Action Plan will only be possible 
in early 2021. To date, most actions have been delivered as planned. Six calls for funding were 
published, as well as two reports and one study. In terms of outreach, SELFIE, EU Code Week, 
and the #SaferInternet4EU campaign have reached more than 37.5 million students, teachers and 
parents in Europe.  

2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan  

The 2018 Action Plan was the European Commission's first policy initiative on digital education 
since  the  2013  Communication  on  Opening  up  Education 30 .  It  played  an  important  role  in 
bringing  together  existing  and  new  EU  initiatives  within  one  framework  and  coordinating  the 
overall  approach  to  technology  in  education  and  digital  competence  development.  The  2018 
Action Plan had an impact beyond its 11 actions as it triggered discussion and influenced policy 
more widely across Europe.  

Its implementation boosted cooperation and dialogue on digital education. Several high-level 
events brought education stakeholders and policy makers together to discuss innovative teaching 
and  learning  practices,  including  the  Bulgarian  and  Romanian  Presidency  events  organised  in 
2018  and  2019.  Additional  activities  were  carried  out  in  response  to  stakeholder  requests  and 
feedback,  as  for  instance,  the  development  of  a  new  dimension  on  digital  transformation  and 
capability  in  the  HEInnovate  framework 31 .  The  2018  Action  Plan  also  influenced  national 
policies  and  initiatives  on  digital  education  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  including  Belgium, 
Bulgaria and France32.  

The  Erasmus+  programme  supports  a  wide  range  of  projects  focusing  on  different  topics 
connected  to  innovative  teaching  and  learning  practices  and  the  effective  use  of  digital 
technologies. The 2018 Action Plan adoption gave more recognition and prominence to the topic 
of digital education in various Erasmus+ calls for proposals, giving it greater visibility during its 
implementation period. For instance, in the 2019 Erasmus+ call for policy experimentation in the 
field  of  education  and  training  led  by  high-level  public  authorities,  digital  education  and 
competence was the first priority area33.  

Overall,  the  number  of  projects  on  digital  education  funded  annually  has  tripled  since  the 
adoption  of  the  2018  Action  Plan.  For  instance,  in  2018-2019,  only  considering  the  Erasmus+ 
centralised  actions34,  more  than  35  projects  addressing  the  development  of  digital  competence 
and the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning have been funded. These projects are 
cross-sectoral and involve organisations from all fields of education and training in more than 50 
different  countries.  Those  with  the  highest  evaluation  score  focused  on  the  use  of  digital 
technologies as a means to build innovative practices (e.g. in teacher professional development, 

30 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies 
and Open Educational Resources. COM/2013/0654 final. 
31 HEInnovate, a guiding  framework to support higher education institutions and systems to develop their innovative and 
entrepreneurial potential: https://heinnovate.eu/en  
32 The 2018 Action Plan influenced the ‘Education for Tomorrow’ programme in BG and the digital education strategy of BE-FR. 
In FR, a number of national initiatives were inspired by the 2018 Action Plan, which also triggered inclusion of digital 
competence across the curricula, development of a digital competence framework, reinforced support on science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics. Furthermore, the 2018 Action Plan inspired a Hungarian request for structural reform support 
(under the SRSS) on the digital transformation of the Hungarian higher education sector. See Annex 2 for further details.  
33  More  information  is  available  at:  https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/european-policy-experimentations-in-the-
fields-of-education-and-training-led-by-high-level-public-authorities-2020_en 
34 The  Erasmus  +  programme  is  divided  into  centralised  and  decentralised  actions.  The  centralised  actions  are  managed  at  a 
European  level  by  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  (EACEA)  located  in  Brussels,  Belgium.  The 
decentralised  actions  are  managed  in  each  programme  country  by  National  Agencies  that  are  appointed  by  their  national 
authorities. More information is available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/actions_en 

11 

 
 
 
 
work-based  learning,  assessment,  etc.)  and  increase  the  digital  capacity  of  schools,  initial  and 
continuing  VET,  or  higher  education.  In  almost  all  projects,  the  focus  was  on  using  digital 
technologies to make education more inclusive and to respond to changing labour market needs.  

Digital education and related topics have also been included in the work of online platforms and 
communities,  including  eTwinning 35 ,  the  School  Education  Gateway 36 ,  EPALE 37  and  the 
Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange38. These bring together educational stakeholders to exchange views 
and discuss the use of digital education content and practice.  

The  European  Commission  published  an  additional  report  on  the  status  of  digital  education  in 
schools  in  Europe  in  2019,  providing  updated  and  comparative  information  on  strategic 
approaches  to  digital  education  and  policies  supporting  schools,  school  curricula  and  teachers’ 
professional development, students' digital competences evaluation and the use of technology for 
assessment39. 

2.2 Challenges in the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan  

Systemic  results  in  education  and  training  take  time  and  require  sustained  efforts  at  different 
levels40.  Consequently,  the  main  challenges  in  implementing  the  2018  Action  Plan  relate  to  its 
short-term  duration  and  the  subsequent  sustainability  of  its  actions  in  the  longer  term41. 
Even  though  the  2018  Action  Plan  should  be  seen  in  complementarity  with  policies  and 
initiatives developed at the national level in line with the principle of subsidiarity, stakeholders 
consulted to prepare this initiative highlighted the importance of more guidance, cooperation and 
funding at the EU level42. 

Feedback from consulted stakeholders highlighted that the Action Plan's  outreach activities and 
international  dimension  could  be  strengthened  to  increase  visibility 43 .  More  specifically, 
opportunities and challenges for digital education should be better explained to build a common 
understanding  of  key  problems  and  how  to  address  them.  In  general,  consulted  stakeholders 
highlighted  the  need  to  further  support  education  and  training  to  adapt  to  the  digital 
transformation,  including  a  more  inclusive  approach  to  digital  competence  development  and 
looking beyond formal education in a lifelong learning perspective.  

Experience gathered over the last two years and input received from stakeholders show that the 
renewed Action Plan needs to ensure stronger cooperation and closer collaboration with other 
European  Institutions,  Member  States  and  related  stakeholders 44 .  Results  of  the  public 
consultation confirm that the COVID-19 crisis has increased the need for a more coordinated and 
structured EU-level approach to digital education, based on continuous dialogue and exchange45.   

35 eTwinning, a community for schools in Europe and beyond: www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm  
36 School Education Gateway, Europe's online platform for school education: www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/index.htm  
37 EPALE, an Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en  
38 Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, a platform enabling youth to engage in meaningful intercultural experiences online as part of their 
formal or non-formal education: https://europa.eu/youth/erasmusvirtual  
39 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
40 Joint Research Centre (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
41 The duration of the 2018 Action Plan was determined, among others, by the EU Multiannual Financial Framework. 
42 Respondents to the public consultation used the last open question of the questionnaire to provide comments on the role that the 
European Commission can play in supporting digital education in Europe and to call for more cooperation among stakeholders. In 
the targeted stakeholder consultations, stakeholders identified the funding opportunities of the 2018 Action Plan as insufficient 
and called for reinforced funding and specific guidance. See Annex 2 for further details. 
43 Most of the consulted stakeholders, especially from Member States, considered the visibility of the 2018 Action Plan as not 
satisfactory and called for further efforts in this direction. See Annex 2 for further details. 
44 For instance, the European Training Foundation has played a key role in implementing the 2018 Action Plan, as a member of 
the ET2020 Working Group on Digital Education, as well as in disseminating the European Frameworks for digital competence 
(see Annex 3) and in extending some of the actions to accession and candidate countries.  
45 See Annex 2 for more details.  

12 

 
 
 
 
Box 1: cooperation and stakeholder engagement during the 2018 Action Plan 

During  the  implementation  of  the  2018  Action  Plan,  cooperation  and  stakeholder  engagement 
were  supported  mainly  through  two  initiatives:  the  Education  and  Training  2020  (ET2020) 
Working Group on Digital Education and the Digital Education Hackathon.  
The  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Education  (2018-2020)46 is  a  dynamic  forum  for 
exchange  of  views  and  experiences  on  using  technology  in  education  and  training  and  digital 
competence development. The group brings together public authorities (mainly digital education 
experts  from  Ministries  of  Education),  social  partners  and  civil  society  working  on  formal  and 
non-formal education.  

Through regular online and face-to-face meetings, the group explores how digital technology can 
and  is  impacting  on  teaching,  learning  and  assessment  and  shares  good  practice  from  systems 
which are using these tools to implement real change. Experts and guest speakers take part in the 
meetings  and  members  share  their  own  perspectives  and  experiences. The  group  has  provided 
Member  States  with  a  platform  that  gathers  information  that  can  feed  into  their  strategic 
approaches to digital education and digital competence development across all sectors of society. 
Over  the  years,  the  group  has  worked  in  synergy  with  other  ET2020  working  groups47 and  has 
been highly effective, including in supporting the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan with 
regular  discussions  and  progress  reports  on  its  11  actions,  in  particular  the  SELFIE  tool  for 
schools. The group produced key policy messages from their discussions, for example on AI in 
education,  teacher  professional  development,  game-based  learning  and  digital  content  and 
resources.  Feedback  from  meetings  has  been  highly  positive 48  and  the  many  peer-learning 
activities hosted by Member States highlighted the willingness to deepen discussions and engage 
with a wider group of stakeholders. 
The Digital Education Hackathon49 is a 24-hour contest that engages organisations working in 
education and training in the EU and globally to identify challenges and co-create solutions for 
the future of education in the digital age50. Piloted in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan and 
implemented  by  the  EIT  Climate-KIC51 and  Aalto  University,  the  Digital  Education  Hackathon 
proved to be a highly successful concept for user-driven innovation and collaboration.  The first 
edition involved 1,700 people from 21 countries globally (Figure 1); the second will take place in 
November 2020.   

46 ET2020  Working  Groups  are  set  up  as  part  of  the  EU’s  policy  cooperation  process  in  education  and  training  supporting 
common policy objectives. Members of the Working Groups are government officials appointed by EU Member States and other 
participating countries, plus a number of representatives from stakeholder organisations and social partners. The ET2020 working 
groups  are  organised  around  seven  different  themes,  including  Digital  Education:  Learning,  Teaching  and  Assessment.  More 
information is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/european-policy-cooperation/et2020-working-groups_en  
47 The ET2020 Working Group on Innovation and Digitalisation in VET (2018-2020) has also served as a forum for exchange and 
discussion  on  how  to  use  innovation  and  digitalisation  to  boost  high-quality  VET,  including  higher  VET.  In  this  context,  for 
instance, the expansion of SELFIE to work-based learning has also been extensively discussed and prepared.   
48 Surveys taken in a regular way showed that members found the meetings relevant and useful mutual learning opportunities. 
49 Digital Education Hackathon: https://digieduhack.com/en/  
50 Using participatory methods in education and training, including through digital tools, is a new approach that is slowly gaining 
ground in Europe to crowdsource ideas and stimulate user-driven innovation. Educational hackathons, which have proliferated in 
the last years, are a good example of involving educators and learners in a forward-looking reflection and co-creation process. In 
education and training, they are often organised around a ‘challenge’ to solve in a limited period of time and focus on building 
solutions for today's education problems by bringing up creative ideas, sometimes in the form of a prototype . The challenge can 
be formulated, for example, by learners, educators, school or university boards, regional and national authorities or even set in 
collaboration with EdTech sector in order to ensure that technology products meet the needs of education and training today. 
51  EIT  Climate-KIC  is  one  of  the  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Communities  of  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and 
Technology (EIT). More information available at: https://www.climate-kic.org/ 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: The first edition of the Digital Education Hackathon in numbers 

Source: DigiEduHack (2019) 

Feedback from stakeholders was highly positive: participants perceived their involvement in  the 
first Digital Education Hackathon very useful (94%) and confirmed their intention to take part in 
the  next  edition  (77%);  more  than  half  of  the  hosting  organisations  (54%)  expressed  their 
willingness to further work on implementing the most innovative ideas. The Hackathon generated 
policy and technical solutions to problems identified by educational stakeholders on the ground. 
During the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan, the EU Code Week52 was also a successful 
action  boosting  cooperation.  The  initiative  is  supported  by  the  European  Commission  and 
Ministries of Education in EU and Western Balkan countries. At the heart of EU Code Week is 
the community of volunteer activity organisers who are teachers, mentors, coding clubs, libraries, 
private companies, parents and non-governmental organisations. They dedicate their time, energy 
and skills  to  bring computational thinking, coding,  robotics, tinkering  with  hardware, computer 
science and digital skills at large to as many people as possible in Europe and around the world. 
In 2019, more than 4.2 million people participated in over 80 countries around the world. 

Overall, these very different examples highlight the potential to work together and engage with 
a wide range of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of digital education.  

3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis  

In  2020,  the  world  was  hit  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Like  other  parts  of  the  world,  Europe 
faced an unprecedented crisis and urgent need to respond to immediate public health challenges 
and  consequent  economic  and  social  issues.  In  March  202053,  most  EU  countries  restricted  or 
prohibited  access  to  buildings  and  campuses  of  schools,  universities  and  other  centres  of 
education and training, as part of their measures to slow down the spread of the virus (Figure 2)54.  

52 EU Code Week: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eu-code-week. 
53 In IT, the European country hit first by the pandemic, schools and universities closed on 5 March 2020. This decision was 
followed by AL, EL, CZ and RO. Most European education systems closed their education and training institutions’ buildings by 
16 March 2020. The last country to announce such measures was the UK, where schools and universities closed their doors by 20-
23 March 2020. Only few countries in Europe decided not to close their education and training institutions and rely upon stricter 
social distancing and hygiene measures.   
54 EURYDICE (2020). Impact of Covid-19: closure of education systems in Europe. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Schools and higher education closure in Europe in April 2020  

Source: EURYDICE (2020) 

Within  weeks,  the  global  education  landscape  was  upended,  affecting  100  million  pupils  and 
students  in  the  EU  and  over  1.3  billion  children  around  the  world55.  Some  education  systems 
announced  exceptional  ‘holiday’  periods  at  the  beginning  of  the  closure  to  better  prepare  their 
response, but within a short period of time, learning started to take place through experiences of 
remote  emergency  education56 in  most  parts  of  Europe57.  Results  of  the  public  consultation 
show  that  a  large  part  of  those  respondents  reporting  not  to  have  used  distance  and  online 
learning  before  the  crisis,  but  they  actually  did  so  during  the  lockdown  period58.  The  range  of 
solutions  put  in  place  to  ensure  continuity  of  education  and  training  was  wide.  They  included 
low-  and  high-tech  practices  (e.g.  using  digital  platforms,  radio  and  TV  channels,  or  other 
electronic resources) and varied from country to country, and within countries, depending on the 
level and sector of education and  training .  

Experiences  during  the  period  of  lockdown  showed  that  a  higher  level  of  pre-existing  digital 
capacity led to faster and better responses. Where this was not the case, the efficiency and quality 
of  the  measures  suffered:  for  instance  a  study  in  Germany  from  June  2020  showed  that  the 
amount of time children devoted to school activities halved during the COVID-19 crisis, falling 
from  7.4  hours  to  3.6  hours  daily 59.  Research  shows  that  closure  of  education  and  training 
institutions,  even  if  temporary,  can  have  significant  consequences  for  learners.  Reduction  in 
instructional  time  can  impact  negatively  on  learning  outcomes 60.  They  can  increase  existing 

55 Figures based on UNESCO Institute for Statistics data and related to the number of learners affected by the school and 
university closures around Mid-April and enrolled at pre-primary, primary, lower-secondary, upper-secondary (ISCED 0-3) and 
tertiary education levels (ISCED 5-8). 
56 Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online 
learning. Educase Review. 
57 Results of the public consultation show that, during the lockdown, learning and teaching activities continued from home, using 
digital tools and internet, for the large majority or respondents. See Annex 2 for further details.   
58 The  emergency  situation  forced  and  in  some  cases  encouraged  many  individuals  and  organisations  that  had  no  previous 
experience in using distance and online learning to get at least some exposure to it. On the other hand, practically all respondents 
already using distance and online learning before the crisis have continued to do so during the lockdown. See Annex 2 for further 
details.  
59 A recent study from DE shows that more than half of the students (57%) had online lessons less than once a week, only 6% 
daily. 38% of the students declare they dedicated a maximum of two hours and 74% a maximum of four hours a day to school 
activities. For further information: IFO Institut (2020): Bildung in der Coronakrise: Wie haben die Schulkinder die Zeit der 
Schulschließungen verbracht, und welche Bildungsmaßnahmen befürworten die Deutschen?  
60 Joint Research Centre (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and 
recent international datasets. Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union. 

15 

 
 
 
 
inequalities, with  economically advantaged families having more resources to  fill  learning gaps 
and provide stimulating activities to their children61.  

Across  Member  States,  having  already  in  place  options  for  alternative  and  flexible  forms  of 
learning,  interaction  and  communication  allowed  a  faster  and  more  efficient  response,  with  the 
emergence  of  some  good  examples  of  innovation 62.  However,  access  to  and  quality  of  the 
learning experience varied a lot depending on the availability of infrastructure  and devices, the 
presence of digitally competent educators, including capacity to adapt pedagogical methods, and 
the  existence  or  not  of  usable  and  accessible  digital  content,  tools,  services  and  platforms.  All 
these elements, at national or local level, helped create the conditions for learning to continue.  

For  instance,  higher  education  institutions  were  somewhat  better  prepared  than  other  education 
sectors, due to their prior experience with providing blended learning options and online digital 
content  in  their  courses  and  programmes 63.  In  most  cases,  their  lessons  continued  virtually 
through streaming and use of existing learning  management systems64 but  this  happened with a 
wide  degree  of  quality  regarding  the  learning  design.  On  the  other  end,  schools  and  VET 
providers had to pivot rapidly, under similarly difficult circumstances and in most cases for the 
first time, to remote emergency education65. 

In this rushed and unplanned situation, the production of new online learning content was rarely 
an option, especially because of time constraints. Most educators and students were confined in 
their homes at short notice and, as long as they had internet access and digital devices, in most 
cases  a  synchronous  technology-mediated  virtual  classroom  was  considered  the  most  practical 
and  feasible  approach66.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  where  it  is 
possible to observe an increase in the use of distance and online learning both ‘in real time’ (e.g. 
live  online  classes)  and  ‘in  own  time’  (e.g.  watching  videos  of  recorded  lectures,  consulting 
online  learning  materials,  etc.);  however,  according  to  respondents,  the  former  increased  more 
than the latter. Due to unexpected closure of education and training institutions, most educators 
replaced  face  to  face  teaching  and  learning  with  synchronous  online  classes  and  this  happened 
despite the use of distance and online learning  ‘in own time’ done before the crisis  was higher 
than  the  one  ‘in  real  time’ 67 .  Innovative  instructional  approaches,  which  stimulate  learner 
autonomy,  motivation  and  engagement  were  lacking.  As  practice  and  research  on  the  topic 
shows, high-quality and inclusive digital education requires time, skills and appropriate resources 
for planning and design68.  

61 UNESCO (2020). 290 million students out of school due to COVID-19: UNESCO releases first global numbers and mobilizes 
response. 
62 Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (2020). Teaching, Technology, and Teacher 
Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. 
63 European University Association (2018).  Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area. 
64 The Erasmus Student Network conducted a survey on student higher education exchange (https://esn.org/covidimpact-report) 
whose findings show that a great majority of students (85%) moved to some kind of online classes and that mobility continued in 
the majority of cases (65%). However, one of the biggest challenges for the higher education sector is connected to the selection 
and admission process of new students and potentially to the disruption of their calendar for next year. 
65 OECD (2020). Education responses to Covid-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. 
66 For further details see ‘synchronous vs asynchronous digital teaching and learning’ in the glossary of Annex 4.  
67 It  is  important  to  note  that  to  reduce  possible  exclusion,  public  authorities  and  education  and  training  institutions  provided 
learners  with  digital  devices  to  study  or  work  from  home.  As  for  the  future,  respondents  are  planning  to  continue  to  use  such 
measures to a lower extent compared to during the COVID-19 crisis but to a greater extent compared to the pre-COVID-19 crisis. 
See Annex 2 for further details.  
68 When time and resources are available, the range of possible distance or online teaching and learning approaches is very wide. 
It includes synchronous video-conferencing, as done in some cases during COVID-19, ranging all the way to the delivery of self-
directed online courses offering asynchronous collaboration. 

16 

 
 
 
3.1 Challenges in managing remote emergency education 

Results from the public consultation confirm the manifold challenges in managing the sudden and 
large-scale shift to distance and online teaching and learning. Institutions and educators in Europe 
and around the world showed creativity and resilience, but many struggled to adapt to the needs 
and context of the learners, including their access, or not, to devices and connectivity. Individual 
perceptions  of  the  solutions  put  in  place  varied  considerably,  with  education  and  training  staff 
having more positive views than learners and their parents69.  

Overall,  stakeholders  highlighted  that,  in  most  cases,  the  transition  to  distance  and  online 
teaching  and  learning  happened  in  a  rush  and  unplanned  manner.  For  younger  students  and 
pupils,  education  and  training  institutions  relied  heavily  on  parents  and  carers’  collaboration. 
Many publishers and technology providers opened up their resources and platforms. In a number 
of  countries,  new  public-private  partnerships  were  quickly  established  to  expand  national  and 
local  capacities  in  deploying  distance  and  online  learning  solutions70.  The  transition  was  also 
supported  by  rapidly  developed  television  and  radio  programmes  and  by  many  educators  who 
shared resources and practices to help colleagues, particularly those less experienced with online 
instructions. 

Although  remote  education  has  been  present  in  education  and  training  for  many  decades,  the 
situation generated by the COVID-19 crisis saw a shift at an unprecedented scale, with millions 
of  learners  and  educators  moving  simultaneously  to  distance  and  online  teaching  and  learning. 
Given  the  emergency  context,  re-organising  courses  and  lessons  online  was  not  the  result  of  a 
well-planned  instructional  design  process  inspired  by  the  opportunities  offered  by  digital 
education and rooted in a thorough needs analysis.  

Evidence  from  the  OECD’s  Programme  in  International  Student  Assessment  (PISA)  in  2018 
showed that education systems were unprepared for this shift online. On average, 9% of 15-year-
old  students  did  not  have  a  quiet  place  to  study  in  their  homes  and  access  to  computers  and 
connectivity was a concern71. Evidence confirms that the availability and use of digital solutions 
to enhance teaching and learning depends largely on national and local policies and practices. For 
instance a study from 2018 shows that the availability of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) 
varies  across  Member  States,  with  primary  schools  using  them  less  than  lower  and  upper 
secondary  schools  (37%,  50%  and  59%  respectively) 72 .  Platforms  for  school-home 
communication  are  less  available  than  VLEs  and  educators  use  of  technology  for  providing 
feedback  and  creating  digital  resources  are  even  less  prevalent  than  for  other  activities73.  For 
remote  education  to  work,  devices  and  internet  access  are  vital  but  in  addition,  effective 
communication with learners is crucial74 to ensure engagement and prevent online learning from 
becoming passive and a matter of reading materials75.  

69 Results  from  the  public  consultation  show  a  different  perception  among  target  groups  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measures  taken  to  ensure  continuity  of  education  and  training:  learners  and  parents  tend  to  be  sceptical  while  education  and 
training staff are more positive. The level of satisfaction appears to be higher in higher education compared to other educational 
levels and especially to early childhood education and care and primary education. See Annex 2 for further details. 
70 In  the  public  consultation,  50%  of  respondents  from  public  authorities  state  that  their  organization  supplied  digital  tools  for 
teaching and learning and 40% of respondents from digital technology providers that their company provided certain tools and 
services for free for education and training. See Annex 2 for further details.  
71 OECD (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. 
72 European Commission (2019). Second Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in 
schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
73 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.  
74 Organisational communication is part of area 1 of the Digital Competence Framework for Educators (see Annex 3). 
75 OECD (2020). How can teachers and school systems respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? Some lessons from TALIS - OECD 
Education and Skills Today. 

17 

 
 
 
 
During the COVID-19 crisis, many people experienced for the first time how technology could 
be  used  to  teach,  learn  and  assess  in  new  and  innovative  ways.  Results  of  the  different 
consultation activities, including the open consultation, shows that, in some cases, this generated 
a positive reaction, with  educators feeling comfortable with  remote teaching and learners being 
happier to have a more personalised dialogue with their teachers76. Educators who were lacking 
the confidence and competence to use digital technologies effectively faced immense challenges 
to adapt to learners’ social, learning and technological needs. Results of the public consultation 
confirm that adapting to this new working environment sometimes meant an increased workload, 
thus  affecting  educators’  own  work-life  balance77.  Given  differences  between  face-to-face  and 
distance  or  online  teaching  and  learning,  educators  need  to  be  supported  on  a  practical, 
pedagogical  and  technical  level,  feel  competent  to  adapt  their  methods  and  confident  to  use 
digital means to communicate, assess, and provide feedback. Students, in turn, need to be guided 
to  stay  motivated  and  engaged,  as  there  is  a  risk  of  being  excluded  if  they  lack  resources, 
connectivity, skills or motivation. 

Emerging evidence confirms that, in the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 crisis, educators 
and learners were not always in a position to harness the potential of distance and online teaching 
and learning nor were they able to deal with its limitations. An analysis of the experiences across 
Member States also shows that educational institutions with pre-existing digital capacity did not 
use distance and online learning extensively and sistematically until they had to.  In this regard, 
exchange  of  best  practice’  and  professional  learning  and  collaboration,  both  within  and  across 
educational institutions, emerges as a strategy for resilience78.   
Many Ministries of Education across Member States (such as Italy79, the first European country 
struck by the COVID-19 pandemic) quickly published guidelines to provide educators with easy 
access  to  video-conferencing  applications,  open  educational  platforms  or  online  resources,  and 
collaboration  tools,  allowing  synchronous  and  asynchronous  teaching  and  learning.  In  some 
cases,  they  also  prepared  or  collected  materials  to  bridge  the  length  of  a  temporary  school 
closure80 and  quickly  put  in  place  training  courses  for  teachers  on  how  to  design  lessons  for 
remote  education81.  Surveys  and  feedback  show  that  finding  an  appropriate  response  was  not 
easy,  especially  for  certain  sectors  such  as  VET82.  Assessment  of  learners’  achievements,  re-
organisation  of  final  exams  as  well  as  testing  to  determine  entry  requirements  for  higher 
education  were  highlighted  as  major  challenges 83 .  Urgent  support  was  also  needed  from 

76 For  instance,  this  came  out  very  strongly  during  the  citizen  dialogue  in  Copenhagen  organised  as  part  of  the  consultation 
activities in preparation to the renewed Digital Education Action Plan. See Annex 2 for further details.  
77 Results of the public consultation shows for instance that educators would have welcomed more training and guidance on how 
to adapt classroom material and the teaching methodology to distance and online learning. See Annex 2 for further details.  
78 UNESCO (2020). Education in a post-COVID world: nine ideas for public action. OECD (2020). Policy responses to COVID-
19.  
79 Italian Ministry of Education guidance: https://www.istruzione.it/coronavirus/didattica-a-distanza.html 
80 Examples include, among others, AT, EL, FI FR, IT, PL 
81 This happened for instance in BG, ES, RO. 
82 VET providers pointed out the difficulty to find learning resources specific for VET and appropriate for work-based learning 
with consequences on the ability to cover the more practical part of their curriculum via remote learning formats (EU VET 
Survey: https://ec.europa.eu/social/vocational-skills-week/fight-againt-covid-19_en). In most cases, work-based learning and 
apprenticeship were suspended, with exception of few sectors such as healthcare, food and construction. On the topic, see 
CEDEFOP (2020). How are European countries managing apprenticeships to respond to the COVID-19 crisis? - ILO online 
survey for TVET providers, policy-makers and social partners on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic 
(https://www.ilo.org/skills/Whatsnew/WCMS_742817/lang--en/index.htm) - UNESCO on TVET peer support 
(https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/COVID-19+disruptions). On VET see also results of the open consultation of the renewed 
Digital Education Action Plan in Annex 2.  
83 Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the COVID-19 crisis in education and training. 
Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

18 

 
 
 
authorities on how to  validate and recognise qualifications84. Organisations, including OECD85, 
UNESCO 86  and  the  European  Commission 87  pooled  expertise  and  resources  to  facilitate 
exchange between countries, rapidly collect and analyse information on education responses, and 
support  efforts  to  design  workable  solutions.  Despite  differences  in  education  structures  and 
curricula, international collaboration helped countries to share and exchange resources and learn 
from each other’s contingency plans. 

However,  significant  differences  between  and  within  countries  in  terms  of  digital  capacity  and 
competences as well as learners’ connectivity and access to devices, meant that entire groups of 
learners, including those from remote areas, migrant and refugee children and other learners from 
disadvantaged  backgrounds,  risked  being  excluded  from  distance  and  online  teaching  and 
learning88.  

Education  and  training  institutions  are  first  and  foremost  a  place  of  social  interaction  and  the 
psychological  consequences  of  facing  the  pandemic  and  related  disruptions,  while  being  away 
from their educators and peers, have been manifold for all learners. Students in upper secondary 
and  tertiary  education  may  have  had  already  acquired  skills  to  work  independently,  while 
younger  learners  were  particularly  challenged  in  this  regard.  Younger  pupils  needed  additional 
support and guidance from parents and carers, including limiting their exposure to ‘screen time’ 
and passive usage of devices. Challenges were greater for families where parents had lower levels 
of education and no or low-level of digital skills (Figure 3)89 .   

Figure 3: Level of digital skills in EU households with children 

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of individuals (16-24) living in households with children (0-
16) by digital skills level, country and EU level 

84 See the results of the survey on recognition during the COVID-19 crisis among the members of the network of Academic 
Recognition Information Centres (ENIC-NARIC), available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/recognition-of-
qualifications-in-this-time-of-coronavirus.  
85 The OECD coronavirus (COVID-19) policy hub: http://oecd.org/coronavirus/en/  
86 UNESCO Global Education Coalition: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition  
87 The European Commission launched the Virtual Distance Learning Networks at school and higher education levels and 
published a page with available online learning resources in response to the COVID-19 crisis 
(https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/coronavirus-online-learning-resources_en).  
88 Beaunoyer E., Dupéeré S., Guitton M.J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation 
strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106424. 
89 In the EU equal to 36% of the total number of individuals living in households with children (see Figure 3).  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ensuring learners’ well-being and addressing the risks of increasing inequalities required targeted 
support,  including  to  students  with  disabilities90,  special  needs  and  the  most  vulnerable,  who, 
may,  for  example,  be  entitled  to  free  school  meals91.  By  forcing  learners  to  a  different  routine 
with  restricted  social  connections  and  increased  academic  stressors,  the  COVID-19  crisis  has 
placed  an  unprecedented  mental  health  burden  on  learners,  which  may  require  further 
intervention92. For instance, a recent study shows that approximately 25% of learners experienced 
anxiety symptoms, which were positively correlated with concerns about academic disruption and 
delays,  economic effects of the pandemic, and impacts on daily life93. This is confirmed by the 
results  of  the  public  consultation  where  learners  indicated  ‘support  for  mental  health’  as 
something  they  were  lacking  as  well  as  ‘interaction,  clear  instructions  and  guidance  from 
educators’ and ‘regular interaction and communication with other learners’94. Specific support as 
well as further research and investigation on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health 
of individuals and young people may be needed in the future95.  

Even though research efforts are underway, at present, robust data is missing on whether and how 
the distance and online teaching and learning practices put in place in response to the COVID-19 
crisis  ensured  effective  and  equitable  access  to  quality  learning  opportunities  for  all. 
Emerging  evidence  suggests  that  while  delivering  educational  activities  remotely  ensured  some 
degree of continuity of learning for many learners, low motivation levels, stress, absenteeism and 
disengagement were not uncommon96. Without considering the consequences that this could have 
on dropout rates in the long term, the crisis has affected learners across the board and in particular 
those  needing  additional  pedagogical  and  psychological  support  and  those  lacking  reliable 
internet access and suitable devices for remote education97.  

Flexible  learning  might  be  needed  in  emergencies,  such  as  public  health  crises  or  natural 
disasters,  but  also  in  other  situations  where  learners  cannot  access  education  and  training 
buildings  (e.g.  to  reach  geographically  isolated  regions,  to  support  students  with  long-term 
illness,  to  offer  learning  opportunities  to  working  students,  supplemental  teaching  or  fill 
curriculum  gaps).  Overall  flexible  learning  can  help  enrich  and  extend  education  and  training, 
making it more inclusive and responsive to learners’ needs.  

The  use  of  digital  technologies  for  educational  purposes  can  also  support  blended  formats, 
combining  face-to-face  and  online98,  which  is  one  of  the  approaches  considered  by  Member 
States in education and training institutions re-opening. However, it needs to be planned properly 
with  sufficient  support,  resources  and  guidance,  otherwise  it  risks  becoming  a  negative 
experience  for educators and learners alike99. It is important to note that online learning can be 

90 This group of students was particularly affected by limited accessibility of digital content and assistive technology. These are 
elements of particular importance in order to address the needs of educators and learners with disabilities. 
91 Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the COVID-19 crisis in education and training. 
Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-INIT/en/pdf  
92 Grubic N., Badovinac S., Johri A.M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for further 
research and immediate solutions. International Journal of Social Psychiatry.  
93 Cao W., Fang Z., Hou G., Han M., Xu X., Dong J., Zheng J. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on 
college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287, Article 112984. 
94 Similar concerns were are highlighted by parents, who also stated that they missed assistance on how the could support their 
children for online and distance learning and overall well-being. See Annex 2 for further details.  
95 For instance, the Commission has set up a special space within the EU Health Policy Platform to boost discussions about public 
health concerns, share knowledge and best practices. A space under this platform is designed for all interested organisations to 
come together to discuss and share information on COVID19-related mental health issues. The aim is to develop into a central 
place for sharing resources and develop guidance that can help tackle the psychological burden of the pandemic.  
96 UNESCO (2020). Webinars on COVID-19 education response: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/webinars  
97 Doyle O. (2020). COVID-19. Exacerbating Educational Inequalities? PUBLIC POLICY.IE 
98 On the topic, see the guidelines published by the European Commission in consultation with representatives of different 
Ministries of Education on blended learning in school education. Available at: 
https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/resources/publications/blended-learning-guidelines.htm  
99 On the topic (e.g. advantages/disadvantages of online and blended learning) see results of the public consultation in Annex 2.  

20 

 
 
 
perceived  as  being  of  lower  quality  than  face-to-face  instruction,  despite  research  showing 
otherwise 100.  As  with  other  instructional  approaches,  its  effectiveness  is  a  matter  of  who  is 
learning, who is teaching and how teaching and learning are accomplished and assessed. Suitable 
platforms  and  tools  are  of  course  vital  but  many  other  considerations  are  required101.  Teaching 
and  learning  online,  whether  in  crisis  or  routine  contexts,  requires  a  fundamentally  different 
approach to designing learning and engaging students102. 

Emerging evidence on the educational impact of the crisis confirms that more systemic research 
on  the  future  of  education  and  training  is  needed.  This  needs  to  be  based  on  a  thorough  and 
critical  reflection  on  the  positive  and  negative  experiences  generated  by  the  COVID-19 
crisis  across  Member  States 103 .  However,  in  Europe,  there  is  a  relatively  small  body  of 
prospective  research104 focussed  on  what  may  happen  to  education  over  the  medium  or  long 
term 105.  Considering  the  megatrends  shaping  the  future  of  education  and  training,  including 
emerging  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning,  efforts  are  needed  for  more  future-oriented, 
data-driven  research  and  development  in  education  and  training.  As  widely  confirmed  by 
stakeholders,  this  will  help  ensure  that  in  the  future  digital  technologies  enhance  teaching  and 
learning in  an  effective  and sustainable way, while addressing concerns related to  data use  and 
protection, privacy and ethics106. 

Box 2: Big data in education  

Global investments in educational technology reached US$18.66 billion in 2019, a stark increase 
over previous years107. Yet, during the crisis, education and training institutions used, even within 
the same institution, a wide range of different online platforms and tools, sometimes provided for 
free or at  reduced cost  by  the private sector and  often not  known by educators and learners.  In 
many cases, there was a shortage of online content and other digital resources linked to national 
curricula. Solutions were often implemented as ‘quick fixes’108 and generated concerns about the 
hasty  adoption  of  commercial  digital  learning  solutions  whose  design  might  be  driven  by 
business  models  that  leverage  user  data  for  profitmaking,  rather  than  meaningful  pedagogical 
practices109.  

100 Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online 
learning. Educase Review. 
101 Barbour M. K. (2013). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M. G. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of 
distance education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. 
102 Bacsich P., Bristow S.F., Camilleri A., Op de Beeck I.; Pepler G., Phillips B., Virtual schools and colleges. Providing 
alternatives for successful learning. Volume 2. Belgium: Roosbeek. 
103 Member  States  and  organisations  from  the  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Education  called  for  additional  evidence  and 
stressed the need to map and research national responses and make sure that the positive examples and lessons learnt from the 
crisis are analysed, shared with practitioners and discussed at political level. See Annex 2 for further details.  
104 See for instance EDUCAUSE Briefs and New Horizon Report series (https://www.educause.edu/)  
105 Some improvements have been made in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan with the publication of three foresight papers 
presenting the state of play and providing evidence on the impacts of a given technology (e.g. AI) or approach (e.g. makerspaces). 
106 Outcomes  of  the  researchers’  participatory  workshop  organised  in  the  framework  of  the  public  consultation  of  the  renewed 
Action Plan confirm the need of further research looking into the future and investigating the possible gains of the experiences of 
remote emergency education. Experts highlighted that analysing the challenges is important but more evidence on practices that 
work would help to progress. They also called for strengthened cooperation, including better links between research and 
policy, as a key element to achieve systemic impact and identify sustainable solutions, which could support education and training 
in the long term. See Annex 2 for further details.  
107  World  Economic  Forum  (2020).  The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  changed  education  forever.  This  is  how.  Available  at: 
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/  
108 Selwyn  N.  (2020).  Digital  education  in  the  aftermath  of  Covid-19:  Critial  concerns  and  hopes.  TECHLASH  (1),  6-10. 
Williamson B., Hogan, A. (2020). The EdTech pandemic shock.  
109 Teräs M., Suoranta J., Teräs H., Curcher M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: a 
Seller’sMarket. Postdigital Science and Education. 

21 

 
 
 
 
The digitalisation of education and training is increasingly generating data that has the potential 
to  be  used  to  improve  educational  performance,  personalise  learning,  reduce  dropouts  and 
increase  the  efficiency  of  teaching  and  learning  provision 110 .  However,  apart  from  a  small 
number of successful pilot deployments111, the use of predictive or learning analytics in Europe is 
not used to its full potential112. Many countries have not yet established guidelines governing the 
ethical use of data in research or education. Education and training providers and policy-makers 
lack  an  overall  vision  and  strategies  on  how  to  use  technologies  with  regard  to  data113.  On  the 
other side, the EdTech sector is currently offering a number of products and tools that make use 
of data-driven solutions114. However, in these cases, data use and protection, ethics and privacy 
are  not  always  taken  in  account115.  This  is  a  critical  moment,  therefore,  to  reflect  on  what  is 
needed to ensure that the choices and decisions educational institutions are current making impact 
positively on the future of education and training.  

In  this  context,  quality  assurance  and  trust  play  a  crucial  role:  the  former  to  promote  a  shared 
understanding  of  key  quality  standards  for  digital  education;  the  latter  to  ensure  respect  of  key 
principles regarding data use, ethics and privacy. These two elements, besides boosting the level 
of  digital  preparedness  of  Europe’s  education  and  training  institutions,  can  increase  the 
cooperation  between  the  public  and  private  sector  (beyond  the  crisis  period)  and  improve  the 
overall quality of the digital solutions available.   

4. Priorities and direction for strategic action 

Results of the public consultation confirm that, during the lockdown, learning in confinement and 
without proper support raised  questions  around  the  effective  use  of  technology  for  teaching 
and  learning. Even though practice and research show that digital technologies can enrich and 
extend face-to-face education, its full potential remains unexploited.  

For  the  majority  of  respondents  (95%),  the  COVID-19  crisis  is  a  ‘turning  point’  for  digital 
education.  They  consider  that  the  forced  shift  to  distance  and  online  learning  would  have  a 
longer-term  impact  on  education  and  training116.  Respondents  said  that  effective  provision  of 
digital  education,  both  in  its  online  or  blended  format 117 ,  would  require  educators’  digital 
competence  development,  the  existence  of  a  vision  or  a  strategy  on  integrating  digital 
technologies  in  education  and  training,  and  high  quality  digital  resources  and  materials.  In  the 
view of education and training staff and parents, addressing socioeconomic inequalities between 
learners  also  requires  investments  in  connectivity  and  infrastructure.  Stakeholders  also 

110 Williamson B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 
111 The Nottingham Trent University (NTU), for instance, deploys predictive analytics on a student dashboard that measures 
learners’ engagement. The institution-wide rollout of the NTU Student Dashboard to facilitate dialogue between students, their 
tutors and support staff has seen widespread uptake, positive impacts on student engagement, and a change in organisational 
culture towards a more data driven approach across the University. More information available at: 
https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2016/04/CASE-STUDY-I-Nottingham-Trent-University.pdf  
112 Hilbig R., Renz A., Schildhauer T. (2019). Data Analytics: The Future of Innovative Teaching and Learning 
113 Nouri J. et al. (2019). Efforts in Europe for Data-Driven Improvement of Education. A Review of Learning Analytics Research 
in Seven Countries. International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education, 1(1), 8-27. 
114 Renz A., Krishnaraja S., Gronau E. (2020). Demystification of Artificial Intelligence in Education. How much AI is really in 
the Educational Technology? International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education, 2(1). 
115 Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations 
based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
116 Respondents agree on the statement either fully (67%) or to a certain extent (28%). See Annex 2 for further details. 
117 Views on blended learning are different among respondents of the public consultation. A positive opinion is expressed by all 
target groups considered separately, and particularly by education and training staff, private sector, digital technology’s providers, 
and  others  as  an  organisation.  Moreover,  there  is  a  large  support  for  blended  learning  across  respondents  from  non-formal 
education, higher education, adult education and VET. See Annex 2.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
highlighted the key role that the European Commission can play in supporting national efforts, to 
promote networking and practice exchange and to build on lessons learnt during the COVID-19 
crisis118. The new Digital Education Action Plan takes on this challenge and sets out principles, 
vision and a series of measures to support high quality and inclusive digital education.  

Considering the debate that the use of technology for remote learning that the COVID-19 crisis 
has generated119, the Action Plan addresses the challenges and opportunities for digital education 
in  different  learning  environments  (formal,  non-formal  and  informal)  and  extends  its  scope  to 
lifelong  learning 120.  The  renewed  Action  Plan  also  has  a  longer  duration,  covering  the  next 
Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027), with a review foreseen in 2024.     
As confirmed by stakeholders, the priorities of the 2018 Action Plan remain relevant121, but they 
are  updated  to  reflect  its  longer  duration  and  better  address  the  challenges  for  education  and 
training  raised  and,  in  some  cases  increased,  by  the  COVID-19  crisis.  In  more  details,  the 
renewed  Action  Plan  is  based  on  two  priorities,  each  accompanied  by  a  limited  number  of 
targeted actions (see Table 2):   

Priority Area 

Short description 

Objectives 

Fostering the 
development a 
high performing 
digital education 
ecosystem  

Effective use of digital 
technologies for quality and 
inclusive education and 
training needs to be planned 
in a sustainable way, with 
sufficient support, resources 
and guidance. Providing 
infrastructure and digital 
devices is fundamental, but a 
critical and purposeful use of 
digital technologies for 
teaching and learning needs 
to be underpinned by strong 
digital capacity. Actions 
under this priority promote 
closer collaboration and 
exchange in digital education 
among all parts of society.  

Enhancing digital 
skills and 
competences for 
the digital 
transformation 

Today, the lack of digital 
competences is a societal 
challenge for adults and 
young people alike. The 
COVID-19 crisis has 

o  Boosting peer 
learning and 
policy 
cooperation  
Investing in 
infrastructure 
and 
connectivity  

o 

o  Fostering 
digital 
capacity 
building in 
educational 
institutions  
o  Supporting 
high-quality 
digital 
education 

o  Fostering the 
development 
of digital 
competence 

o  Promoting 

Actions 
o  Enabling factors for 

successful digital education 

o  Online and Distance 

Learning for Primary and 
Secondary Education 
o  European Digital Education 
Content Framework and 
European Exchange 
Platform 

o  Support for connectivity 
and digital equipment for 
education 

o  Digital transformation 

plans and digital pedagogy 
and expertise  

o  Ethical guidelines on AI for 

educators 

o  Tackling disinformation 
and promoting digital 
literacy through education 
and training 

o  Digital Competence 

118 See details on stakeholder vision on digital education and the role of the EU in Annex 2.  
119 Public debate about how educational institutions used digital technologies to deal with the emergency has proliferated in the 
media with diverse outcomes. On one side, there are negative considerations on the fact that distance and online teaching and 
learning cannot replace face-to-face practices; on the other, the experience generated optimistic expectations that this ‘great online 
learning experiment’ would naturally lead to an increased readiness for online and blended learning. For details see:  Hodges C., 
Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning or 
Zimmerman J. (2020). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 
120  Extending the scope of the renewed Action Plan is seen as essential by all consulted groups. They call for the renewed Action 
Plan to be comprehensive and address all age groups and socio-economic backgrounds, with attention to inclusion especially in 
the context of the COVID-19 crisis. See Annex 2 for further details.  
121 During the targeted consultations, digital competence development (priority 2 of the 2018 Action Plan) has received the 
highest score in terms of relevance among the consulted organisations, followed by the use of digital technologies for teaching 
and learning (priority 1 of the 2018 Action Plan), rated respectively very relevant by 85% and 78% of respondents. Views on the 
third priority area, on data analysis and foresight, are less strong. See Annex 2 for further details. 

23 

 
 
 
reinforced the need to 
promote a sound 
understanding of the digital 
world and support the 
development of digital 
competence of citizens and 
learners of all ages. Actions 
under this priority look at 
both basic and advanced 
digital skills with the aim of 
fostering digital citizenship 
and inclusion.  

digital literacy 
for informed 
choices as 
citizens 
o  Boosting the 
development 
of advanced 
digital skills  

Framework update 
o  European Digital Skills 

o 

Certificate 
Improving the provision of 
digital skills in education 
and training 

o  Digital competence 

benchmark 

o  Digital Opportunity 

Traineeship 

o  Women’s participation in 

STEM;  

Table 2: Priorities, objectives and actions of the renewed Action Plan  

5. Supporting evidence 

This  section  of  the  staff  working  document  provides  evidence  supporting  the  actions  of  the 
renewed Digital Education Action Plan. It examines key opportunities and challenges regarding 
the  pedagogical  use  of  digital  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning  and  the  development  of 
digital competence. 

5.1 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning  

Digital  technologies  have  the  potential  to  improve  education  and  training  and  increase  its 
accessibility  and quality, but  for this to  happen proper planning  and instructional  design play a 
key  role.  Evidence  on  the  effects  of  digital  technologies  on  learners’  academic  performance122, 
including the development of transversal competences (e.g. problem solving, creativity, etc.) and 
basic skills (e.g. reading, mathematics and science), is positive but mixed123.  

Even though education and training systems are evolving and increasingly making use of digital 
technologies to stimulate innovation, there is limited evidence of the extent to which educational 
institutions have made progress in adapting their leadership, culture and  delivery models124. 
As outlined in section 3125, the sudden and large-scale shift to distance and online learning during 
the COVID-19 outbreak has been far from simple. Despite being a positive experience for some 
institutions with high levels of digital capacity, it raised significant challenges in terms of equity 
and  quality.  These  ranged  from  the  unprecedented  need  for  distance  and  online  teaching  and 
learning to be offered to all, the risk of increasing existing learning, social and digital inequalities 
and the pressure on educators to suddenly change their practices.  

The COVID-19 crisis has clearly shown that quality of access and infrastructure are crucial for 
ensuring equity in education and training126. However, availability of digital technologies is not 
enough  to  have  quality  outcomes  and  improve  the  student  experience.  A  positive  relationship 

122 Falck O., Mang C., Woessmann L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different use of classroom computers and their effect on 
student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1-38. 
123 Escueta et al. (2017). Education technology review: an evidence based review. NBER Working paper. 
124 OECD (2016). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris: 
OECD Publishing.  
125 See section ‘3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis’ for further details. 
126 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. 
SWD(2018) 12 final. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
between the use of digital technologies and learning outcomes depends on a number of contextual 
and process-related variables.  

First, educators play a key role in adopting and using digital technologies for teaching, learning 
and  student  assessment  in  an  effective  way,  fully  online,  remotely,  or  in  a  blended  format. 
Educators  themselves  need  to  have  an  appropriate  level  of  digital  competence  and  be  able  to 
recognise  their  potential  for  educational  purposes.  The  effectiveness  of  digital  technologies  for 
teaching and learning hinges on teacher practice and on how they integrate these tools into their 
teaching  process 127 .  Educators’  perception  of  technologies  as  a  learning  tool  are,  in  turn, 
influenced  by  the  organisational  culture128,  which  allows  for  different  levels  of  autonomy  or 
agency  and  shapes  the  way  digital  technologies  are  implemented  and  used  for  teaching  and 
learning in a specific context. 

Another factor linked to this, is the extent to which technology is deployed in purposeful and 
targeted  ways.  A  recent  study  using  data  from  the  Trends  in  International  Mathematics  and 
Science  Study  (TIMSS)  shows  that,  while  using  computers  to  look  for  information  positively 
affects student achievement, the opposite occurs when computers replace face-to-face instruction 
time  to  practice  skills129.  An  analysis  of  data  from  the  OECD's  Programme  for  International 
Student  Assessment  (PISA)  finds  that  there  is  a  positive  relationship  between  students’ 
achievements and the use of digital technologies for certain purposes130. There is also  evidence 
that low-intensity users may see their learning achievements increase from additional use and that 
high-intensity users would benefit from a more moderate use131. 

In addition, the location of the use of digital technologies matters. Their use at home for learning 
can  be  beneficial,  but  the  presence  of  a  space  conducive  to  learning,  parental  monitoring  for 
young people and general guidance for adults makes usage more effective132. Literature suggests 
that the effect of the use of digital technologies on learning outcomes may also vary according to 
student age and socio-economic status as well as attitudinal factors133. 

However,  digital  technologies  are  part  of  our  everyday  life  and  also  need  to  be  part  of  our 
learning  experience,  especially  in  a  lifelong  learning  perspective.  Their  uptake  and  use  for 
teaching  and  learning  requires  a  critical  approach  and  a  holistic  perspective.  Embedding 
digital  technologies  in  teaching  and  learning  processes  does  not  mean  simply  replicating  or 
transposing face-to-face practices or traditional approaches online. It is a complex process, which 
requires  robust  digital  capacity,  including  planning  for  organisational  change,  ongoing 
monitoring and adaptation, and a strong focus on learning driven pedagogy. As confirmed by the 
results  of  the  public  consultation,  other  relevant  factors  include  leadership,  professional 
development,  and  a  shared  understanding  and  approach  to  using  technology  to  support  and 
enhance teaching and learning134. 

127 Comi S.L., Argentin L., Gui M. Origo F., Pagabi L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement, 
Economics of Education Review, 56(1), 24-39. 
128 Ayub A. F. M., Bakar K. A., Ismail R. (2015). Factors predicting teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT in teaching and 
learning. In Mohamed I., How L.T., Mui A.C.Y., Bin W.K. (Eds.). AIP Conference Proceedings. Melville, NY: AIP Publishing. 
129 Falck O., Mang C., Woessmann L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different use of classroom computers and their effect on 
student achievement, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1-38. 
130 Biagi F., Rodrigues M. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background: 
An analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report. 
131 Rodrigues M. (2018). Can digital technologies help reduce the immigrant-native educational achievement gap? Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union.  
132 Vigdor J. L., Ladd H. F., Martinez E. (2014). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. 
Economic Inquiry, 52(3), 1103–1119. 
133 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. 
134 See Annex 2 for further details.  

25 

 
 
 
 
5.1.1 Infrastructure and connectivity  
Early  policies  and  strategies  in  digital  education  were  largely  infrastructure-led135,  looking  at 
access (in terms of both connectivity and availability of devices). The digital divide was initially 
focused on those who could and could not access technology.136. Over the years, investments at 
EU,  national,  regional  and  local  level  have  been  made,  and  connectivity  and  access  have 
improved. In the 2009 OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), about 
15% of students on average reported that they did not have access to internet at home. By 2018, 
that number shrunk to less than 5% across all levels of education137 (Figure 4).  

Figure 4: Students' access to internet at home 

Source: OECD (2018, 2015, 2012 and 2006)138 

Nowadays the vast majority of people in the EU use internet in their everyday lives and 90% of 
households  have  internet  access,  with  a  connectivity  rate  between  98%  (NL)  and  75%  (BG). 
These figures are very similar to the ones registered for households with dependent children: in 
this case 87% have access to internet, with a connectivity rate between 98% (NL) and 70% (BG). 
Furthermore, data reveal that access to internet is significantly higher for high-income households 
(98%,  with  income  in  the  fourth  quartile)  compared  to  low-income  households  (77%,  with 
income  in  the  first  quartile)139.    The  growth  in  access  to  online  services  is  likely  to  be  even 
steeper  than  suggested  by  these  figures,  which  do  not  show  improvements  in  the  quality  of 
internet services and the explosion of mobile internet access over the past decade140. According to 
the 2020 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), internet access at home is provided mainly 
by  fixed  technologies  (97%),  while  high  speed  broadband  covers  86%  of  homes  in  the  EU,  up 
from  83%  a  year  earlier.  Over  a  period  of  five  years,  more  and  more  people  have  taken  up 
broadband services of at least 100 Mbps, with the current level of 26% of households, five times 
higher than five years ago. Even though little progress has been registered on the 5G networks141, 
4G mobile coverage is today almost universal (99%). 

135 European Commission (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Key Design Principles for More Effective 
Policies. JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
136 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. 
SWD(2018) 12 final. 
137 EU-27 average is equal to 98%. OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. 
Paris: OECD Publishing.  
138 Reading notes: data by Member States not available for PISA 2009. Data not available for CY in 2006, 2012 and 2015 and for 
MT in 2006 and 2012. The original name of the variable according to OECD terminology is: "A link to the internet".  
139 Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.  
140 OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. 
141 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) – EU-28 values (including UK).  

26 

 
 
 
 
Nonetheless,  as  the  COVID-19  crisis  has  shown,  important  infrastructure  gaps  still  exist  in 
Europe: broadband availability and adoption of digital equipment are not spreading at the same 
speed in rural and urban areas and between Member States142.  
For  instance,  the  EU-27  connectivity  rate  of  households  is  at  86%  in  rural  areas143,  with  great 
disparities  between  countries144,  and  broadband  coverage  continues  to  be  lower  than  national 
coverage145. Rural fixed coverage improved marginally from 88% in 2019 to 90% in 2020, while 
high-speed  broadband  increased  from  52%  to  59%  compared  to  the  year  before.  Still,  10%  of 
households in rural areas are not covered by any  fixed network and 41% by any fast broadband 
technology146.  Mobile coverage went up slightly compared to last year but it is still mainly used 
as a complementary technology.  

When  it  comes  to  equipment  at  home,  latest  figures  from  Eurostat  show  that,  in  2017,  94%  of 
households with dependent children had access, via one of its members, to at least one computer 
(i.e.  6%  of  EU  households  with  dependent  children  did  not  have  access  to  at  least  one 
computer)147. These findings are in line with 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in education showing 
that  most  students  have  access  to  computers  at  home  (e.g.  92%  at  primary,  96%  at  lower 
secondary  and  97%  at  upper  secondary  education)148.  These  figures  however  do  not  provide 
information regarding how many computers are available per individual household, and whether 
students can have access to a computer at any time149. Data on the topic shows that the share of 
students who use own digital equipment for learning purposes remains relatively stable compared 
to 2011/2012. In this case, the own equipment most used for learning purposes is a smartphone, 
while  the  use  of  laptops  owned  by  students  is  quite  low  across  Europe  and  depends  largely  on 
family’s  income150.  Similarly  to  connectivity,  disadvantaged  learners  such  as  those  from  low-
income or migrant backgrounds have less access to computers at home151 and start using digital 
devices  later  in  life  and  with  a  lower  frequency  compared  to  their  more  advantaged  peers152. 
Overall, education and income of parents appear to be positively correlated with young people’s 
access to digital technologies153. 

With gaps in access to digital technologies, education  institutions,  and schools  in  particular, 
act as a key socio-economic driver and play an important role in preventing digital exclusion. 
Accessibility  and  quality  of  connectivity  at  school  provide  many  advantages,  including  having 
access to resources and material in multiple formats, using platforms for collaboration, accessing 
tools for inquiry-based pedagogies and sophisticated online software, using applications for video 
conferencing or streaming.  

142 In  this  regard,  data  from  the  public  consultation  show  that  while  equipment  and  connectivity  is  increasing,  there  are  still 
pockets of limited availability that need to be addressed. See Annex 2 for further details.  
143 Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals. 
144 Across Member States internet access ranges from 99% to 62% and internet use from 99% to 58%.  
145 European Commission (2018). Broadband Coverage in Europe 2018. 
146 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) – EU-28 values (including UK). 
147 Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals. 
148 European  Commission  (2019).  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  Education.  Objective  2:  Model  for  a  ‘highly  equipped  and 
connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
149 In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, it is important to note that young people often needed to share one computer for their 
remote education tasks with other siblings or the parents, who were working from home at the same time.  
150 European  Commission  (2019).  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  Education.  Objective  2:  Model  for  a  ‘highly  equipped  and 
connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
151 OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
152 Biagi F., Rodrigues M. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background: 
An analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report. 
153 For instance data from Eurostat shows that while the average EU proportion of households with a broadband internet 
connection in the lowest income quartile is approximately 74%, the corresponding figure for those in the highest income quartile 
is about 97%. 

27 

 
 
 
Infrastructure  for  educational  purposes  can  be  rich,  varied  and  differentiated.  It  can  go  from 
minimum  and  essential  components  to  highly  equipped  and  connected  classrooms  with,  for 
instance,  ultra-fast  broadband  and  one  device  per  student 154 .  However,  wired  internet 
connections155 are  still  the  norm  in  many  European  schools.  The  results  of  the  2nd  Survey  of 
Schools: ICT in education156  show that the share of students attending highly digitally equipped 
and connected schools differs widely: it ranges from 35% to 52% to 72% depending on the level 
of education (ISCED 1,2,3). The EU average suggests that the older the students, the higher the 
likelihood that they attend a school with a fast internet connection: on  average in the EU, 11%, 
17% and 18% of students are in schools that have an internet speed above 100 mbps at ISCED 
levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Moreover, as in the case of connectivity at home, large differences 
between and within EU countries exist: whereas Nordic countries are frontrunners regarding the 
deployment  of  high-speed  access  to  internet  in  schools,  other  countries  and  schools  located  in 
villages or smaller cities are lagging behind (Figure 5). 

Figure 5: Internet speed according to location of schools  

Source: 2nd Survey of Schools (2019) – Percentage of students, all ISCED levels, EU level 

EU  broadband  targets  foresee  that  by  2025  all  schools  should  have  access  to  Gigabit  internet 
connectivity157.  These  findings  therefore  highlight  the  need  to  further  support  school  access  to 
high-speed  internet,  as  already  recognised  in  the  Communication  on  Shaping  Europe’s  Digital 
Future158.  While  Member  States  have  the  primary  role  in  tackling  infrastructure  provision  and 
connectivity , the EU is actively supporting efforts to fulfil this goal. For instance, the European 
Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  invests  in  education  infrastructure  and  equipment  and 
creates incentives for educational reforms in the Member States. Nearly EUR 7 billion of ERDF 
resources  have  been  invested  in  education  and  training  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period. 
This means that almost 7 million young people will be able to use new or improved educational 
facilities  across  different  Member  States.  The  need  to  support  the  roll-out  of  higher-capacity 
broadband in schools was included in the 2018 Action Plan, with an initiative aiming at raising 
awareness  on  the  funding  opportunities  provided  by  the  EU  for  connectivity.    The  first  three 
Wifi4EU  calls  led  to  7,980  municipalities,  including  schools,  received  vouchers  for  Wi-Fi 

154 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and 
connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
155 A network that provides access to internet by being hard wired to the provider (e.g. cable, DSL, etc.). 
156 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
157 Gigabit internet connectivity is a broadband service with up to gigabit-per-second download speeds. It is typically delivered 
over fiber optic lines and provides speeds of 1,000Mbps, which is also referred to as 1 Gbps or Gigabit internet. 
158 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on Shaping Europe's digital future. COM(2020) 67 final. 

28 

 
 
 
 
hotspots. Analysis of this action and input from stakeholders159 indicated that stronger support for 
school infrastructure and equipment would help achieve more systemic results.  

5.1.2 Digital capacity in educational institutions across the EU  

While  availability  and  access  to  technologies  is  an  important  and  necessary  pre-condition  for 
digital  education,  improvements  in  education  and  training  can  only  come  through  systemic 
organisational change underpinned by pedagogical principles and values160. Research on the 
topic shows that infrastructure and connectivity need to be accompanied by a range of measures, 
including  digital  leadership  and  vision  and  teacher  professional  development,  and  that  digital 
education should be firmly embedded across education and innovation policies161.  

To  date,  most  Member  States  have  developed  digital  strategies  to  support  educational 
organisations in using digital technologies to enhance learning162, but very few undertake regular 
monitoring  or  evaluation  to  review  and  update  them  on  the  basis  of  new  developments  in 
technology  and  related  learning  needs163.  In  countries  with  less  advanced  digital  economies164, 
investments  continue  to  be  directed  towards  improving  digital  infrastructure,  but  increasingly 
policy  interventions  are  more  holistic  in  focus,  and  include  digital  leadership  and  educator 
competences as key drivers to encourage and sustain innovation165.  

During the COVID-19 crisis, the need to provide teaching and learning remotely led to examples 
of educational innovation at scale but also to suboptimal practices due to the lack of experience 
and  digital  capacity  of  institutions  at  all  levels  of  education.  Indeed,  several  national  studies166 
confirm that the effectiveness of the response was linked to levels of preparedness. This included 
factors  such  as  availability  of  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  devices;  access  to  online  content 
aligned with national curricula and programmes; confidence and skills of educators to design and 
facilitate distance and online learning; levels of interaction and support for learners; capacity to 
monitor access; track the learning process and assess learning outcomes. In drawing lessons for 
the  future,  it  is  important  to  build  digital  capacity  and  preparedness  to  avoid  replicating  the 
experience of the past months, which saw widening gaps, inequalities and learning losses 167. As 

159 Promoting inclusion in access and use of technologies is a horizontal aspect emerging from both the public consultation and 
the targeted stakeholder consultations. See Annex 2 for further details.  
160 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the 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. SWD/2018/012 final.  
161 European Commission (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Key Design Principles for More Effective 
Policies. JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
162 In 2019, only six countries did not have a strategy on digital education. European Commission (2019). Digital Education at 
School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
163 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
164 The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), a composite indicator on Europe's digital performance, includes six 
dimensions: connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of digital technology, digital public services, and 
research and development ICT. In 2020, according to this index, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, followed by 
Malta, Ireland and Estonia have the most advanced digital economies among the EU member states. Conversely, Bulgaria, 
Greece, Romania, Italy and Cyprus score lowest. For further information see European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and 
Society Index (DESI) – EU-28 values (including UK). 
165 Cachia R. et al. (2010). Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching: Final Report on the Study on creativity and Innovation in 
Education in the EU Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  
166 See for instance Giovannela C., Passarelli M., Persico D., Measuring the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Italian 
Learning Ecosystems at the steady state: a school teachers’ perspective in Italy. Vgl. Vodafone-Stiftung (2020). Schule auf 
Distanz or Vgl. Robert Bosch Stiftung (2020). Das Deutsche Schulbarometer 2020: Coronakrise zeigt Nachholbedarf bei digitalen 
Lernformaten in Germany. 
167 Doucet A., Netolicky D., Timmers K., Tuscano F.J. (2020). Thinking about Pedagogy in an Unfolding Pandemic - An 
Independent Report on Approaches to Distance Learning During COVID19 School Closures. 

29 

 
 
 
 
confirmed by the public consultation, education and training institutions can learn and build upon 
the experience by enhancing their digital capacity168. 

A  strategic  and  planned  approach  for  technology  use  and  digital  competence  development  can 
help  ensure  learning  continuity  in  situations  where  on-site  attendance  is  not  possible.  This 
includes emergencies such as with COVID-19, but also other circumstances, for example offering 
learning  opportunities  to  a  diversified  cohort  of  students,  reaching  geographically  isolated 
regions, offering supplementary teaching, etc. 

At school level, recent research shows that teachers working in institutions with an organised and 
collaborative approach to technology are more likely to use digital technologies in their teaching 
and value the importance of students’ digital competence169. However, a planned and systematic 
approach to integrating technology in school activities is currently the exception rather than the 
norm.For instance, the 2nd Survey of Schools on ICT in Education found that only around one 
third of students  attended schools that had written statements on the use  of digital  technologies 
for  pedagogical  purposes170.  In  cases  where  schools  are  required  to  development  such  a  plan, 
digital  competence  and  innovative  teaching  and  learning  methods  become  central  to  school 
development as part of a whole school approach171. 

Effective  use  and  integration  of  digital  technologies  in  teaching  and  learning  require  careful 
planning  for  pedagogical,  technological  and  organisational  change.  Defining  the  starting 
point of an education and training institution regarding the use of technologies in their teaching 
and  learning  activities  is  key  to  initiate  this  process.  Assessing  the  current  situation,  sharing 
experiences  and  discussing  why  and  how  technology  can  be  used  are    key  drivers  for  learning 
how to use technology in a meaningful way, while better understanding the institution’s learning 
culture  and  wider  system-level  barriers172.  For  this  reason,  the  2018  Digital  Education  Action 
Plan  included  actions  to  support  educational  institutions  in  assessing  their  digital  capacity  and 
planning for organisational change.  
At  school  level,  SELFIE173 ,  launched  in  October  2018,  is  a  free,  customisable  self-reflection 
tool,  which  allows  school  plan  for  technology  use 174.  By  gathering  (anonymised)  views  and 
perspectives  from  students,  teachers  and  school  leaders,  results  can  be  used  to  kick-start  an 
internal  debate  and  develop  concrete  actions  for  improving  technology  use  and  digital 
competence development. Feedback from end-users was highly positive and the tool was singled 
out  as  a  best  practice  example  of  a  practical  and  useful  tool  to  help  school  and  support  policy 
goals175. SELFIE has been used by over 650,000 users (32 language versions available) and from 
the  outset  has  received  extensive  support  and  interest  from  Ministries  of  Education  in  Member 
States176 and partner countries177. The SELFIE tool is continuously improved based on feedback 
from schools: in August 2020, a new release of SELFIE has been published to include questions 

168 In this staff working document, digital capacity is defined as the ability to integrate, optimise and transform digital 
technologies in their teaching, learning and assessment activities. See the glossary in Annex 4 for further details.  
169 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA. 
170 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
171 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
172 Ilomäki, L.  & Lakkal, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: innovative digital school model. 
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 25. 
173 SELFIE Tool: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomporg/selfie-tool      
174 SELFIE covers the following key areas: leadership and governance, collaboration and networking, infrastructure and 
equipment, continuing professional development, pedagogy, assessment practices, student digital competence. 
175 Beblavý, M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M., & Jacquot, M. (2019). Index of readiness for digital lifelong learning: 
changing how Europeans upgrade their skills. Final Report 2019.  
176 Including BE, BG, CY, ES, IT, MT, PT 
177 Including  AL,  GE,  IS,  Kosovo,  ME,  North  Macedonia,  MD,  RS,  TR.  The  European  Training  Foundation  is  highly  active 
supporting the roll-out and use of SELFIE in many of these countries.   

30 

 
 
 
on online and blended learning 178 to help schools reflect on and learn from the period of school 
closure and disruption. Following a feasibility study, a version of the tool for work-based learning 
(e.g. students on apprenticeships programmes) is also being piloted179. The activities carried out 
so far indicate that the inclusive and flexible design of SELFIE provides  schools with  valuable 
information to harness the potential of technology in all aspects of education, but more support is 
needed to help schools use their results to develop digital learning plans and increase their digital 
capacity180.   

Similarly, the response of the higher education sector to digital transformation is uneven: higher 
education  institutions  vary  widely  in  their  levels  of  digital  capacity  and  there  is  a  substantial 
knowledge and experience gap, both within and across institutions. Emerging evidence from the 
COVID-19  crisis  indicate  a  general  higher  level  of  preparedness 181,  with  many  courses  and 
programmes continuing online through asynchronous and synchronous instruction and by scaling 
up  of  existing  learning  management  systems.  Challenges  were  many  including  assessment, 
administration  of  exams,  and  selection  and  admission  of  new  students 182 as  well  as  learner 
engagement and adapting instructional design to online learning183.  

Although many higher education institutions are spearheading new approaches and good practice 
examples  can  be  found  throughout  the  sector,  the  system-wide  take-up  of  effective  digital 
education practices remains slow. A number of surveys are underway to investigate the level of 
digital preparedness and the response of higher education to the COVID-19 crisis184, but overall 
scarcity of data and detailed information on the adoption and impact of digitalisation at university 
level  hinders  the  effective  use  of  policy  measures  to  stimulate,  monitor  and  assess  institutional 
practices185.  

During the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan, debate on how to support further universities 
to modernise and drive organisational change led to a further development of HEInnovate186, a 
guiding  framework  to  support  higher  education  institutions  and  systems  to  develop  their 
innovative and entrepreneurial potential. A new set of statements on  ‘digital transformation and 
capability’  were  added,  covering  areas  such  as  organisational  culture  and  vision  for  digital 
learning,  fit-for-purpose  digital  infrastructure,  and  the  development  of  digital  competences  of 
staff and learners. Since its launch in June 2018, around 1300 institutional self-assessments have 
used  this  new  dimension. 187 The  HEInnovate  community  has  particularly  welcomed  the  new 

178 They include questions supporting schools in assessing the needs of the students regarding access to equipment at home and 
focus on online and blended learning strategies, which support autonomy in learning as well as student resilience. 
179 Joint  Reserach  Centre  (2020).  Adapting  the  SELFIE  tool  for  work-based  learning  systems  in  Vocational  Education  and 
Training. Publications Office of the European Union. 
180 Castano-Munoz, J., Costa, P., Hippe, R., & Kampylis, P. (2018). Within-school differences in the views on the use of digital 
technologies in Europe: evidence from the SELFIE tool. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.). 
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Spain: IATED. 
Costa, P., Castano-Munoz, J., & Kampylis, P. (submitted). Capturing schools' digital capacity: psychometric analyses of the 
SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education. 
181 OECD (2020). Education responses to Covid-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. 
182 Council of the European Union (2020). Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the 
COVID-19 crisis in education and training. Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-
INIT/en/pdf  
183Content creation, skill development and practical subjects are also areas of challenge. JISC (2020). Learning and teaching 
reimagined. Change and challenge for students, staff and leaders. 
184 For instance, the International Association of Universities launched a survey on the impact of COVID-19 on the higher 
education sector; the European University Association (EUA) mapped the situation regarding digitally enhanced teaching and 
learning across Europe, and the U-Multirank survey investigated the digital preparedness of universities from the student 
perspective and how they handled the crisis. 
185 Rampelt F., Orr D., Knoth A. (2020). Bologna Digital 2020: White Paper on Digitalisation in the European HE Area. 
186 European Commission (2013). HEInnovate Tool: https://heinnovate.eu/en  
187 The HEInnovate framework covers the following areas: leadership and governance; organisational capacity: funding, people 
and incentives; entrepreneurial teaching and learning; pathways for entrepreneurs; digital transformation and capability; 
knowledge exchange and collaboration; the internationalised institution, impact measurement. More than 1,200 universities across 

31 

 
 
 
 
focus  on  the  digital  transformation  underlining  that  it  addresses  a  clear  demand  coming  from 
universities.  Higher  education’s  interest  in  the  topic  has  been  also  confirmed  by  the  active 
participation  in  the  HEInnovate  Webinar  Series  launched  in  Spring  2020  during  the  lockdown 
period.  The  objective  of  these  webinars  was  to  leverage  the  expertise  of  the  HEInnovate 
community  to  discuss  the  current  challenges  facing  higher  education  institutions,  share 
approaches  and  solutions,  and  discuss  how  educational  practices  are  being  adapted  to  meet  the 
requirements of the digital world188.  

As for other levels of education, the COVID-19 crisis has forced higher education institutions to 
radically  change  how  they  operate  and  deliver  their  educational  offer.  This  has  significantly 
accelerated  the  digital  transformation  that  some  institutions  were  preparing  for  or  undergoing 
prior to the crisis189.  

Higher  education  in  the  EU  is  evolving  with  a  growing  demand  for  short-term  learning 
opportunities,  the  need  for  more  flexible  provision  for  degree  programmes  and  demand  from 
adult learners and professionals looking to re-skill or upskill190. In this context, the use of digital 
technologies has the potential to open up higher education to a wider audience, offering certain 
economies  of  scale  and  providing  learning  that  is  more  inclusive  and  flexible.  Before  the 
COVID-19  crisis,  there  was  a  clear  trend  towards  integrating  blended  learning  in  formal 
educational  offers  (e.g.  using  digital  learning  mainly  in  face-to-face  degree  programmes),  as 
programme  managers  and  educators  consider  this  type  of  learning  the  most  effective  one 191. 
However,  establishing  high  quality  digital  content  requires  careful  instructional  design  and 
planning  to  ensure  that  learning,  teaching  and  assessment  methods  are  suited  to  online  and 
blended modes192.  

Recently,  a  new  impetus  for  creating  and  sharing  digital  content  for  students,  staff,  researchers 
and  citizens  was  given  through  the  European  Universities  initiative 193  ,  which  supports 
transnational alliances of higher education institutions. Online and blended learning support the 
goal  of  the  European  Universities  to  increase  mobility  of  their  students  and  staff;  offer  more 
flexible  learning  pathways  and  increase  transdisciplinary  approaches  to  link  students  and  staff 
with  the  public  and  private  sector.  In  addition,  the  Erasmus+  OpenU  project  under  the  2018 
Action Plan aims at fostering policy dialogue between higher education institutions and national 
high-level authorities on the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning194.  

The  entry  point  for  digital  transformation  in  higher  education  institutions  is  often  connected  to 
online or blended teaching and learning, however digitalisation covers much more than the online 
delivery  of  content.  The  uptake  of  digital  technologies  in  higher  education  should  be  based  on 

80 countries have used the HEInnovate self-assessment tool. Moreover, country reviews are regularly organised to support higher 
education systems. These reviews assess the current situation regarding entrepreneurial higher education in the Member States and 
provide recommendations for change and improvement where needed. So far 9 country reviews have been undertaken (AT, BU, 
HU, HR, IE, IT, NL, PL, RO) and 4 more are planned for 2020. 
188 Five online seminars were held between April and June 2020 by high-level speakers, mainly representatives of higher 
education institutions from Europe and abroad, to discuss topics connected to how the higher education sector responded to the 
challenges created by the Covid19 crisis. Those include online teaching and learning, MOOCs, assessing skills and exams, policy 
approaches to digital transformation. The HEInnovate webinar series will continue after the Summer break. 
189 EDUCAUSE (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report - 2019 Higher Education Edition. 
190 European University Association (2018).  Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area. 
191 Castaño-Muñoz J., Punie Y., Inamorato dos Santos A., Mitic N., Morais, R. (2016). How are Higher Education Institutions 
Dealing with Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, and Strategies in 5 European Countries. JRC Science for Policy Report. 
192 Means B., Bakia M., Murphy R. (2014). Learning Online: What Research Tells Us about Whether, When and How. New 
York: Routledge. 
193

Initiative:  https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-education-area/european-

 European  Universities 

universities-initiative_en 
194 The project will focus in the first phase on those institutions participating in the European Universities initiatives. The expected 
outcomes include the creation of a hub, i.e. an integrated single point of access for innovative courses, best practices exchange, 
networking and curriculum collaboration. See table 1 for further details.  

32 

 
 
 
strong  leadership  and  a  holistic,  well-designed  and  integrated  strategy  that  consider 
technologies as a key enabler for all institutional processes and activities195. It is in this context 
that the concept of digital-first thinking has been developed to indicate a shift in organisational 
culture,  which  embraces  the  opportunities  offered  by  digital  technologies  and  shapes  activities 
and  practices  accordingly.  Evidence  shows  that  higher  education  institutions  play  a  key  role  in 
supporting  central  and  local  authorities  in  developing  and  implementing  their  digital  agenda196. 
Supporting these efforts by promoting best practices exchange and capacity building may have a 
multiplier effect on higher education practices but also on society and the economy.   

5.1.3 Educators’ digital competence  

In a rapidly changing world, teaching, learning and assessment face new challenges and demands. 
Teaching professionals  in  all sectors of education, from  early  years to  adult learning, are at  the 
fore  of  this  change,  and  need  to  be  equipped  with  the  confidence  and  competence  to  use 
technology effectively197.  

In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, stakeholders pointed to the importance of boosting digital 
competence of education and training staff as a way to ensure effective and pedagogically driven 
use of digital technologies for teaching, learning and assessment. Providing support, training and 
guidance for educators was indicated by half of the respondents of the public consultation as the 
most important area in which the EU can add value 198. 

Emerging  evidence  confirms  that,  during  the  period  of  education  and  training  institutions’  
closure, many educators struggled with the situation and lacked the knowledge and experience on 
how to plan, develop and deliver teaching through digital means, including identifying platforms 
and tools that were effective, easy to use, viable and secure. A number of national studies show 
that educators faced a heavy increase in workload and felt tremendous pressure199, not least due 
to having to quickly design and organise remote and online learning200. In some cases, they lost 
daily  contact  with  their  students201 and  many  adopted  strategies  which  attempted  to  reproduce 
standard classroom  approaches and timetabling online202. In this regard, educational institutions 
which  had  experience  in  organising  teaching,  learning  and  assessment  as  a  team  activity  and 
taking organisation-wide approaches were able to transition more readily to remote education. 203.  

195 Kane G.C. et al. (2015). Strategy, Not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation: Becoming a Digitally Mature Enterprise. 
MITSloan Management Review.  
196 OECD/EU (2019). Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Italy. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: 
OECD Publishing. 
197 Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the 
European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369. 
198 This finding was also supported by the consulted stakeholders, including the ET2020 Working group on Digital Education, 
who underline that improving educators’ digital competences is a prerequisite for efficient, successful and purposeful integration 
of digital technologies in the education and training process. Such competences should be developed in a sustainable manner, 
starting from initial teacher training and ensuring continuous professional development. DE and FR suggested promoting 
exchange of practices and reinforced cross-border collaboration as a way to boost educators’ digital competences. See Annex 2 for 
further details.  
199 Burke J., Dempsey M. (2020). Covid-19 Practice in Primary Schools in Ireland Report. Available at: 
https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2020/04/Covid-19-Practice-in-Primary-Schools-Report-1.pdf  
200 Survey by the Centre for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna. Available at: 
https://oesterreich.orf.at/stories/3048783/  
201 Vodafone-Stiftung (2020). Schule auf Distanz. Available at: https://www.vodafone-stiftung.de/umfrage-coronakrise-lehrer/    
202 Giovannela C., Passarelli M., Persico D. (2020). Measuring the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Italian Learning 
Ecosystems at the steady state: a school teachers’ perspective in Italy. Available at: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343127257_Measuring_the_effect_of_the_Covid-
19_pandemic_on_the_Italian_Learning_Ecosystems_at_the_steady_state_a_school_teachers'_perspective  
203 Jenavs E., Strods J. (2020). Managing a school system through shutdown: lessons for school leaders. Edurio, Latvian Ministry 
of Education and Science. Available at : https://home.edurio.com/report-shutdown-lessons  

33 

 
 
 
 
In  Europe,  three  out  of  four  education  systems  recognise  digital  competence  as  an  essential 
element that educators must have for teaching, but this is reflected in recommendations for initial 
teacher training in only half of European education systems’204. 

The vast majority of teachers and school leaders who participated in the 2018 OECD’s Teaching 
and Learning International Survey (TALIS) say that their schools are open to innovative practices 
and  have  the  capacity  to  adopt  them205.  The  frequency  with  which  teachers  have  students  use 
digital technologies for projects or class work has risen in almost all Member States since 2013, 
and  this  is  reflected  in  increased  participation  rates  in  teachers’  formal  education  and  training 
including digital  skills for teaching. However, prior to  the COVID-19  crisis, when asked about 
their level of preparedness, only 39% of teachers in the EU felt well or very well prepared to 
use digital technologies for teaching, with significant differences across EU countries206. More 
than half of the teachers had participated in professional development activities that covered the 
use  of  digital  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning,  but,  on  average,  16%  of  teachers  still 
reported a strong need for professional development in the area of digital competences (Figure 6). 

Figure 6: Teachers’ need for professional development 

Source: OECD (2018) - Percentage of teachers reporting their need for professional development 
(EU-23) 

Results from the public consultation show that educators and education and training staff are the 
target groups with the highest share of respondents declaring that they have improved their digital 
skills  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  that  they  plan  to  take  up  new  initiatives  and  courses  to 
further improve their digital competences in the future207.  

204 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
205 OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS. Paris: OECD 
Publishing. 
206 European Commission (2019). Primary and secondary education in the digital age. Education and Training – Monitor 2019. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
207 In particular, digital content creation appear to be one of the most important digital competence educators and education and 
training staff  would like to improve in the future to be able to develop their own material for online learning. See Annex 2 for 
further details.  

34 

 
 
 
 
There is also evidence that current forms of teacher professional development are not necessarily 
meeting  teachers’  needs208.  In  particular,  teachers’  professional  learning  opportunities  need  to 
move from acquiring skills to master certain tools or technological competencies to finding ways 
to  tailor  technology  to  specific  subjects,  objectives  and  activities 209.  The  emergence  of  new 
technologies such as AI, virtual or augmented reality and social robotics, challenge educators and 
requires them to take a more active role in the design and implementation of these tools to ensure 
their use is  effective, desirable and inclusive210. In addition, there is  a growing interest in more 
flexible,  innovative  and  sustained  models  of  professional  development,  in  particular  where 
educators learn from their peers. Despite the interest, these models of professional development 
activities are not as widespread as other more traditional approaches (Figure 7)211. 

Figure 7: Type of professional development attended by teachers  

 Source: OECD (2018) - Percentage of teachers who participated in the various professional 
development activities (EU-23 average) 

Exchanges between teachers and educators using digital tools in teaching and learning are taking 
place though a number of platforms for peer learning and professional development, but efforts 
are needed to further recognise and reward their use212. For instance eTwinning, one of the largest 
and most dynamic educational networks in Europe, has involved 760,000 teachers from 200,000 
schools  since  its  creation  15  years  ago.  More  than  100,000  projects  have  been  run  using 
eTwinning,  involving  students  at  all  educational  levels  from  44  participating  countries  (36 
European  countries  and  8  neighbouring  countries) 213 .  The  Evaluate  Erasmus+  policy 
experimentation project214 has examined the impact of virtual exchanges on students and teachers 
in initial teacher education across Europe and its findings offer clear evidence of the benefits that 
activities, such  as eTwinning,  can bring to  initial teacher education. Virtual  exchange activities 
help teachers to step away from their accustomed learning and teaching approaches and develop 

208 Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Compulsory Education. Luxembourg: Publication of 
the European Union. Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Higher Education. Luxembourg: 
Publication of the European Union. 
209 OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing. 
210 Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations 
based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
211 Joint  Research  Centre  (2019).  Innovating  Professional  Development  in  Compulsory  Education. Luxembourg:  Publication  of 
the  European  Union.  Joint  Research  Centre  (2019).  Innovating  Professional  Development  in  Higher  Education.  Luxembourg: 
Publication of the European Union. 
212 European Commission(2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
213 Pateraki, I. (2018). Measuring the impact of eTwinning activities on teachers’ practice and competence development - 
Monitoring eTwinning Practice Framework. Central Support Service of eTwinning - European Schoolnet, Brussels. 
214 Evaluate Project - Evaluating and upscaling telecollaborative initial teacher training: www.evaluateproject.eu.  

35 

 
 
 
 
new skills to engage in linguistic, intercultural, and digital learning experiences, which they may 
not be confronted with in their day-to-day practice215. 

As  the  COVID-19  crisis  has  shown,  the  level  of  preparedness  of  educators  is  key  to  enable 
innovation 216 :  boosting  educators’  digital  competence  and  recognising  the  use  of  (digital) 
networks  such  as  eTwinning  can  help  improve  the  effectiveness  of  educators’  practices  and 
related  professional  development  activities  as  well  as  the  overall  pedagogical  use  of  digital 
technologies in Europe’s education and training institutions.  

5.1.4 Quality of digital education content   

High-quality digital education is crucial to boost the attractiveness, quality and inclusiveness of 
European education and training at all levels. Options for part-time studies and online courses are 
especially suitable for working people, students  with  family commitments in  need of flexibility 
and  adult  learners  –  all  categories  which  are  on  the  rise  in  EU  higher  education  systems 217. 
According  to  a  recent  study,  recognised  online  courses  in  higher  education  do  not  act  as  a 
substitute for face-to-face programmes but create new demand from people that would otherwise 
not have participated218.  
The  Eurostat  Survey  on  ICT  usage  in  households  and  by  individuals219 shows  that  in  2019,  an 
average of 10% of European citizens aged between 16 and 74 reported taking an online course in 
the  previous  three  months  for  educational,  professional  or  private  purposes.  Already  before  the 
COVID-19 crisis, the growth rate across EU-27 was accelerating and this happens also for the use 
of  internet  to  access  online  learning  material  other  than  an  online  course  (e.g.  audio-visual, 
electronic textbooks, learning apps, etc.).  

Beyond  the  use  of  digital  learning  for  degree  programmes,  higher  education  institutions  can 
benefit  from  the  integration  of  online  learning  opportunities  in  non-degree  programmes  to 
complement  their  educational  offer  and  respond  to  the  growing  need  for  upskilling  and 
reskilling220.  Online  learning  can  also  provide  small  and  medium  enterprises,  which  typically 
have  more  difficulty  in  organising  and  delivering  training,  with  easily  accessible  and  tested 
content  and  training  material  for  their  staff.  In  this  regard,  results  from  the  public  consultation 
confirm that the use of online learning is expected to be the most popular format that will be used 
for  improving  staff’s  digital  competences,  followed  by  a  mix  of  online  and  face-to-face 
training221. 

The latest results from the EU labour force survey show that adult participation in education and 
training is limited (11%, vs the target of at least 15% of adults participating in lifelong learning 
by 2020) and that people with little or no qualifications – those most in need of access to learning 
–  are  the  least  likely  to  benefit  from  it222.  Considering  the  potential  of  online  learning  for  the 
(direct  or  indirect)  acquisition  of  digital  skills  and  more  efficient  use  of  educators/learners’ 

215 The EVALUATE Group (2019). Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: a European policy 
experiment. Research-publishing.net. 
216 Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on European teachers and trainers for the future. Available at: 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/44115/st08269-en20.pdf  
217 Currently, 51% of students in Europe work during the whole lecture period, or from time to time, and 50% of them would not 
be able to afford to study without a paid job. For further details: Eurostudent (2019). Motives and benefits of working while 
studying. Eurostudent intelligence brief. 
218 Goodman J., Melkers J., Pallais A. (2016). Can online delivery increase access to education? Harvard Kennedy School Faculty 
Research Working Paper Series.  
219 Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.  
220 Gonzalez Vazquez I. et al (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. EU Publications Office. 
221 Face-to-face training options (including short versions of it) appear to have less consensus  among respondents. See Annex 2 
for further details.  
222 European Commission (2019). Education and Training Monitor EU analysis. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 

36 

 
 
 
 
time 223 ,  digital  learning  can  form  part  of  the  response  to  the  challenge  of  boosting  adult 
participation in education and training.  

For example, Massive  Open  Online  Courses (MOOCs), one of the more widespread forms of 
online learning, are recognised by job seekers and workers as an effective tool for acquiring the 
skills needed in the labour market and for keeping them updated224 (Figure 8).  

Figure 8: Workers’ benefits from taking MOOCs (1-5 scale) 225 

Source: JRC MOOC Survey (2019) 

Over  the  last  few  years,  MOOCs  have  continued  to  expand  in  terms  of  courses  and  number  of 
learners226. Despite this, EU countries can be considered late adopters compared to the US and 
highly dependent on non-EU countries for the provision of MOOCs227.  
Data  on  the  main  global  platforms,  provided  by  Class  Central  Inc228,  highlights  that  MOOCs 
production is twice as prevalent [in the US in comparison to the EU. Three out of the five main 
MOOC platforms are US-based and together attract 73% of all MOOC learners229 . None of the 
EU-based  MOOC  platforms  are  amongst  the  five  leading  ones230.  Available data show not 
only that EU higher  education institutions are less  intensive MOOC producers than US  ones231 
but also that  the offer of MOOCs in the EU is unevenly distributed across Member States, with 
France, Spain and Italy being the leaders in absolute numbers.  

Online  education  and  MOOCs  were  seen  originally  as  a  way  of  opening  up  and  democratising 
education232,  but  current  evidence  shows  that  not  all  individuals  benefit  on  equal  footing233.  In 

223 Element usually recognised among the most important advantages of digital content. For further details see Castaño-Muñoz, J., 
Punie; Y., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mitic, N., & Morais, R. (2016). How are Higher Education Institutions Dealing with 
Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, and Strategies in Five European Countries. JRC Science for Policy Report. 
224 González-Vázquez et al (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age.Luxembourg:EU Publications Office. 
225 Scale of usefulness from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Average values. N=268. 
226 Nuffic (2018). Oops a MOOC! Policy paper. 
227 Goglio V. (2019). The Landscape of MOOCs and Higher Education in Europe and the USA. Proceedings of EMOOCs 2019: 
Work in Progress Papers of the Research, Experience and Business Tracks. 
228 No comprehensive data source for MOOCs. Classcentral aggregates data from 45 course providers.  
229 Shah D (2019). By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2019. 
230 At EU level, the European MOOC Consortium (https://emc.eadtu.eu/partners), co-funded by Erasmus+, brings together the 
five major MOOC platforms and partnerships in Europe (Future Learn, FUN, MiriadaX, EduOpen and OpenupEd) and has been 
working on boosting MOOC collaboration in a network of 400 higher education institutions and companies. 
231 In the EU, 250 institutions have offered 2232 MOOCs (8.9 per institution on average) whereas, in the US, 273 institutions have 
offered 4302 MOOCs (15.8 per institution on average). An EU example of excellence in the field is the TU Delft University, 
which has been listed at the top of a new global university ranking based on MOOC performance. For further details see 
MoocLab's World University Rankings:  https://www.mooclab.club/pages/WURMP-top-100/ 
232 Carver L., Harrison L.M. (2013). MOOCs and Democratic Education. Liveral Education, Vol. 99, No. 4. 

37 

 
 
 
 
their  current  form,  MOOCs  reach  people  with  more  qualifications  and  higher  levels  of 
organisational, self-regulation and digital skills234. In order to make MOOCs more inclusive and 
truly  useful  tools  for  acquiring  and  updating  the  skills  needed  in  the  labour  market,  the  offer 
needs  to  be  more  diverse  in  terms  of  content  and  language  and  include  quality  instructional 
designs and pedagogies235.   

According to stakeholders, further support at EU level is needed to boost expertise and provide 
the  conditions  to  deliver  high  quality  multilingual  online  (and  blended)  learning  content, 
along  with  promoting  interoperability  and  synergies  between  different  national  and  European 
online  platforms 236.  A  number  of  Ministries  of  Education  (NL,  DE,  NO)  called  for  a  pan-
European  approach  towards  flexible  learning  pathways,  based  on  quality  assurance  and  secure 
infrastructure. Additionally, higher education institutions and the private sector are particularly in 
favour of measures to support the recognition of online and blended learning in order to stimulate 
lifelong learning and upskilling237. 

However,  this  can  be  achieved  only  if  online  learning  courses  and  micro-credentials  are 
recognised for employment and further study238 - a goal that is limited by several  factors. First, 
MOOCs and other forms of online learning courses often fall outside the scope of existing quality 
assurance  processes  and  mechanisms 239.  Second,  the  lack  of  a  shared  definition  and  common 
approach makes in some cases employers feel unsure about what micro-credentials are and which 
ones  to  trust.  Recognition  of  prior  learning  is  the  most  relevant  method  currently  to  recognise 
micro-credentials  for  further  studies.  However,  practices  vary  among  higher  education  systems 
and institutions in the Member States and there are doubts about whether the current procedures 
could  cope  with  a  potentially  growing  numbers  of  micro-credentials.  Another  set  of  barriers 
concerns the lack of digital solutions for storage and validation, and the impact it may have on 
portability and scaling.  

Within the 2018 Action Plan, the European Commission piloted a framework for digitally-signed 
credentials  (e.g.  statements  that  provide  a  proof  of  individual  learning  achievement)  to  be 
deployed within the new Europass240.  Free tools will be offered to institutions across the EU to 
issue credentials, diplomas and certificates in a digital format with automatic verification of their 
authenticity.  The  framework  is  built  on  a  single  data  model,  which  can  describe  all  forms  of 
learning  achievement,  including  micro-credentials,  and  provide  a  basis  for  storing  credentials 
accumulated  over  time.  In  addition,  the  ongoing  European  Student  Card  Initiative  aims  to  help 
students move more easily between campuses, both for physical mobility and when participating 

233 Lambert S.R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014-2018. 
Computers & Education 145.  
234 Castaño-Muñoz J., Kreijns K., Kalz M., Punie Y. (2017). Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC 
participation? Evidence from cross-course survey. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 
235 Margaryan A., Bianco M., Littlejohn A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers 
& Education, 80, 77–83. 
236 Education and training institutions, public authorities, and others as an organisation consider interactivity and user-friendliness 
of online content a key characteristic. In each of these three target groups, at least one third of respondents state that it is important 
for online learning content to be available in their own language. In addition the need for scalable and interoperable platforms is 
mentioned by one fourth of the respondents. See Annex 2 for further details.  
237 See Annex 2 for further information. 
238 There are two approaches used to deploy micro-credentials in education and training: (1) complementing the existing 
credentialing systems, which involves adding skill-based modules that require learners additional efforts in order to earn a micro-
credential, (2) the total integration of micro-credentials as part of formal credentials that learners have to earn on top of traditional 
credentials. Ideally both approaches should be enabled by the micro-credential creator or issuing institution, giving learners the 
flexibility to choose. However, newly created micro-credentials get increasingly embedded only within degree programs, while 
MOOC platforms experiment to find a sustainable business model and to respond to trends and learners’ feedback. 
239 Sometimes this is the result of legal restrictions, especially in the case of quality assurance taking place at the level of study 
programmes rather than institutional level, and when the online course is offered as a stand-alone learning unit. For further details, 
see Nuffic (2019). Academic recognition of e-learning. Recommendations for online learning providers.  
240 Europass: https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/  

38 

 
 
 
in  online  learning 241 .  However,  available  data  highlights  the  need  to  further  support  the 
creation, use and sharing of high-quality digital education content. Stakeholders consulted in 
preparation of this initiative confirmed a strong interest in this and stressed the need to build upon 
ongoing activities. They highlighted in particular the need to pay attention to instructional design 
principles,  multilingualism,  accessibility 242 ,  and  recognition  as  well  as 
to  consider 
interoperability, certification, verification and transferability of such content243.  

5.2 Digital competence development  

Europe’s digital transformation is accelerating rapidly in part due to the expanded application and 
use of AI, mixed reality, robotics, and blockchain244. The level of digital competitiveness245, in all 
its  subdomains246,  is  becoming  an  increasingly  important  condition  for  modern  economies  to 
innovate and thrive. This requires the recognition of digital competence as a key component for 
individual and societal development and for labour market inclusion247.  

Today more than ever, being digitally competent is both a necessity and a right. Participating 
actively, continuously and responsibly in society at all levels (political, economic, social, cultural 
and intercultural) means being able to harness the benefits and opportunities of the online world, 
while building resilience to potential risks248. The pervasive use of digital technologies for social 
and democratic participation requires the ability to engage positively, critically and competently 
in  the  digital  environment.  Skills  are  needed  to  access,  select  and  interpret  information,  to 
communicate  effectively  and  create  content  in  a  way,  which  is  respectful  of  human  rights  and 
dignity and uses technology in a responsible way. However, levels of digital competences across 
Europe remain on average low, with 44% of citizens lacking basic digital skills249.  

The  COVID-19  crisis  has  highlighted  the  importance  of  basic  and  advanced  digital  skills  for 
sustaining our economies and societies. The need for a sound understanding of the digital world 
has increased to ensure business continuity and to counter the growing rise of false information, 
disinformation  and  cybersecurity  threats. 250While  the  challenges  of  digital  transformation  are 
changing rapidly, impacted by technologies such as AI, young people and adults need to develop 
their  digital  skills  on  an  ongoing  basis,  in  a  perspective  of  lifelong  learning.  Over  the  coming 
years, the digital economy is likely to play a leading role in Europe’s recovery and demand for 

241 The initiative aims at facilitating online enrolment processes in line with the vision for an EU-wide digital Once-Only Principle 
by  digitalising  and  streamlining  administrative  processes  related  to  student  mobility  and  rolling  out  a  European  Student  eID, 
through the EU Student eCard initiative supported under the Connecting Europe Facility programme. 
242 Including the need to provide access to students with disabilities on equal basis with others. In this regard, full participation of 
children and young people with disabilities is recognised as essential to succeed in the green and digital transitions.  
243 See Annex 2 for further details.  
244 EDUCUASE (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019. Higher Education Edition. Louisville: EDUCAUSE. 
245 The IMD World Competitiveness Centre, for instance, defines digital competitiveness as the capacity of an economy to adopt 
and explore digital technologies leading to the transformation in government practices, business models and society in general. Its 
Digital Competitiveness Ranking encompasses organizational, institutional and structural elements captured through: knowledge, 
technology and future readiness. For further information: IMD World Competitiveness Centre (2020). World Digital 
Competitiveness Ranking 2019 results. 
246 The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) is a composite index tracking Member States’ evolution in digital 
competitiveness by considering the following dimensions: connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of 
digital technology, digital public services. European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index. 
247 Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1 - The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and 
examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. See Annex 3 for further details.  
248 Council of Europe (2018). Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. 
249 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index - EU-28 values (including UK). 
250 Martens B., Aguiar L., Gomez-Herrera E., Mueller-Langer F. (2018). The digital transformation of news media and the rise of 
disinformation and fake news - An economic perspective. Digital Economy Working Paper. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
digital skills will grow. New specialist digital skills are emerging251 and greater efforts are needed 
to address the current shortage of ICT professionals in Europe252.  

Results  from  the  public  consultation  confirm  the  growing  importance  of  digital  competences, 
shows that the use of technologies done during the crisis can lead to a perceived increased level 
of digital skills and shows individuals’ willingness to further improve them in the future253.  

All phases and stages of education and training play a key role in enabling learners to acquire and 
develop on an ongoing basis the digital competences they need to live, work and learn 254. There 
are also concerns connected to the effects of technology on young people’s well-being255 and the 
potential  impact  of  ‘screen  time’  on  children’s  socio-emotional,  cognitive  and  physical 
development256. International trends are pointing to increased access to and use of technology by 
younger age groups257, and, despite evidence on the topic being relatively sparse258, attention is 
required on the possible links between technology use and children’s development. Considering 
that effects of technology may depend on many factors, including the type of technology being 
used  and  its  purpose 259 ,  evidence-based  guidelines  and  effective  practices  are  needed  to 
encourage healthy and meaningful uses of digital technology from an early age.  

Efforts cannot stop at the borders of formal education with youth work, non-formal education and 
lifelong learning being an integral part of the education and training systems in a digital age. The 
cultural and creative sectors also play a key role. They can provide learning materials, help reach 
a wider group of people, and support activities promoting both artistic and technological skills260, 
including creativity - one of the most important competences for innovation and employability261.  

All levels and sectors of education and training have a key role in addressing digital skills gaps 
and  emerging  competence  requirements  by  recognising  the  growing  importance  and  supporting 
the  development  of  digital  competence  for  individual  participation  in  society  and  for  Europe’s 
innovation  and competitiveness.  Beyond digital skills  and in  line with  the Recommendation on 
Key  Competences  for  Lifelong  Learning262,  Europe’s  society  and  digital  economy  also  require 
complementary  transversal  skills  such  as  adaptability,  communication  and  collaboration  skills, 
problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, entrepreneurship, and readiness to learn. 

251 International Telecommunications Union (2019). Digital Skills Insight. 
252 CEEDEFOP  (2018)  Insights  into  skills  shortages  and  skill  mismatch.  Learning  from  Cedefop’s  European  skills  and  jobs 
survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
253 The  vast  majority  of  respondents  (74.5%)  believe  that,  after  the  crisis,  digital  skills  will  be  more  important  in  the  labour 
market.  62%  of  respondents  declare  that  they  have  improved  their  digital  skills  during  the  crisis  and  more  than  50%  of 
respondents declare they want to further improve them in the future. See Annex 2 for further details.  
254 Council of Europe (2019). Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on developing and promoting 
digital citizenship education. CM/Rec(2019)10.  
255 Stiglic N., Viner R.M. (2019). Effects of screen time on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic 
review of reviews. BMJ Open 2019. 
256 Many groups concerned with children’s health, including governments and medical societies, advocate for partially or fully 
limiting screen time for children and adolescents. For example, the American Association of Paediatrics, a prominent international 
voice in child health, published guidelines for screen time in children, the most recent of which were made available in 2016. 
Similar guidelines suggesting limits on screen time and good practices for parents and families exist across many countries. 
257 Graafland H.J. (2018), New technologies and 21st century children: recent trends and outcomes. OECD Education Working 
Papers, No. 179. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
258 OECD (2019). Impact of technology use on children: exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being. OECD 
Education Working Paper No. 195. Paris: OECD Publishing.  
259 Bavelier D., Green C., Dye M. (2010). Children, Wired: For Better and for Worse. Neuron, Vol. 67/5.  
260 European Parliamentary Research Service (2019). The relationship between artistic and digital technology development. 
261 Council of Europe (2016). European Council Resolution 2123 on culture and democracy. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
5.2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU  
The  human  capital  dimension  of  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI) 263 ,  which 
provides comparative data on digital skills in Member States, shows that 44% of EU citizens still 
have an insufficient level of digital skills.  

The digital skills index, a composite indicator based on the Digital Competence Framework for 
Citizens264 and calculated on the basis of self-reported data 265, show that digital skills levels are 
increasingly slightly over time. However, major disparities still exist between Member States: the 
share of people with basic or above basic digital skills ranges from 29% in Bulgaria and 31% in 
Romania (despite noticeable progress  in  both  countries) to  80% in  the Netherlands and 76% in 
Finland (Figure 9). 

Figure 9: EU population digital skills  

Source: Eurostat (2019) – Percentage of individuals, by digital skills level266 

Figure 10 shows that the number of people not using the internet in the three months prior to the 
survey  fell  in  almost  all  countries  between  2015  and  2019.Some  Member  States  registered 
important  improvements  such  us  Romania  (18  percentage  points  -  pps  decrease  in  people  not 
using the internet); Cyprus (14 pps); Spain and Poland (12 pps); Bulgaria and Lithuania (11 pps); 
Italy, Ireland, and Slovenia (10 pss)267. 

263 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index – EU-28 values (including UK).  
264 See Annex 3 for further details. 
265 The human capital dimension of DESI provides an overview of digital skills, calculated as the weighted average of two sub-
dimensions, ‘internet user skills’ and ‘advanced skills and development’, each made up by three indicators, whose data come from 
the Eurostat Community Survey on ICT usage by households and individuals and the Labour Force Survey. 
266 In the EU-27, 56% of individuals have basic or above digital skills (25% and 31%) and 29% low digital skills. The rest is 
divided between those not having digital skills (1%) and those individuals for whom the digital skills could not be assessed (e.g. 
individuals that have not used the internet in the last 3 months – equal to 14%). Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in 
households and by individuals. 
267 This positive trend is registered also for the overall percentage of individuals who never used internet (10%), which went down 
8 percentage points compared to 2015. Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Decrease of individuals not using internet  

Source: Eurostat (2019) – Percentage of individuals not using internet in the last 3 months 

Across  Europe  there  is  an  encouraging  trend  with  the  percentage  of  individuals  living  in 
households  with  income  in  the  two  lower  quartiles  (out  of  four)  who  did  not  access  internet 
decreasing  over  time,  in  both  quartiles  by  12  percentage  points  between  2015  and  2019  (see 
yellow line in Figure 11). However, having an internet connection is not sufficient and the level 
of digital skills remains strongly linked to higher income households (see black line in Figure 11).   

Figure 11: Level of digital skills in the EU by household income 

Source: Eurostat (2019) – Individual level of digital skills by household income268 

On  average,  the  level  of  digital  skills  among  the  labour  force  is  higher  than  that  of  the 
population  as  a  whole.  However,  slightly  more  than  a  third  of  the  labour  force  in  the  EU, 
including employed people and those seeking employment, are lacking basic digital skills, even 
though such skills are now required in most jobs, including in sectors not traditionally related to 
digitisation  (e.g.  farming,  health  care,  construction,  etc.) 269 .  This  trend  is  confirmed  by  the 
OECD’s  Survey  of  Adult  Skills  (PIAAC),  which  shows  that  on  more  than  50%  of  the  adult 

268 Chart based on aggregate data for EU27. Data is available for all Member States, except for Denmark and Sweden in 2015. 
269 Cedefop (2018). Insights into skills shortages and skill mismatch. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
population in the EU can carry out only the simplest set of computer-based tasks (e.g. writing an 
email  or  browsing  the  web),  or  have  no  digital  skills.  This  means  that  many  workers  use  ICT 
every day at work without having the skills to do so effectively270, an element considered to have 
a  negative  effect  on  workplace  performance 271 .  This  is  confirmed  by  a  recent  publication 
examining  which  workers  were  best  positioned  to  work  from  home  during  the  COVID-19 
lockdown (equal to around 28,5% in the EU272). The study shows that the likelihood of working 
from home decreases for workers without tertiary education and with lower levels of skills. These 
findings raises important questions on the extent to which the pandemic could exacerbate existing 
labour market inequalities, and whether these inequalities could worsen with intensified adoption 
of technology in the aftermath of the crisis273.  

On  the  one  hand,  a  growing  number  of  employers  are  declaring  their  intention  to  incorporate 
telework  on  a  more  systematic  basis;  on  the  other,  the  greater  capacity  for  data  collection, 
processing and analytics, paired with machine learning and AI, means that tasks requiring more 
analytical and digital skills are likely to grow274. Indeed, recent data from Eurostat275 show that in 
2018, the job tasks of 15% of employed internet users (e.g. people who use internet in their work) 
in  the  EU  had  changed  due  to  new  software  or  computerised  equipment  in  the  twelve  months 
prior to the survey. In the same period, 27% had to learn how to use new software or equipment 
for  their  job.  As  recognised  in  the  new  Skills  Agenda276,  these  findings  call  for  renewed  and 
focused  action  to  develop  the  digital  skills  of  the  workforce277 through,  for  instance,  initiatives 
boosting the level of adults digital competences and acknowledging the role of employers and the 
private  sector  in  promoting  and  providing  specific  training  and  on-the-job-learning  of  digital 
skills. 

Digital competence has become crucial for employability and for participation in society: the 
need for all citizens to develop digital skills to thrive in today's world is increasingly evident. The 
more knowledge technology allows to search and access, the more important the capacity to filter 
and better understand information becomes278. As technological breakthroughs rapidly change the 
way  people  live,  work  and  study,  Europe  needs  digitally  competent  citizens  and  workers  to  be 
able to use technologies in a critical way. Individual digital skills across Europe are insufficient to 
meet the needs of the economy and the society, as suggested by aggregate statistics both from the 
supply side (measured as individual digital skills) and the from the demand side (measured as the 
level of skills required for worker occupation). In spite of its policy relevance, evidence on this 
topic is insufficient, also because of the lack of clarity given by the different definitions of digital 
competence and related measurement methods. However, any action on competence development 
requires  a  thorough  and  recognised  assessment  of  the  individual  level  of  digital  competence: 
defining  the  starting  point  is  crucial  to  identify  what  learning  opportunities  can  be  offered  to 
specific target groups in a lifelong learning perspective.  

270 OECD (2016). Skills for a Digital World. Policy Brief on the Future of Work. 
271 European Commission (2017). ICT for Work: Digital Skills in the Workplace. 
272 Eurofound (2020), Work, teleworking and COVID-19. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/fr/data/covid-
19/working-teleworking.  
273 Espinoza R., Reznikova L. (2020). Who can log in? The importance of skills for the feasibility of teleworking arrangements 
across OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 242, OECD Publishing: Paris. 
274 Arregui Pabollet E. et al. (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
275 Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals. 
276 European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. COM(2020)441 final/2. 
277 Several studies report that although it remains crucial to develop digital skills that empower workers to thrive in a changing 
digital economy, comprehensive skills strategies should embed these within a broader set of  transversal skills. Concretely, 
research findings point to a) the increasing labour market needs for transversal, soft or non-cognitive skills; b) that these are 
required in combination with digital skills;  and c) their development mutually reinforce each other.   
278 OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
Box 3: digital literacy for informed choices as citizens 

Low levels of digital skills pose risks to our democracies and act as a barrier to social inclusion. 
Citizens’ exposure to large-scale disinformation, including misleading or false information, is 
a major challenge for Europe279 and it has become even more evident with the COVID-19 crisis. 
The virus outbreak dominated the media and it has been accompanied by an ‘infodemic’, a term 
indicating a massive amount of information that has made it hard for people to find trustworthy 
sources and reliable guidance280. The need for all citizens to have a critical understanding of and 
interaction  with  the  media  and  digital  environments,  to  become  resilient  to  disinformation  and 
improve  their  participation  in  democratic  processes  has  never  been  as  vital  as  it  is  in  today's 
digital world281. 

The  2019  Reuters  Institute  Digital  News  Report  revealed  that  55%  of  respondents  across  38 
countries  globally  remain  concerned  about  their  ability  to  distinguish  between  what  is  real  and 
what is fake on the internet. Concerns about disinformation remain high and the average level of 
trust  in  the  media  is  down  to  42%  (Figure  12) 282.  Daily,  37%  of  Europeans  come  across  news 
that they believe misrepresent reality or are even false, while 31% say it happens at least once a 
week. More than eight  in  ten respondents  think that  the existence of fake news is  a problem in 
their country (85%) and for democracy in general (83%)283.  

Figure 12: Percentage of trust in the news 

Source: Reuters Institute (2019) 

During  the  COVID-19  outbreak,  worries  about  the  reliability  of  information  available  on  the 
virus  were  even  higher284.  The  situation  was  exacerbated  by  the  use  of  social  media  to  find 
information  (especially  amongst  young  adults)  and  the  overall  increase  in  time  children  spent 
online,  with  possible  consequences  on  the  likelihood  of  being  exposed  to  disinformation, 
inappropriate content and more general negative experiences285.   

279 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on tackling online disinformation: a European approach. COM(2018)236 final. 
280 World Health Organization (2020). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Situation Report. 
281 Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council; the Council, the European and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions - Action Plan against Disinformation. JOIN(2018) 36 final. 
282 Reuters Institute (2019). Digital News Report 2019.  
283 Flash Eurobarometer 464 - Fake news and disinformation online. Available at: 
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2183_464_ENG.   
284 Edelman Trust Barometer (2020). Special Report: Trust and the Coronavirus. 
285 Hasebrink U. (2019). Young European's online environments: a typology of user in Eds Livingstone S., Haddon L., Gorzig A. 
(2019). Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in comparative perspective.  

44 

 
 
 
 
The  evolution  of  digital  technologies  has  radically  changed  the  way  information  and  news  are 
produced,  consumed  and  communicated;  new  risks  affecting  both  adults  and  children  have 
emerged from ubiquitous access to the internet. Given that end-users play a critical role not only 
in accessing and selecting but also in reproducing and disseminating information, an analysis of 
disinformation  in  relation  to  the  functioning  of  our  democracies  is  crucial.  For  example,  some 
research suggests that the sharing of fake news or incorrect information by young people may be 
related to their need for self-expression and socialisation286. Another study shows that even if the 
majority of students might be fluent in social media, they are not equally knowledgeable when it 
comes  to  understanding  the  property  and  status  of  material  they  find  and  reproduce287.  In  this 
sense, being able to check quality and accuracy of information, in addition to understanding 
the  values  and  ethics  of  those  involved  in  the  process  of  generating  this  information,  are  key 
aspects  in  addressing  the  phenomenon 288 .  Results  of  the  public  consultation  confirm  the 
importance  of  finding,  filtering  and  managing  information.  Evidence  on  the  different  target 
groups shows that information  and knowledge  management  and identification of fake news  are 
among the most important competences selected by all respondents, while protection of personal 
data rank high among learners and parents289.  
Prior to the COVID-19 crisis290, different measures had been taken at EU level to minimise the 
risks of fake news and online disinformation and foster digital literacy, but further action tailored 
to the needs of the different age groups is needed. As highlighted by the European Commission’s 
High-Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformation, promoting digital literacy in 
teacher  training,  curricula  reforms  and  with  targeted  educational  interventions  can  help  users 
navigate  the  digital  environment291.  However,  a  survey  released  in  March  2019  illustrates  that 
42% of young people think that critical thinking, media and democracy are not taught sufficiently 
in  school292.  The  challenge  is  particularly  relevant  for  younger  students  as  virtually  go  online 
every  day,  for  education,  entertainment  and  social  contact 293.  There  is  a  pressing  need  for  a 
responsible and safe use of digital technologies through improving digital literacy skills, further 
developing  critical  thinking,  and  raising  awareness  of  individual  rights  and  obligations  while 
online, especially among young people and minors.  

Dealing  with  disinformation,  harmful  speech  and  online  threats  is  a  key  competence  that 
everybody  needs  to  develop,  whether  it  is  in  formal  or  non-formal  education  settings  or  in  the 
context  of  lifelong  learning.  In  recent  years,  a  number  of  initiatives  have  been  put  in  place  to 
address  the  challenges.  The  DigComp  framework 294 ,  for  instance,  aims  to  foster  confident, 
critical  and  responsible  digital  citizens;  while  the  UNESCO’s  Media  and  Information  Literacy 
framework 295 focuses  on  the  role  and  functions  of  media  in  democratic  societies.  However, 
despite these efforts, the ability of young people to access and critically evaluate information and 

286 Chen X., Sin S.C. J., Theng Y.L., Lee C.S. (2015). Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, 
and Study-level Differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 583-592. 
287 Stanford History Education Group (2019). Evaluating information the corner stone of civic online reasoning.  
288 Ireton C., Poseti J. (2018). Journalism, Fake news and Disinformation. Handbook for Journalism education and Training. 
289 See Annex 2 for further details on responses given by the different target groups.  
290 During the COVID-19 outbreak, independent fact-checkers moved quickly to respond to the growing amount of false or 
inaccurate information around the virus and the scale of the problem led public authorities and institutions to initiatives tracking 
and responding to myths and rumours and supporting citizens to find reliable and factual information.  
291 European Commission (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Report of the independent 
High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
292 Flash Eurobarometer 478. How do we build a stronger, more united Europe? The views of young people, available at 
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2224_478_ENG.  
293 Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone S., Hasebrink U. (2020). EU 
Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. 
294 See Annex 3 for further information.   
295 Unesco’s Media and Information Literacy framework: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/media-
development/media-literacy/mil-as-composite-concept/  

45 

 
 
 
its sources in digital environments remains low, indicating for example difficulties differentiating 
between paid and non-paid search results returned by a search engine296.  

The  2018  Action  Plan  included  an  action  focused  on  cyber  culture.  Its  objective  was  raising 
awareness  on  the  risks  faced  when  being  online  (including  disinformation)  and  promoting  the 
skills necessary to act in a safe and responsible way. The #SaferInternet4EU campaign targeting 
educators,  parents  and  learners  with  a  wide  range  of  activities  and  supporting  materials  (e.g. 
awards,  online  courses  for  teachers,  Back2School  campaign,  etc.)  was  part  of  this  action. 
Participation in the initiative grew consistently reaching 63 million EU citizens by 2019 through 
the Safer Internet Centres297. This showed a strong interest in strengthening efforts to foster a safe 
and  responsible  use  of  digital  technologies  by  young  people  through  activities  in  formal  and 
informal  education.  However,  as  highlighted  by  all  consulted  groups 298 ,  boosting  the  skills 
needed  to  safely  navigate  today’s  digital  world  is  an  area  where  further  efforts  at  EU  level  are 
needed, especially in reinforcing the ability of all levels and sectors of education and training to 
promote a critical understanding and interaction with the media.  

The level  of  digital  skills  of  European  students (i.e. individuals above 16 whose employment 
status  is  ‘student’)  is  higher  compared  to  the  overall  population  and  labour  force,  with  66%  of 
them having above basic digital skills (Figure 13).  

Figure 13: EU students’ digital skills 

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of students, by digital skills level 

However, more than one third of 13-14 year olds who participated in the International Computer 
and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) in 2018 were working below the lowest proficiency level 
of  digital  skills 299  and  evidence  shows  that  there  is  a  digital  divide  increasingly  related  to 
socioeconomic status and years of experience of using devices (beyond simple access)300. 

296 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA. 
297 During  COVID-19  crisis,  the  Safer  Internet  Centres  (https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/saferinternet4eu)  were 
very  active  in  supporting  pupils,  teachers  and  parents  through  dedicated  resources  and  a  mini-campaign  to  respond  to  the 
challenges of the lockdown. For further information see betterinternetforkids.eu portal.   
298 Including Member States, educational stakeholders, and Members of the European Parliament. See Annex 2 for further details. 
299 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA. 
300 Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone S., Hasebrink U. (2020). EU 
Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
High-level demand for digital skills and ICT professionals is likely to increase in the aftermath of 
the  COVID-19  crisis,  which  highlights  the  need  to  address  the  development  of  digital  talent 
before higher education, as. Europe cannot grow a critical mass of top talent if we disregard the 
initial stages of education.  

Box 4: Computing and informatics education as a tool to boost digital competence 

Computing and informatics education in school allows young people to gain a critical and hands-
on understanding of the digital world. If taught from the early stages, it can complement digital 
literacy  interventions 301.  The  benefits  are  societal  (young  people  should  be  creators  not  just 
passive  users  of  technology),  economic  (digital  skills  are  needed  in  sectors  of  the  economy  to 
drive growth and innovation) and pedagogical (computing, informatics and technology education 
is a vehicle for learning not just technical skills but key skills such as critical thinking, problem 
solving, collaboration and creativity).  

Computational  thinking  and  related  concepts  (e.g.  coding,  programming,  algorithmic  thinking) 
have  a  long  history  in  education.  Although  coding  and  programming  are  an  important  part  of 
computational  thinking,  the  latter  entails  other  core  elements  such  as  problem  analysis  and 
decomposition302. Computational  thinking represents  a way of approaching problems which are 
relevant for many areas of education and is an essential skill for a growing number of jobs303. 

Evidence  shows  that  computational  thinking  activities,  in  both  formal  and  non-formal  settings, 
help learners develop critical transversal skills (e.g. creativity or critical thinking)304 and, together 
with digital literacy, can equip students with the complementary skills to become active, critical 
and creative users of digital technologies305. Introducing all pupils to computing and informatics 
education from an early age can also help foster interest in digital studies and future careers. Yet, 
many  young  people  in  Europe  leave  school  without  any  exposure  to  computing  and 
informatics education306.  

In 2019, half of the European education systems were reforming their curricula related to digital 
competence,  for  example,  introducing  new  components,  including  computational  thinking,  or 
making the subject area more prominent. Some reforms (for instance in BG, IE, EL, CY, LT, PL, 
RO 307), were broadly in line with reforms in jurisdictions outside Europe (e.g. US308, Australia, 
China,  New  Zealand,  Singapore  and  South  Korea).  Despite  these  changes,  provision  in 
computing and informatics education in Europe remains uneven.  

Figure 14 shows the level of education at which EU students experience their first contact with 
informatics and related concepts309. This happens rarely in primary education (only in six cases in 
Figure 14), most likely because more than half of the European education systems include digital 
competence as a more general cross-curricular theme. Teaching digital competence as a separate 
and  specific  subject,  like  computing  and  informatics  education,  is  more  common  at  lower  and 

301 Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat? 
302 European Commission. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and 
practice. JRC Science for Policy Report.  
303 Balanskat A., K. Engelhardt (2015), Computing Our Future. Computer Programming and Coding. Priorities, School Curricula 
and Initiatives across Europe. 
304 OECD. (2019). OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
305 Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational Thinking and Media & Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach to 
Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills. TechTrends, 60(5), 1–7.  
306 Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat? 
307 Curriculum approaches and related reforms available in Annex 1a-b of European Commission (2019). Digital Education at 
School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
308 In the US, Code.org, the Hour of Code movement and the Computer Science for All initiative launched by President Obama 
are working to provide high quality computing education for all students. 
309 Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat?  
An interactive view of the map is available at: http://cece-map.informatics-europe.org/map/informatics_first_contact/pt 

47 

 
 
 
especially upper secondary education310 (in the former case mostly as a compulsory subject and 
in the latter mostly as optional)311.  

Figure 14: First contact with informatics 

Source: Committee on European Computing Education (2017) 

However, as Figure 15 shows, there is a high percentage of students at lower and upper secondary 
level (76 and 79% respectively) who never or almost never undertake coding and programming 
activities.  This  is  a  practice  done  on  a  daily  basis  only  by  3%  of  students  in  lower  and  6%  of 
students in upper secondary education312.  

Figure 15: Students frequency in coding/programming during lessons 

Source: Second Survey of Schools (2019) - Percentage of students, country and EU level 

310 Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and all UK regions (6 – 12%) include it at primary level. After primary school, there is a split 
between places introducing informatics at lower secondary level (27 out of 53 countries/regions; 50%) and those introducing it at 
higher secondary level (20 out of 53 countries/regions; 38%). 
311 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
312 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
In Europe, the  availability of computing and informatics education, as  a  compulsory or  at  least 
elective  subject313,  is  not  uniform,  with  opportunities  for  young  people  to  study  this  subject 
varying  widely314.  Where  it  does  exist,  uptake  can  be  low  and  gender  imbalance  is  a  major 
problem315. Recent research assessing students’ computational thinking shows that achievements 
tend to be higher among male students, and that socio-economic status, access to and experience 
with computers are associated with higher scores. Even though a small number of Member States 
participated in the study (seven in total), it reveals that students’ computational thinking varies a 
lot within countries and that there is a large proportion of students who are able to complete only 
the most basic computational thinking-related tasks316.  

In  recent  years,  a  number  of  initiatives  addressing  computational  thinking  in  both  formal  and 
non-formal settings have been organised, both at national and international level, to complement 
the lack of provision in computing and informatics education317. For instance EU Code Week318, 
promoted in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan, brought coding activities to many schools 
across Europe, reaching 4.2 million participants in 2019319. 

Stakeholders  consulted  for  the  preparation  of  this  initiative  highlighted  the  importance  of 
supporting  students’  computational  thinking  from  an  early  age  as  a  way  to  promote  a  better 
understanding  of  the  digital  world  and  to  do  this  with  age-appropriate  teaching  methods320.  In 
particular,  Member  States  and  organisations  participating  in  the  ET2020  Working  Group  on 
Digital Education called for EU support on a number of shared challenges (e.g. how to teach and 
assess computational thinking in an age-appropriate way, how to recruit and train teachers, how 
to ensure gender balance and equity). 

The  COVID-19  crisis  is  likely  have  an  impact  on  the  demand  for  digital  skills  of  EU  citizens, 
especially for learners and the labour force, considering that many schools, universities and VET 
providers shifted to  distance and online learning, and companies and organisations to  telework. 
Results from the public consultation confirm that this can lead to more experiences with digital 
technologies,  but  being  digitally  competent  entails  more  than  being  able  to  use  them 321 . 
Monitoring  will  be  essential  to  see  if  a  more  critical,  confident,  and  creative  use  of  digital 
technologies for learning purposes and for participation in society will arise as a consequence of 
the  situation  or  if  the  COVID-19  crisis  will  contribute  to  widening  gaps,  new  inequalities  and 
negative experiences in using digital devices.  

313 22 out of 50 countries/regions in Europe offer computing and informatics education; however, in 10 out of 50 
countries/regions, the possibility is available only to a subset of students. 
314 Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat? 
315 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
316 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.  
317 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and 
practice. JRC Science for Policy Report.  
Balanskat, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2015 & 2016). Computing, our Future. Brussels. European Schoolnet. 
318 EU Code Week: https://codeweek.eu/ 
319 In 2019 more than 72,000 activities took place globally - 92% of them was at school level. For more information on EU Code 
Week see Table 1.  
320 40% of the consulted organisations position computing and informatics education in their top five areas of focus. 
Representatives of the private sector, in particular, strongly advocate for integrating the subject across curricula, as a way to lay 
the foundation for advanced digital skills. See Annex 2 for further details.  
321 See Annex 2 for more details on respondents’’ views on digital competence.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 5: Availability of cross-national data on the level of digital competence in the EU 

Digital  competence  acquisition  is  an  important  priority,  but  the  availability  of  cross-national 
data on the current level of digital skills in the EU is limited. Major data sources include: 
  The  International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  (ICILS)322,  a  performance  test 
literacy 323  and 

measuring 
information 
computational thinking324 of students in their eighth year of schooling325.  

international  differences 

in  computer  and 

  The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI) 326 ,  a  composite  index  that  summarises 
relevant  indicators  on  Europe’s  digital  performance327,  including  an  area  on  human  capital, 
which provides an overview of citizens’ digital skills328.  

However, both  ICILS  and  DESI  have  certain  constraints. While  scientifically sound,  ICILS 
has  so  far  had  limited  geographical  coverage:  only  14  EU  Member  States  combined  (nine  and 
seven  respectively)  participated  in  its  two  first  cycles329.  DESI’s  methodology  relies  on  self-
reported  data  largely  based  on  respondents’  replies  to  a  set  of  questions  on  their  internet  use 
rather  than  a  direct  measurement  of  actual  digital  competence330.  These  are  recurring  issues  in 
studies and surveys focusing on digital skills, as they provide indirect approximations and limit 
the ability to analyse and assess digital competence development and tendencies.  

Under  the  2018  Action  Plan,  studies  were  undertaken  to  measure  progress  in  the  use  of  digital 
technologies in school education, resulting in three key achievements: 
  The  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  education  (ESSIE2) 331 ,  published  in  March  2019, 
provided  1)  an  overview  of  the  progress  made  in  mainstreaming  technology  use  in  primary 
and  secondary  education,  and  2)  guidance  on  features  and  costs  of  a  highly  connected 
classroom (entry, advanced and cutting-edge level).  

  A new version of the ICT questionnaire of the OECD's Programme for International Student 
Assessment (PISA), used in 2018 to gather information on students’ perceptions on their use 
of ICT for learning purposes, was also developed. The new version of the questionnaire will 
be deployed in the next  round of PISA in 2022. It  relies on students’ self-reported attitudes 
and  self-efficacy  and  can  provide  valuable  insights  into  how  pupils  access  and  use  digital 
resources  in  and  outside  of  school,  in  addition  to  identifying  how  teachers  and  schools 
integrate them into pedagogical practices and learning environments. 

322 ICILS: https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/icils  
323 The definition of computer and information literacy is very close to the one of the DigComp framework  (see Annex 3) and 
focuses on students’ ability to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at 
school, in the workplace, and in the community. 
324 Computational thinking, defined as an individual’s ability to recognize aspects of real-world problems which are appropriate 
for computational formulation and to evaluate and develop algorithmic solutions to those problems so that the solutions could be 
operationalized with a computer, is an optional component of the ICILS survey.    
325 On average between 13 and 15 year old students, depending on the country. 
326 DESI : https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  
327 At high level, DESI addresses five interconnected policy areas for a digital economy and society (connectivity, human capital, 
use of internet services, integration of digital technology, digital public services). DESI data collection is annual and allows 
tracking the evolution of Member States in digital competitiveness. 
328 The area on human capital provides an overview of digital inclusion and skills, calculated as the weighted average of two sub-
dimensions, ‘internet user skills’ and ‘advanced skills and development’, each made up by three indicators  (‘At least basic digital 
skills’, ‘Above basic digital skills’, ‘At least basic software skills’ for the sub-dimension ‘internet user skills’; ‘ICT specialists’, 
‘Female ICT specialists’ and ‘ICT graduates’ for the sub-dimension ‘Advanced skills and development’), whose data come from 
the Eurostat Community Survey on ICT usage by households and individuals and the Labour Force Survey. 
329 Two ICILS reports have been published (in 2013 and 2018) and the next data collection cycle will take place in 2023.   
330 On the other hand ICILS measures students digital skills in a computer-based assessment where they complete a range of tasks, 
including skills-based tasks using software tools and web content, based on real-world scenarios and problems.  
331 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

50 

 
 
 
  Discussions  have  also  been  held  with  Member  States  on  how  to  better  track  progress  in 
entrepreneurship and digital competences, and possibly setting EU targets in these areas. With 
regard  to  entrepreneurship,  existing  data  collections  do  not  have  the  required  level  of 
international  comparability  to  support  the  monitoring  of  an  EU  target.  This  is,  however, 
possible  for  digital  competence,  using  ICILS,  which  provides  a  solid  base  for  direct 
assessment of digital competence. 

Stakeholders consulted in preparation of the renewed Action Plan recognise the benefits of cross-
national,  comparative  and  longitudinal  studies  to  inform  education  and  training  and  call  for 
reinforced efforts with a view to improve the understanding of digital competence development 
across Member States and at EU level 332.  

5.2.2 Addressing the gender gap  

There  is  a  significant  gender  gap  in  digital  skills.  There  are  proportionally  more  men  than 
women with at least basic digital skills and the difference increases with age and level of digital 
skills333. At a young age, girls outperform boys in Information and Computer Literacy334 and in 
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)335, but the context changes as they 
progress through their educational and professional lives336.  
Women  constitute  just  over  half  of  tertiary  students 337  (54%)  and  they  are  particularly 
underrepresented  in  the  digital  fields  where  men  still  account  for  more  than  80%  of  the 
workforce. Despite large differences between countries338, women on average hold only 17% of 
tech sector jobs339, a participation rate that occurs at all levels of the digital economy but also in 
women’s  numbers  as  employees,  corporate  leaders  and  entrepreneurs340. The  pace  of  change  is 
not promising341 and the low share of women in AI (22%)342 shows that, without intervention, the 
gap in Europe will widen343.  

According  to  the  OECD's  Programme  for  International  Student  Assessment  (PISA),  boys  and 
girls  are  almost  equally  likely  to  expect  to  work  in  a  science-related  field344.  Yet,  data  from 
Eurostat  shows  that  only  one  in  three  STEM  graduates  is  a  woman345.  With  age  and  at  higher 

332 When asked about the type of data that would be useful at EU level, Member States and consulted organisations indicated the 
need to gather comparative and longitudinal data related to effective teaching and learning, efficient online learning, and digital 
competence development. Member States in ET2020 Working group on Digital Education support this statement, especially in 
view of the need of data on COVID-19 and its implications for education and training. See Annex 2 for further details.  
333 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index - EU-28 values (including UK). 
334 Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International 
Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA. 
335 OECD (2019). Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus, n° 93.  
336 STEM fields and the digital sectors are among the employment domains where gender bias prevails.  
337 Eurostat (2019). Tertiary education statistics. 
338 For instance in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe women occupy nearly half of the high-tech jobs.   
339 The percentage of women in ICT careers still remains below 2% of women's total share in the European labour market See 
European Parliament (2020). Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI 
and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.  
340 European Commission (2018). Women in the Digital Age. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.  
341 0.5% increase in the number of women in ICT jobs between 2012 and 2016. EIGE (2018). Women and men in ICT: a chance 
for better work-life balance. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union. 
342 World Economic Forum (2019). Assessing Gender Gaps in Artificial Intelligence. On the topic, see also LinkedIn (2019). AI 
Talent in the European Labour Market. 
343 Another digital domain where the gender gap is particularly strong is cybersecurity. See European Parliament (2020). 
Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender 
equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union. 
344 OECD (2017). What kind of careers in science do 15-year-old boys and girls expect for themselves? PISA in focus. Paris: 
OECD publishing.  
345 Eurostat (2019). Women in science and technology. 

51 

 
 
 
 
levels of education, girls tend to steer away from STEM and ICT subjects and this is reflected in 
their lower participation in related higher education studies346. 

Research shows that young women are more likely to choose careers in the biological sciences, 
social  sciences,  environmental  sciences  and  medicine  over  the  mathematically  based  sciences 
because  they  perceive  the  latter  to  be  less  people-oriented  and  to  have  less  value  to  society347. 
Inherent  biases  and  sociocultural  norms  limit  women  and  girls’  ability  to  benefit  from  the 
opportunities  offered  by  the  digital  transformation 348.  In  addition,  girls’  lower  enrolment  in 
disciplines  linked  to  the  digital  sector  could  lead  to  widening  gaps  and  greater  inequality349. 
Addressing  the  underlying  causes  of  gender  disparities  in  the  digital  and  STEM  fields  requires 
targeted  interventions  early  on,  to  raise  awareness  and  interest350,  tackle  gender  stereotypes, 
provide role models  and, more generally, enable enhanced, safer and more affordable  access to 
digital tools351.  
Many initiatives, such as the Ministerial declaration of commitment on women in digital352 and 
WeGate353,  are  ongoing  in  the  EU  to  promote  women’s  participation  in  ICT  or  STEM  but  the 
complexity  surrounding  gender  equality  requires  stronger  and  more  concerted  efforts.  Greater 
inclusion of women in the digital economy and diversity in the labour market can bring social and 
economic value for Europe’s competitiveness, growth and innovation354. 

The  need  to  address  the  gender  gap  was  recognised  in  the  2018  Action  Plan  with  an  action 
promoting  workshops  on  digital  and  entrepreneurial  skills  for  girls  in  primary  and  secondary 
education, organised across Europe and particularly in those countries and regions that belong to 
the  so-called  ‘modest  and  moderate  innovators’355.  The  action  was  partially  successful  due  to 
constraints  in  its  implementation  modalities.  However,  the  positive  feedback  from  participating 
female students356 and the evidence on the level of digital skills and labour market participation 
of women show the need to scale-up measures fostering gender equality in the STEM sector. The 
urgency to reinforce efforts in this direction was clearly recognised in the consultations informing 
the renewed Action Plan357. 

346 A recent study shows that the period for consolidating STEM interest for students is confined to lower secondary education, 
within a period when girls are less likely than boys to maintain STEM interest or maintain positive self-concept of computer 
ability. See European Parliament (2020). Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, 
including AI and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union. 
347 Eccles J.S., Wang M.T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? Int. J. Behav. 
Dev. 40, 100–106.  
348 OECD (2018). Bridging the Digital Gender Divide. Include, Upskill, Innovate. 
349 EQUALS (2019). I’d blush If I could. Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. 
350 Wang  M.T.,  Degol  J.L.  (2017).  Gender  gap  in  STEM:  current  knowledge,  implications  for  practice,  policy,  and  future 
directions.  Educational  psychology  review,  29(1),  pp.119-140.  Wang  M.T.,  Degol  J.  (2013).  Motivational  pathways  to  STEM 
career  choices:  using  expectancy–value  perspective  to  understand  individual  and  gender  differences  in  STEM  fields. 
Developmental Review, Volume 33, Issue 4. 
351 European Parliament (2018). The underlying causes of the digital gender gap and possible solutions for enhanced digital 
inclusion of women and girls. 
352 Women in digital: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/women-ict and https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/eu-countries-commit-boost-participation-women-digital 
353 WEGate, the European gateway for women entrepreneurship: https://wegate.eu/  
354 Gender parity affects GDP, levels of employment, and productivity. For instance, a strong correlation is found between the 
Women in Digital Index and the Digital Economy and Society Index: Member States who lead in digital competitiveness are also 
leaders in women in digital. 
355 The European Innovation Scoreboard provides a comparative assessment of research and innovation performance across the 
EU. Analysed countries are divided in innovation leaders – performing well above the EU average; strong innovators – 
performing slightly above or close to the EU average; moderate innovators – performing below the EU average; modest 
innovators – perform well below the EU average. 
356 The large majority of the students who participated in the workshops had a positive experience developing their interest in 
becoming entrepreneurs (92%) and/or work in the ICT sector (87%). Data shows that the workshops boosted students’ self-
confidence and allowed them to develop transversal skills such as teamwork and communications, which are two highly sought-
after skills by today’s employers. 
357Closing the gender digital skills gap is considered a priority area of focus by a quarter of the consulted stakeholder 
organisations, predominantly coming from education employers and non-formal sector. See Annex 2 for further details.  

52 

 
 
 
5.2.3 Advanced digital skills and emerging areas of digital competence  

those  performed  by  machines,  global 

As  technological  breakthroughs  rapidly  shift  the  boundary  between  tasks  performed  by  people 
and 
labour  markets  are  undergoing  major 
transformations 358 .  Rapid  advances  in  AI,  cloud  computing,  robotics,  and  other  emerging 
technologies  are  happening  in  short  cycles,  quickly  changing  the  nature  of  existing  jobs  or 
creating  new  ones,  and  strongly  impacting  the  skills  required  in  both  existing  and  new 
occupations.  Demand  for  specialist  digital  skills 359 ,  including  technology  design  and 
programming, is growing along with non-cognitive skills that computers cannot master, such as 
creative thinking and problem-solving360.  

While the COVID-19 crisis has massively affected all working  environments and sectors of the 
economy,  the  ICT  sector  proved  to  be  critical  for  business  continuity  and  recovery.  Extensive 
efforts were made to reinforce the digital infrastructure of governments, hospitals, and education 
and training institutions; development of tools and apps using emerging technologies to fight and 
contain  the  virus;  services  and  packages  to  help  workers  and  enterprises  address  the  business 
challenges  arising  from  the  crisis  and  online  learning  solutions  and  donation  of  equipment  and 
connectivity  to  students361.  The  crisis  demonstrated  the  extreme  importance  of  an  ICT  sector, 
which can cope with unexpected challenges. This makes the need to attract young people to ICT 
studies and, more generally, equip post-secondary students and graduates with digital skills, more 
urgent  than ever. As a result, the crisis  also  demonstrated the extreme importance of continued 
training  and  education  for  healthcare  professionals  in  the  area  of  digital  skills  in  order  to 
successfully  implement  new  digital  technologies  to  ensure  that  our  healthcare  systems  become 
more resilient, accessible and effective in providing quality care to European citizens. 

In  Europe  and  beyond,  mismatches  exist  between  skills  available  and  those  needed  for  the 
digital  transformation  of  the  economy.  ICT  specialists,  people  who  deal  with  developing, 
operating and maintaining information technology systems, are employed across all sectors of the 
economy, with a different percentage depending on the size of the organisation362. As Figure 16 
shows, in 2019, over half of both large and small and medium enterprises in all Member States 
(58%)  who  recruited  or  tried  to  recruit  ICT  specialists  reported  difficulties  in  filling  these 
vacancies.363  

358 World Economic Forum (2018). The Future of Jobs Report. 
359 The Commission proposal for a Digital Europe Programme (COM/2018/434 final) defined advanced digital skills as 
‘specialized skills, i.e. skills in designing, developing, mana 
360 Research Centre (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the 
European Union. 
361 This was a positive effort but raised concerns among some of the stakeholders, especially Ministries of Education, on the 
storage and use of personal data of educators and learners. See Annex 2 for further details.  
362 The percentage of large enterprises employing ICT specialists (75%) is more than 4 times higher than that for small and 
medium sized enterprises (18 %). Eurostat (2018). ICT specialists - statistics on hard-to-fill vacancies. 
363 66 % for large enterprises and 57 % for small and medium enterprises. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Hard-to-fill vacancies for ICT specialists 

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of enterprises that recruited or tried to recruit ICT 
specialists, without financial sector 

These skill shortages are connected to a shortage of supply of digital skills in the EU labour force 
but  they  are  also  affected  by  firms’  ability  to  adopt  a  competitive  recruitment  strategy.  Recent 
research shows that ‘genuine’ skill shortages, defined as instances where employers cannot fill a 
job vacancy because job applicants do not possess the required skills, even though a competitive 
job  offer  is  made,  are  more  likely  to  arise  in  high-innovative  and  international  sectors  and 
occupations364.  

In 2018, there were around 7.4 million ICT specialists in employment across the EU, the highest 
number of which were employed in Germany (1.7 million) and France (1,1 million). In general, 
the number of ICT specialists employed in the EU grew by 47.9% from 2011 to 2018, eight times 
as much as the increase (5.9 %) for total employment. Less than two thirds (62.2%) of employed 
ICT  specialists  in  the  EU  have  a  tertiary  level  of  education365,  which  shows  the  importance  of 
increasing  the  number  of  ICT  graduates  from  upper-secondary  and  higher  education 366  - 
especially considering that in these disciplines entry requirements and dropout rates are high, and 
female participation is low. 

On the supply side, approximately 3.9 million students graduated from tertiary education in the 
EU in 2017. ICT makes up less than 5% of the total number of enrolled students and graduates 
(4.9% and 3.8%)367, even though it is most commonly associated with technological progress and 
high  employability368.  On  average  in  the  EU  and  across  OECD  countries,  only  4%  of  tertiary-
educated adults hold a qualification in this field and the proportion across countries varies much 
less than for other fields of study. It reaches 7% in Costa Rica and Luxembourg or 6% in Finland, 
Hungary,  Mexico  and  Spain  and  1%  or  less  in  Russia  and  Turkey369.  In  2015  India  was  the 
country  with  the  highest  share  of  ICT  graduates  (almost  600,000),  five  times  as  many  as  the 
United States370. 

364 CEDEFOP (2018) Insights into skills shortages and skill mismatch. Learning from Cedefop’s European skills and jobs survey. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
365 Eurobase database (data extracted on 11/09/2020) for the following sources: employed ICT specialists - total, employed ICT 
specialists by sex, employed specialists by educational attainment level and employment by sex, age and citizenship. 
366 The share of ICT specialists in employment with a tertiary level of educational attainment rose by 7.2 percentage points 
between 2011 and 2018. 
367 For other STEM fields, engineering, construction and manufacturing makes up 15.2% of the total number of graduates and 
15.8% of enrolled students; while natural science, mathematics and statistics 6,4% of graduates and 7.2% of enrolled students. 
368 Eurostat (2019). Tertiary education statistics. 
369 OECD (2019). Education at glance. Paris: OECD Publishing. 
370 OECD (2017). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017. Paris: OECD publishing.  

54 

 
 
 
 
The low number of ICT graduates and the growing number of ICT vacancies371 suggest that the 
gap  between  the  demand  and  supply  of  ICT  specialists  may  be  widening.  To  lead  digital 
transformation, Europe needs excellent higher education institutions, which can attract and retain 
students  in  ICT  and  related  fields  by  offering  high  quality  education,  including  in  forward-
looking ICT-related fields.  

In  this  respect  the  European  Universities  initiative,  which  supports  transnational  alliances  of 
higher  education  institutions,  will  work  to  boost  higher  education  capacity,  mobility  and 
cooperation  in  the  design  and  development  of  flexible,  innovative  and  challenge-based 
approaches, which foster basic and advanced digital competences. Moreover, the Digital Europe 
Programme  will  support  the  development  of  advanced  digital  skills  mainly  through  specialised 
education programmes, such as master courses. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown, having ICT 
specialists  and  a  digitally  competent  workforce  is  a  crucial  element  for  an  inclusive  and 
competitive digital  economy and society.  Several  actions at  both  EU and Member States’ level 
aim  to  tackle  the  digital  skills  mismatch372,  but,  as  highlighted  by  consulted  stakeholders373, 
renewed  support  is  needed  especially  considering  that  the  digital  economy  is  likely  to  play  a 
leading role in Europe’s recovery.  

Digitally-enabled  automation  and  AI  are  set  to  become  the  primary  drivers  of  the  next 
technological revolution374. They permeate all spheres of life (from machine translation, to image 
recognition and music generation) and bring significant benefits, including increased productivity 
and  societal  wellbeing,  but  also  challenges  connected  to  the  need  to  manage  a  socially 
responsible  transition  by  carefully  addressing  socio-economic,  legal  and  ethical  impacts375,  as 
well  as  cybersecurity,  safety,  and  data  protection  risks376.  Its  use  also  entails  opaque  decision-
making and risks of gender-based or other kinds of discrimination. 

Being  at  the  forefront  of  the  technological  revolution  is  crucial  to  ensure  competitiveness  and 
shape  the  conditions  for  its  development  and  use377.  EU  investment  and  efforts  to  analyse  the 
current implications and future impact of AI have increased over time with various research and 
policy initiatives, including ‘AI Watch’, which monitors the development, uptake and impact of 
AI in Europe378.  
However, as highlighted in the White Paper on AI379, companies all over Europe struggle to find 
qualified workers who are able to  develop  and deploy  AI380. On the other  hand, citizens (more 
than 6 in 10) tend to be positive regarding the impact of AI on the economy and society, but their 

371 For instance in the EU in 2017 there were approximately 496,000 unfilled positions in the area of big data and analytics. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for data. COM/2020/66 final.  
372 Among the actions at EU level, in 2018, the European Commission piloted a new scheme, the Digital Opportunity 
Traineeships, which allowed higher education students to participate in temporary work placements and improve their digital 
skills, in fields like cybersecurity, big data, quantum technology and machine learning, or in business areas like web design, 
digital marketing, and software development. The initiative showed mutual benefits, for the participating students, who gained 
hands-on experience, and for the hosting companies, who had the opportunity to train the future European workforce. The pilot 
took place in 2018-2020 with more than 12.000 work placements in enterprises and companies, involving 53% female and 47% 
male students, including 10% from disadvantaged backgrounds.  
373Closing the gender digital skills gap was widely supported during exchanges with  Member States and Members of the 
European Parliament and seen as a priority area of focus by a quarter of consulted groups. See Annex 2 for further details.  
374 McKinsey& Google (2020). Future of Work in Europe.  
375 Joint Research Centre (2018). Artificial Intelligence. A European perspective. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office. 
376 Joint Reserach Centre (2020). Robustness and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence - From technical to policy solutions. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
377 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM(2018)237. 
378 AI Watch: https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/ai-watch/about_en  
379 White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust. COM(2020) 65 final. 
380 Joint Research Centre (2019). Academic offer and demand for advanced profiles in the EU – Artificial intelligence, High 
Performance Computing and Cybersecurity. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 

55 

 
 
 
opinion and concerns depend strongly on their level of information and knowledge on the topic381 
(Figure 17).  

Figure 17: Views on robots and AI among citizens  

Source: Eurobarometer (2017) 

As AI systems rapidly evolve, with applications in many different areas, there is a growing and 
pressing need not only for professionals but also for citizens to have basic understanding of AI to 
engage positively, critically and ethically with this increasingly pervasive technology382.  

Box 6: Impact of AI on education and training 

The  impact  of  AI  on  education  and  training  could  potentially  be  transformative    but,  given  the 
data needed by AI systems to operate, it also comes with major risks connected to fundamental 
rights such as the right to non-discrimination, including gender equality383, as well as ethical, data 
protection  and  privacy  concerns,.  A  recent  report 384  shows  that  many  EU-funded  research 
projects  in  recent  years  have been focusing on technology-enabled learning by using  AI-driven 
technologies  to  build  intelligent  tutoring  systems  or  agents  and  personalised  learning 
environments that take advantage of adaptive user models. So far, they have had limited impact 
in  actual  educational  settings  but  recent  technical  developments  connected  to  improvements  in 
algorithms and the exponential growth in the volume and variety of digital data suggest that the 
situation may be changing rapidly.  

The number of technological devices and tools that generate detailed data about young people is 
unprecedented 385 .  As  with  all  surveillance  mechanisms,  questions  arise  as  to  who  collects, 
controls,  selects,  interprets  and uses the data386. At times, schools and teachers, or learners and 

381 Eurobarometer 460 - Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation, available at 
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2160_87_1_460_ENG.  
382 For instance the translation of Elements of AI (https://www.elementsofai.com), the online course published in 2018 by Reaktor 
and the University of Helsinki, will allow citizens acquire basic understanding of AI. For more information: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/elements-artificial-intelligence-course-gives-basic-introduction-ai  
383 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. COM/2020/152 final. 
384 Joint Research Centre (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and Education. Policies for the 
future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
385 Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New 
Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794. 
386 Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2017). The Datafication of Early Years of Primary Education: Playing with Numbers. 
Abingdon: Routledge. 

56 

 
 
 
 
parents themselves, can be providing such data without properly understanding the ramifications 
of disclosing such data387. 

While education and training institutions have progressively started experimenting with the use of 
emerging  technologies,  there  is  very  little  systematic  analysis  and  monitoring,  including  early 
experimentations  involving  educational  stakeholders  (e.g.  living  labs  ideas)  and  small-scale 
qualitative research (e.g. case studies), that would allow to assess their impact on the educational 
process.  Moreover,  the  impact  of  emerging  technologies  on  students’  performance  and  overall 
learning experience has not been systematically studied with, for instance, large-scale pilots (e.g. 
by comparing educational settings with vs without digital intervention) and specific attention to 
data collection and use.  

Overall, there is a need to develop and test new pedagogies, also by investigating how emerging 
technologies  can  be  smoothly  integrated  in  existing  teaching  and  learning  practices  and  how 
respect  of  data  protection  legislation  can  be  ensured.  On  the  other  end,  flexibility  and 
affordability  of  digital  technologies  in  education  and  training  remain  an  issue  as  their  use  in 
teaching  and  learning  needs  to  be  carefully  designed,  tailored  and  assessed  against  European 
values  and  norms,  especially  when  targeting  children 388 .  Finally,  challenges  regarding  the 
involvement  of  end-users,  accessibility,  inclusion  and  equity,  as  well  as  ethics,  data  protection 
and privacy and security considerations need to be duly addressed. 
As  indicated  by  stakeholders 389 ,  better  collaboration  between  the  AI  education  technology 
industry and educators is vital to support the testing, growth and adoption of the most promising 
AI tools for education. Research shows that AI-driven education technology needs to be informed 
by  pedagogy,  with  a  focus  on  user-centred  design,  ensuring  that  teachers  and  students  are 
empowered rather than marginalised by technology390. Moreover, a recent study shows that any 
educational  application  of  AI  needs  careful  consideration  as  to  how,  where  and  when  human 
intervention and interpretation is needed391. 

Against this backdrop, initiatives are also needed to increase the awareness and understanding 
of  AI  at  all  levels  of  education in order to prepare citizens for informed decisions that will be 
increasingly affected by AI. The development of new skills will be crucial for both educators and 
learners  to  understand  the  applications  and  implications  of  AI  and  related  data,  and  harness  its 
potential  for  innovative  teaching  and  learning.  In  the  longer  term,  the  development  of  AI  and 
data-related  skills  from  an  early  age,  and  with  particular  attention  to  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination and gender equality, can have a positive effect on the pipeline of professionals in 
the industry.    

Consulted  stakeholders  have  called  for  the  EU  to  address  this  specific  skills  gap  by  providing 
guiding frameworks on knowledge, skills and attitudes related to AI for different ages and stages 
of  education  and  training.  Considering  the  transformative  power  of  this  technology,  there  is  a 
growing need to understand the skills required to use and deploy its applications in a responsible 
way  and  help  their  development  with  different  levels  of  proficiency  and  in  a  lifelong  learning 
perspective. In particular, there is a shared view about the support required for the development 

387 Manolev, J., Sullivan, A., & Slee, R. (2019). The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative 
classroom culture. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 36-51. 
388 UNICEF (2014). Childrens’ rights in the Digital Age. 
389 Consulted stakeholders, especially Member States and education and training institutions, strongly underlined the importance 
of an ethical approach and focus on data protection and privacy in relation to emerging technologies, such as AI. ET2020 
Working Group on Digital Education widely supports this view, being one of the key results of a dedicated peer-learning activity 
on AI in education. See Annex 2 for further details.   
390 Selwyn N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Oxford: Policy Press. 
391 Joint Research Centre (2020). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations 
based on near-future scenarios Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

57 

 
 
 
of  a  diverse  set  of  competences:  from  understanding  everyday  and  educational  uses  of  AI  to 
advanced skills for the labour market and teacher training.  

The  topic  was  addressed  in  the  2018  Action  Plan  with  pilot  projects  using  AI  and  learning 
analytics to predict future skills shortages and the publication of a foresight paper on the impact 
of AI on learning, teaching and education392. The pilot projects are limited in scale and ongoing, 
thus  making  it  difficult  to  draw  conclusions.  The  foresight  paper  confirms  that  educators  and 
learners have to better understand the potential of AI for teaching and learning.  

6. Implementation and monitoring 

The  renewed  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  builds  on  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  2018  Action 
Plan and on feedback from extensive consultations with stakeholder393. It sets out a co-ordinated 
policy approach at EU level with actions and support measures designed to have greater impact 
than isolated initiatives at the level of Member States. The Action Plan will be implemented in 
the context of the European Education Area enabling framework and will involve working groups 
and players at various levels (EU, national, regional, local).  It will run over the full duration of 
the next EU financial programming period (2021-2027). This longer timeline will allow for more 
forward-looking planning, piloting, proper assessment and scaling up, thus generating greater and 
more structural impact. 

All  actions of the renewed Action Plan require  reinforced  coordination  and  collaboration  at 
the EU level in order to: 

  Promote  digital  education  as  a  strategic  EU  policy  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  to 
transform Europe’s education and training systems in a lifelong learning perspective for the 
digital age; 

  Share  knowledge,  good  practices  and  experience  across  the  education  and  training  sectors, 
and  amongst  the  diverse  stakeholders  in  the  digital  education  ecosystem,  in  order  to  cross-
fertilise, exploit synergies and encourage new collaboration and partnerships; 

  Address key issues that would benefit from reflection and action across levels and sectors of 
education  and  training  and  on  the  basis  of  a  common  European  approach  (e.g.  AI  in 
education, quality of online content, ethical use of big data, etc.); 

  Analyse data, monitor results, report on progress and offer strategic foresight and research on 
digital education in order to feed policy making, strategies and decisions at regional, national 
and EU level;  

  Experiment  with  new  and  innovative  co-creation  methods,  support  agile  development  and 
trials, and ensure early involvement of educators and learners with innovative learning tools, 
practices and processes; 

  Provide  easy  access  to  European  online  learning  tools,  content  and  learning  support  that  is 
multilingual, of high quality and respectful of European values, legislation and standards, for 
instance, regarding accessibility and equity, data use and protection, privacy and ethics. 

392 Joint Research Centre (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and Education. Policies for the 
future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
393 See Annex 2 for an overview.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Given  the  need  to  increase  the  impact,  coherence  and  effectiveness  of  EU  efforts  in  digital 
education a European Digital Education Hub will be established. The Hub will serve to boost 
cooperation and stakeholder engagement while working on the implementation of the measures 
of  the  new  Action  Plan.  In  line  with  input  and  ideas  received  during  the  consultation,  the  Hub 
will  support  Member  States’  efforts  by  scaling  up  ongoing  activities 394 ,  linking  relevant 
initiatives395,  monitoring  developments,  promoting  peer  learning  and  good  practices  exchange, 
and acting as think-and do-tank for agile development of digital education across Europe396. 

Successful  implementation  goes  hand-in-hand  with  proper  funding,  which  needs  to  both 
responsive to policy priorities and flexible. Depending on the outcomes of the inter-institutional 
negotiation process on the future EU programmes, the renewed Action Plan will be implemented 
with  the  support  of  and  in  close  synergy  with  a  number  of  EU  programmes  and 
instruments.  These  include  Erasmus+,  Digital  Europe,  Horizon  Europe,  the  European  Social 
Funds,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  smart  specialisation  policies,  and  the 
resources  made  available  by  the  Next  Generation  EU.  Technical  support  for  national  policy 
reforms will be offered also through the Technical Support Instrument397.  

As  requested  by  stakeholders,  this  would  include  clear  communication  on  the  funding 
opportunities within each specific action (Table 3).  

Priority Area 

Actions 

Fostering the 
development of a 
high performing 
digital education 
ecosystem 

Enhancing digital 
skills and 
competences for the 
digital transformation 

o  Enabling factors for successful digital 

education 

o  Online and Distance Learning for 
Primary and Secondary Education 

o  European Digital Education Content 
Framework and European Exchange 
Platform 

o  Support for connectivity and digital 

equipment for education 

o  Digital transformation plans and digital 

pedagogy and expertise  

o  Ethical guidelines on AI for educators 

o  Tackling disinformation and promoting 
digital literacy through education and 
training 

o  Digital Competence Framework update 
o  European Digital Skills Certificate 
o 

Improving the provision of digital skills 
in education and training 

Relevant Funding Programme 
o  EU and national funding 

programmes 

o  Erasmus+ 

o  Erasmus+ 

InvestEU 

o  Connected Europe Facility 2 
o  RRF 
o 
o  ERDF 
o  ESIF 
o  Erasmus+ 

o  Erasmus+ 
o  Horizon Europe 

o  Erasmus+ 

o  Erasmus+ 
o  ESIF 

o  Erasmus+ 

394 As for instance, the Digital Education Hackathon piloted during the 2018 Action Plan.  
395 Including existing online tools and platforms (e.g. eTwinning, School Education gateway, EPALE , or Erasmus+ Virtual 
Exchange ), which bring together educational stakeholders to exchange best practice. 
396 All consulted stakeholders, including those who participated in the public consultation, called for reinforced cooperation at EU 
level as a way to support efforts promoting a sustainable approach to digital education in the long term. For instance, experts 
involved in the researchers’ participatory workshop, organised in the framework of the public consultation, called for the setup of 
a facility focusing on peer-learning and networking, so that dispersed stakeholders and communities could be brought together, 
and the analysis of existing policies and practices could be shared in a more systematic way. See Annex 2.  
397 Former Structural Reform Support Programmes - COM(2020) 409 final. 

59 

 
 
 
 
o  Digital competence benchmark 

o  Digital Opportunity Traineeship  

o  Erasmus+ 

o  Erasmus+ 

o  Women’s participation in STEM 

o  Erasmus+ 
o  COSME 
o  Horizon Europe (EIT, KIC) 

Table 3: Funding programmes supporting the implementation of the renewed Action Plan 

The  future  Erasmus+  programme  should  play  an  essential  role  in  supporting  efforts  towards  a 
more  resilient,  green  and  digital  Europe.  Its  impact  will  be  measured  against  its  capacity  to 
address  major  policy  priorities  in  the  field,  including  those  set  by  the  new  EU  framework  for 
digital education. To this end,  all  key  actions  of  the  future  Erasmus+  programme will offer 
more  targeted  support  to  the  implementation  of  the  renewed  Digital  Education  Action  Plan. 
Erasmus+  has  been  instrumental  for  the  implementation  of  the  2018  Action  Plan  by  making 
digital  education  and  competence  development  a  more  prominent  feature  of  the  projects 
funded398. However, considering the short and longer-term implications of the COVID-19 crisis 
and the need for Europe to be a leader in digital transformation, Erasmus+ support to mainstream 
digital  education  practices  and  boost  digital  competences  should  be  be  reinforced  to  better 
support  education  and  training  institutions  and  local/national  ecosystems  across  all  sectors  of 
education and training. This should be done in close synergy with other EU funding programmes. 
For  instance,  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  allows  Member  States  to  fund  and 
commit to important investments and reforms, such as to make education and training buildings 
and  infrastructure  digital  and  green,  provide  devices  or  digital  and  open  educational  resources, 
help  institutions  provide  digital  and  online  learning,  train  education  and  training  staff,  or  to 
update and reform curricula, regulations and the structure of education and training systems. 

Citizens’ engagement will be ensured by reinforced efforts to communicate the policy objectives 
and funding opportunities of the renewed Action Plan. This will be done, among others, through 
communication  factsheets  providing  information  on  each  action  and  by  publishing  detailed 
information on the renewed Action Plan and related opportunities on Commission websites and 
social media channels. 

The Commission will also organise a biennial outreach event, a stakeholder forum, with the aim 
of increasing participation – and creating a sense of ownership – by a wide range of stakeholders. 
By  bringing  together  Member  States,  EU  institutions,  and  education  stakeholders  (including 
teacher  and  parent  organisations,  local  authorities,  civil  society  groups,  and  businesses  – 
including  companies  committed  to  the  digital  education  agenda)  the  event  will  further  promote 
exchange of best practice and discussions on emerging challenges and opportunities thus raising 
the visibility of digital education and the renewed Digital Education Action Plan. 

Stronger  international  outreach  to  partner  countries  will  underpin  the  renewed  Action  Plan. 
Exchanges with other international organisations and fora, including OECD, UNESCO, G7, G20 
and  the  ASEM  education  process  will  be  intensified  to  address  prominent  issues  related  to 
digitalisation  in  education  and  training.  This  will  allow  for  exchange,  peer-learning  and  joint 
initiatives.  The  EU  framework  for  digital  education  and  the  examples  of  innovative  and  good 
practice in Europe will serve to promote stronger cooperation in a global context, and specifically 
with priority regions for the EU, including Western Balkans, Africa, East and South neighbouring 
countries.  The  renewed  Action  Plan  will  support  the  implementation  of  education  and  youth 
cooperation strategies, developed in the context of regional and bilateral cooperation frameworks 

398 See section ‘2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan’ for further details. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
and  policy  dialogues.  The  aim  will  be  to  support  these  regions  in  their  effort  to  enhance  the 
competitiveness  of  their  ICT  sectors,  while  promoting  the  development  of  digital  competence 
both in formal and non-formal education settings together with teacher professional development, 
youth employability and entrepreneurship. This will be achieved mainly by expanding the use of 
specific actions, tools and frameworks on digital competence that have proved to be successful in 
the EU context399. 

The monitoring and evaluation of the Action Plan will take place in the context of the European 
Education  Area  enabling  framework.  To  ensure 
transparency  and  accountability,  Key 
Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  will  be  developed  for  each  action  to  help  monitor  and  assess 
progress. A more general set of KPIs will be proposed to measure overall impact of the renewed 
Digital  Education  Action  Plan.  The  European  Commission  will  undertake  a  comprehensive 
review in 2024 in order to assess outreach and impact of the Action Plan and propose adjustments 
or additional measures where needed. 

Effective  implementation,  active  engagement  of  stakeholders,  and  efficient  monitoring  and 
evaluation will be key to address the challenges of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and to support 
the longer-term  transition  of education and training systems  to  the digital  age. This  is  a unique 
opportunity to learn from the past, step up efforts and be more efficient in our response to future 
challenges.  Collaboration  across  sectors  and  strategic  and  concerted  action  at  EU,  national, 
regional and local level  are key to making high quality, inclusive digital  education a reality for 
all.  

399 The  list,  not  exhaustive,  includes  initiatives  such  as  eTwinning,  EU  Code  Week,  SELFIE,  HEInnovate,  Digital  Education 
Hackathon, and the different European Frameworks on Digital Competence (see Annex 3 for further details). 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 is a collegial work led by Directorate-General for 
Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) with the contribution of six other Directorates-
General  (CNECT,  EMPL,  GROW,  JRC,  REGIO,  RTD),  and  of  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).  

This  Annex  presents 
the 
Communication  and  the  supporting  staff  working  document  on  the  renewed  Digital  Education 
Action Plan: 

information  concerning 

the  preparation  of 

the  procedural 

Leading Directorate General: DG EAC 

Work  Programme/Decide  references:  In  the  Communication  ‘A  Union  that  strives  for  more’ 
presenting the Commission Work Programme for 2020  (COM(2020) 37 final), the update of the 
Digital  Education  Action  Plan  is  presented  as  a  non-legislative  initiative  foreseen  in  Q2  2020 
under  the  headline  ‘A  Europe  fit  for  the  digital  age’.  Following  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the 
the  Next  Generation’ 
Communication 
(COM/2020/456  final)  announced  the  adoption  of  the  update  of  the  Digital  Education  Action 
Plan  in  the  context  of  the  Recovery  Plan,  scheduled  for  Q3  2020  in  the  adjusted  Commission 
Work  Programme  for  2020  (COM(2020)  440  final).  The  Decide  Planning  reference  is 
PLAN/2019/6206. 

‘Europe's  moment:  Repair  and  Prepare 

for 

Organisation and timing: The preparation of the initiative started in January 2020 with the setup 
of  a  cross-DG  project  team  within  DG  EAC.  Considering  digital  education  as  a  cross-cutting 
issue, the project team saw the participation of relevant Directorates in DG EAC.  

The inter-service group accompanying the initiative was led by the Secretariat General (SG) and 
included  representatives  of  the  following  10  DGs:  CLIMA,  CNECT,  ECFIN,  EMPL,  GROW, 
HOME, JRC, JUST, REGIO, RTD400.  

Three inter-service meetings took place chaired by SG: 

  The first one, on 25 February 2020, had the objective to present and discuss the vision and 
objectives  of  the  new  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  on  the  basis  of  the  lessons  learned 
from  the  first  edition,  the  political  guidance  and  priorities  of  the  new  Commission,  and 
taking into consideration developments in the area over the last two years. Eight different 
DGs  participated  in  the  meeting.  Following  the  meeting,  DGs  were  invited  to  provide 
their contributions by 9 March 2020. In response, 27 proposals for actions were received: 
10 from EAC, 9 from CNECT, 2 from EMPL, 2 from GROW, 2 from JRC, 2 from RTD.  

  The  second  inter-service  meeting  took  place  on  30  March  2020  with  the  objective  to 
discuss in  detail  the overall vision and scope of the new Digital  Education Action Plan, 
present a tentative list of actions to be included and the main points to be addressed in the 
Communication. Prior to the meeting, a scoping paper was disseminated to the services, 
framing  the  discussion.  The  meeting  was  attend  by  ten  DGs.  The  inter-service  group 
agreed on the need to adapt the objectives of the initiative to the challenges posed by the 
COVID-19  crisis  to  education  and  training  systems.  Following  the  meeting,  DGs  were 
invited  to  send  written  comments  by  1  April  2020.  Specific  comments  on  the  scoping 
paper were received from five DGs: CNECT, EMPL, HOME, JUST, RTD.   

400 DG REFORM and Legal Services (SJ) were invited to the first meeting of the inter-service group but they did not attend. 

62 

 
 
 
 
  The third inter-service meeting took place on 22 April 2020 with the objective to discuss 
the  draft  Communication  text.  Nine  DGs  participated  in  the  meeting.  The  inter-service 
group  welcomed  the  draft  Communication  and  especially  its  quick  adaptation  to  the 
COVID-19  implications.  Following  the  meeting,  DGs  were  invited  to  send  written 
comments  on  the  Communication  text  by  24  April  2020.  Contributions  were  received 
from eight DGs (CNECT, GROW, EMPL, HOME, JRC, JUST, NEAR, RTD ).   

Following the Communication ‘Europe's  moment:  Repair and Prepare  for the Next  Generation’ 
(COM/2020/456  final)  and  the  adjusted  Commission  Work  Programme  for  2020  (COM(2020) 
440 final), the Communication and the supporting staff working document on the renewed Digital 
Education Action Plan were revised to better address the COVID-19 crisis and related disruptions 
in  education  and  training.  This  was  done,  among  others,  on  the  basis  of  a  Open  Public 
Consultation  (18  June  2020-  4  September  2020)  targeting  parents  and  carers,  employers  and 
companies, students and citizens, besides stakeholders from education and training (see Annex 2 
for further details).  

The final draft of the Communication and its supporting staff working document were scrutinised 
in  a  fast-track  inter-service  consultation,  which  took  place  from  9  until  14  September  2020. 
Positive  opinion  was  given  by  all  services,  with  written  comments  from  18  DGs  (BUDG, 
CLIMA, CNECT, DEVCO, ECFIN, EMPL, ENV, ESTAT, GROW, HOME, JRC, JUST, NEAR, 
REFORM, REGIO, SANTE, SG, SJ). Positive opinion without written comments was given by 
COMP. 

The fourth and last inter-service meeting took place on 14 September 2020 with the objective to 
discuss the final text of the Communication and related staff working document and mark the end 
of the inter-service consultation. The meeting was chaired by SG and 14 DGs participated in the 
meeting  (CLIMA,  CNECT,  COMP,  ECFIN,  EMPL,  GROW,  HOME,  JRC,  JUST,  NEAR, 
REFORM,  REGIO,  SANTE,  SJ).  The  received  feedback  was  positive,  with  a  number  of 
comments  from  services.  Those  comments  included  the  need  to  reinforce  the  link  between  the 
renewed  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  and  other  relevant  existing  EU  policy  initiatives  and 
funding  mechanisms  (CNECT,  EMPL,  REFORM,  REGIO,  ECFIN),  to  underline  the  lifelong 
learning  aspect  of  digital  learning  (EMPL)  and  make  a  stronger  reference  to  inclusion, 
accessibility and existing socio-economic inequalities (HOME, JUST, SG).  

All comments during the meeting were addressed through a protocol, which kept track of DG’s 
comments per sections of the draft Communication and staff working document.  

Evidence, sources and quality 

Evidence presented in this staff working document covered: 

  Research  reports,  policy  documents  and  academic  literature  published  in  the  last  two 

years, since the adoption of the 2018 Digital Education Action Plan. 

  Specific data from DESI, EURYDICE, EUROSTAT, ICILS, PIAAC, PISA, TALIS.  
  Key  messages  of  the  ET2020  Working  Group  on  Digital  Education:  teaching,  learning 

and assessment. 

  Recent articles, opinion posts, guidelines, official documents and national research on the 
lessons learnt and likely impact of the COVID-19 crisis on education and training. Those 
were identified and discussed, among others, through a participatory workshop,  gathering 
researchers from different Member States.   

63 

 
 
 
 
 

Input  received  in  the  stakeholder  consultations  run  in  preparation  of  the  initiative, 
including an open public consultation, targeted meetings and workshops, input papers and 
bilateral meetings with stakeholders and organisations with a stake in the domain. 

The  staff  working  socument  has  been  written  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Unit  B4  (Human 
Capital and Employment) of the Joint Research Center, which provided ad hoc contributions 
with  analysis  and  evidence  on  the  several  topics,  including,  among  others,  the  use  of  online 
learning and MOOCs;  the impact  of digital  technologies on learning outcomes; the use of self-
reflection tools  for organisational  change;  digital  competence  frameworks. Unit  B4 of the Joint 
Research  Center  supported  the  quantitative  analysis  of  the  open  public  consultation  and  the 
organisation of one of its outreach events, targeting the research and innovation community.  

A detailed description of the stakeholder consultation activities is provided in Annex 2. Literature 
and main sources are described in Annex 5. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT 

This synopsis report describes all stakeholder consultation activities conducted in preparation of 
the Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027), which allowed collecting stakeholders’ views on: 

  The 2018 Digital Education Action Plan and its implementation; 
  The COVID-19 crisis and its implications for digital education;  
  Areas to be addressed in the renewed Action Plan. 

1.  Consultation activities, context and consultation methodology  

The consultations of the new Digital Education Action Plan included two main strands: 

  Targeted stakeholder consultations (February-September 2020); 
  Open public consultation and accompanying activities (Roadmap feedback, live chat and 

OPC closing event) (June-September 2020).  

Table 1 provides an overview of the stakeholder groups, the respective format and the number of 
participants in each consultation activity. 

Table 1: Overview of the consultation activities and groups  

Stakeholders  

Format 

Time period 

Members of ET2020 WG DELTA: 
Ministries of Education from EU 
Member States, EFTA countries, 
candidate countries and education 
organisations. 

Webinar  

Online 
workshop 

21 February 
202024 March 
2020 

Number of 
participants 

Webinar: 28 
participants (13 
Member States, 1 
Member of EFTA, 6 
organisations)401 

Online workshop: 30 
participants (14 
Member States, 2 
EFTA countries, 2 
candidate countries, 6 
organisations)402 

Education and youth attaché(e)s 
from Member States and EFTA 
countries 

Online 
workshop and 
follow-up  

13 March 2020  24 representatives (14 
EU Member States, 1 
EFTA country and 
EFTA secretariat)403 

International and pan-European 
umbrella organisations  

Online 
questionnaire 

2 February 
2020 

Questionnaire: 41 
valid responses404 

Online 

3 March 2020 

Online workshop: 40 

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c
d
e
t
e
g
r
a
T

401 BG, BE-FR, DE, DK, ES, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, NL, PT, RO, NO, All Digital, European Distance and E-learning Network 
(EDEN),  European  Training  Foundation  (ETF),    European  Computer  Driving  Licence  (ECDL),  European  Trade  Union 
Committee for Education (ETUCE), European Federation of Education Employers (EFEE). 
402 AT, BE-FR, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LU, LT, NL, RO, SI, NO, CH, RS, TU, Council of Europe, EDEN, The Lifelong-
Learning Platform, ECDL, ETUCE, EFEE. 
403 BG, BE, CY, DE, DK, ET, FI, FR, LU, LV, NL, SE, SK, SI, NO, EFTA.  Written contributions/Non-papers: BG; CY; DE, FI, 
FR, NL, SI, SK, NO. 
404 The  majority  of  the  respondents  came  from  civil  society,  non-governmental  organisations  and  the  voluntary  sector  (41%), 
followed  by  education  and  training  institutions  (10%)  and  employers’  associations  (7%).  Youth  and  youth  work  organisations, 
trade  unions  and  public  authorities  were  represented  to  a  lesser  extent  (5%  each).  A  large  share  of  the  respondents  identified 
themselves as ‘other’ (24%), nevertheless, when asked to clarify, they declared to be mostly civil society/NGOs or representing 
specific groups in education (students’ associations, departments of informatics, etc.).   

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
workshop 

eTwinning National Support 
Services in Member States 

Online 
questionnaire 

25 February -
13 March 2020 

participants from 35 
organisations 

Submitted input 
papers: 18 from 16 
organisations. 
5 replies405 

General public in personal capacity 
through social media 

Members of the European 
Parliament (Committee on Culture 
and Education, and Committee on 
Industry, Research and Energy) 

Social media 
survey using 
Twitter, 
Facebook and 
Instagram 
accounts of 
the European 
Commission 
(Erasmus+, 
European 
Youth and 
European 
Digital 
Education) 

Video 
conference  

27 February- 
30 March 2020 

555 replies406 

31 March 2020  10 Members of the 

The European Institute of 
Innovation and Technology (EIT) 
and its community  

Video 
conference408 

3 April 2020 

European Parliament 
(MEPs), coming from 
5 Member States and 
5 political groups407 

The EIT and the 8 
thematic Knowledge 
and Innovation 
Communities 
(KICs)409 

Non-governmental organisations in 
the area of employment, social 
affairs and inclusion 

Strategic 
dialogue video 
conference  

8 July 2020 

17 organisations 

Members of the Committee of the 
Regions (Social Policy, Education, 

Video 
conference 

16 July 2020 

10 Members, coming 
from 8 Member States 

405 HR, CY, LT, LV and SI. 
406 From  62  countries  globally,  71%  coming  from  the  EU.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  were  students  (29.6%),  teachers 
(19.1%)  and  higher  education  staff  (13.5%),  followed  by  researchers  (7.4%),  youth  workers  (6.8%),  experts  in  the  field  of 
educational  technology  (6.3%),  volunteers  (3%),  parents  (2%),  private  sector  representatives  (3.8%)  and  8.5%  identified  as 
‘other’.  
407 The  list  of  Members  of  the  European  Parliament:  Sabine  VERHEYEN  (DE/EPP),  Dace  MELBARDE  (LV/ECR),  Lina 
GALVEZ  MUNOZ  (ES/S&D),  Michaela  ŠOJDROVA  (CZ/EPP),  Petra  KAMMEREVERT  (DE/S&D),  Laurence  FARRENG 
(FR/Renew), Salima YENBOU (FR/Greens), Ilana CICUREL (FR/Renew), Niklas NIENASS (DE/Greens), Iban GARCIA DEL 
BLANCO (ES/S&D). 
408  The  EIT  and  the  KICs  were  also  among  the  72  organisations  invited  to  fill  in  the  online  questionnaire  for  umbrella 
organisations and attend the follow-up workshop. 
409 EIT Climate KIC, EIT Digital, EIT Food, EIT Health, EIT InnoEnergy, EIT Manufacturing, EIT Raw Materials, EIT Urban 
Mobility. 

66 

 
 
 
Employment and Culture 
Commission - SEDEC) 

Secondary students and teachers 
from Ørestad Gymnasium, upper 
secondary school in Copenhagen, 
Denmark 

Researchers  

Teachers, headmasters and 
students411 

Higher Education Institutions 
Rectors412, students and 
representatives of the higher 
education community 

Individual organisations  

and 4 political 
groups410 

Citizen 
dialogue 

17 August 
2020 

c.45 secondary 
students and teachers  

Online 
participatory 
workshop  

Video 
conference 

25 August 
2020 

7 September 

Video 
conference 

21 September  

17 researchers  

12 representatives of 
the teachers, school 
leaders and students 
communities 

16 representatives of 
the higher education 
community 

February- 
September 
2020 

21 organisations 
(public and private 
sector)413 

Bilateral 
meetings and 
submission of 
position 
papers on ad-
hoc basis  

Wide public in personal or 
organisational capacity  

Open public 
consultation 
(OPC)  

18 June 2020-4 
September 
2020 

2716 replies  

136 written 
contributions 

Roadmap 
feedback 

17 June 2020-
15 July 2020 

59 replies  

Live chat  

14 July 2020  

c.35 questions 
received  via social 
media 

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c

c
i
l
b
u
p
n
e
p
O

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
g
n
i
y
n
a
p
m
o
c
c
a

410 The list of Members of the Committee of the Regions: Anne KARJALAINEN (FI/PES), Matteo Luigi BIANCHI (IT/ECR), 
Jacint  HORVATH  (HU/PES),  Csaba  BORBOLY  (RO/EPP),  Kieran  MCCARTHY  (IE/EA),  Yoomi  RENSTRÖM  (SE/PES), 
Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP), Emil BOC (RO/EPP), Mikel Irujo AMEZAGA (ES/EA), Jan TREI (EE/EPP). 
411 The consultation sought feedback jointly on European Education Area and the new Digital Education Action Plan was led by 
the Vice-President for our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas. 
412 The consultation sought feedback jointly on European Education Area and the new Digital Education Action Plan Plan was led 
by the Vice-President for our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas. 
413 Eurofound,  Coursera,  Class  Central,  EdX,  Reaktor,  Google,  Federica  Web  learning,  Informatics  for  all,  Digital  Europe, 
Council  of  European  Professional  Informatics  Societies  (CEPIS),  Federation  of  European  Publishers,  Hochschulforum 
Digitalisierung,  European  Foundation  for  Management  Development  (EFMD),  Lifelong  learning  Platform,  Wiley  Education 
Services, Berkman Klein Centre, Harvard, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), AI Campus, iMOOX, SURF, France 
Université Numérique. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPC closing 
event  

9 September  

20 participants from  
different 
backgrounds414, and 
c.20 questions from 
social media 

1.1. Targeted stakeholder consultations 

As a first step of the targeted stakeholder consultations, a stakeholder mapping was conducted to 
identify  the  different  groups  with  a  stake  in  the  discussion  of  digital  education,  taking  into 
account geographical and sectorial coverage. The final list of consulted groups included:  

International and pan-European umbrella organisations; 

  Members of the ET2020 Working group on digital education (ET2020 WG DELTA); 
  Education and youth attaché(e)s of Member States and EFTA countries; 
 
  eTwinning National Support Services (NSS); 
  Members of the European Parliament; 
  Members of the Committee of the Regions; 
  Researchers working on the implication of the COVID-19 crisis on education; 
  The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its community;  
  Non-governmental  organisations  working  in  the  area  of  employment,  social  affairs  and 

inclusion;  

  The general public in personal capacity through social media; 
  Secondary students and teachers at a schools in Copenhagen, Denmark (citizen dialogue); 
  Teachers, head masters and students;  
  Higher education rectors. 

Online  questionnaires  hosted  on  EUSurvey415,  video  conferences  and  participatory  workshops 
were  the  main  consultation  methods  used.  Meetings  scheduled  until  the  end  of  March  were 
originally planned to take place face-to-face, but were later moved online due to the COVID-19 
pandemic  and  related  social  distancing  guideline.  All  following  meetings  were  online,  with  the 
exception of the citizen dialogue with students and teachers in Copenhagen, which took place in 
the school premises, fully respecting national COVID-19 guidelines.  

The  targeted  consultations  activities  took  place  in  English,  with  the  exception  of  the  citizen 
dialogue  in  Copenhagen,  which  was  in  Danish.  The  consultations  covered  similar  topics 416, 
collecting  feedback  on  the  2018  Action  Plan  (relevance  of  the  policy,  extent  of  addressing  
different  groups’  needs,  funding  and  communication  opportunities),  assessing  the  relevance  of 
the three priority areas of the 2018 Action Plan and aspects that needed to be covered under each 
of them.  

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meetings in March were readjusted to also include questions 
on  the  implications  of  the  crisis  for  education  and  training  systems  and  how  the  European 
Commission could address these in the renewed Action Plan. This was possible for discussions 
with  the  attaché(e)s,  ET2020  WG  DELTA  and  umbrella  organisations,  but  not  for  the  online 
questionnaires,  as  the  respective  surveys  had  been  already  launched  or  closed  by  the  time  the 

414 Members  of  the  European  Parliament,  Members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  The  German  Presidency  of  the  EU, 
stakeholder  organisations  representing  learners,  educators,  education  and  training  institutions,  parents,  advocated  for  digital 
education and private sector.  
415 EU Survey: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/ 
416 Adjustments were made to address the specificities of each group, for example, some aspects of the social media survey were 
simplified or shortened to be better fit for purpose. 

68 

 
 
 
 
pandemic  reached  Europe.  All  meetings  after  April  included  stronger  focus  on  the  COVID-19 
crisis  and  asked  for  reflection  on  the  experiences  during  the  lockdown  and  how  the  renewed 
Action  Plan  can  support  digital  education  in  Europe  in  the  long  term.  The  researchers’ 
participatory  workshop  specifically  focused  on  evidence  on  the  lessons  learnt  and  the  likely 
impact  of  COVID-19  on  education  and  training,  besides  gathering  experts’  feedback  on  the 
Roadmap of the new Digital Education Action Plan. 

Quantitative and qualitative methods were deployed to analyse the collected information. In the 
questionnaires, where the results were analysed quantitatively, data was anonymised and, where 
relevant,  disaggregated to consider characteristics such as organisation type, level  of education, 
or  respondents’  background.  The  written  contributions  and  the  meetings’  discussions  were 
analysed in a qualitative way. 

1.2. Open public consultation and accompanying activities  

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased relevance of digital education across sectors 
and  levels  of  education  and  more  widely  for  the  society,  the  Commission  launched  an  Open 
Public Consultation (OPC). Its goal was to ensure that the new Action Plan draws lessons from 
experiences during COVID-19 crisis and supports education and training through the long-term 
digital transformation 

The OPC was published on the Have your say portal417 and it was open between 18 June and 4 
September.  It  was  open  to  all  citizens  and  organisations  interested  to  share  their  view  on  the 
topic.  In  particular,  it  sought  the  views  of  learners418,  educators,  education  and  training  staff, 
parents/carers/family members of learners, representatives of education and training institutions, 
along  with  governmental  and  non-governmental  organisations,  representatives  from  the  public 
sector and industry and others. In order to grasp the variety of experiences of the respondents, the 
questionnaire was adapted to the characteristics to the different profiles, while inquiring about the 
same topics.   

The OPC was available in 23 official languages419 and included four sections, reflecting largely 
the COVID-19 crisis and its implications for education and training: 

Information on respondents’ background; 

 
  Questions  on  education  and  training  experience  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  and 

expectations for the recovery period; 

  Questions on the vision for digital education in Europe; 
  Submission of a position paper (optional). 

Quantitative and qualitative methods, including the DORIS tool420, were deployed to analyse the 
collected data. Quantitative questions were analysed using descriptive statistics reporting absolute 
frequencies or percentages. In cases where respondents could select more than one option, in such 
cases (as opposed to those with only one answer option) percentages do not add up to 100%. In 
cases where, a 5-point Likert scale was applied, answers are therefore distributed on five different 
categories (2 negative, 2 positive and 1 neutral). It is important to note that the data represents the 

417

 Have  your  Say  page  on 

the 

renewed  Action  Plan:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/12453-Digital-Education-Action-Plan 
418 Individuals under 18 years of age were asked not to respond to the consultation themselves, but to refer to a parent/carer/adult 
family member to respond and reflect their experience. 
419As of 9 July, the consultation was available in the following languages: BG, CS, DA, DE, EE, EL, EN, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, 
LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, SE.  
420 DORIS (Data Oriented Services) is a European Commission-tool created to analyse the qualitative data of public consultations 
by providing data analytics services. The tool features a Sentiment box which divides  the responses into ‘positive’, ‘neutral’ and 
‘negative’ sentiment with 81% accuracy. It also identifies key words, based on frequency. 

69 

 
 
 
 
views of those that responded. The respondents are self-selecting and are not a statistical sample 
of the EU population. The detailed analysis of the OPC can be found on the ‘Have your say’ page 
of the Digital Education Action Plan 421. 

The  OPC  registered  2,716  replies,  with  136  input  papers  submitted  in  addition  to  the 
questionnaire or separately. Respondents came from 60 countries, with the top 10 countries being 
Romania (58.03%), Portugal (9.61%), Spain (4.82%), Belgium (4.16%), Italy (3.98%), Germany 
(3.65%), Bulgaria (2.03%), the Netherlands (1.33%), France (1.51%) and Greece (0.96%).  

When  accounting  for  categories  and  subcategories,  representation  varies  widely,  showing  good 
coverage of the different  respondents  groups across  different  countries.   In particular, the top  8 
countries  replying  on  behalf  of  an  organisation  were  Romania  (17.31%),  Belgium  (14.42), 
Portugal  (13.22%),  Germany  (9.86%),  Spain  (6.49%),  Italy  (5.05%),  Netherlands  (4.57%)  and 
Bulgaria  (3.61%).  When  it  came  to  respondents  in  personal  capacity,  the  most  represented 
countries  were  Romania  (65.39%),  Portugal  (8.96%),  Spain  (4.52%),  Italy  (3.78%),  Germany 
(2.52%), Belgium (2.30%), Bulgaria (1.74%) and France (1.22%). Further details are presented in 
Table 2. 

In  total,  84.68  %  of  respondents  replied  in  personal  capacity,  while 15.32  %  on  behalf  of  an 
institution. Among those in personal capacity, the majority were parents/carers/family of learners 
(44.4%),  followed  by educators  (38.1%),  learners  (6.7%)  education  and  training  staff  (5.8%), 
researchers  (2%)  and  employers  (0.7%).  Among  those  in  organisational  capacity,  the  most 
numerous 
(44.4%), society/NGOs 
(17.6%), providers of digital tools (5.8%), trade unions (5.6%), international/national or regional 
public  authorities  (5.3%),  academic  organisations  (5.1%),  followed  by  employers’  associations 
(4.3%),  private  sector  (2.7),  organisations  representing  providers  of  digital  tools  (2.2%)    and 
youth and youth organisations (1.9%).  

group  were education 

institutions 

training 

and 

There  was  a  good  representation422 of  the  different  sectors  of  education,  reflecting  all  levels  of 
education- from early childhood education and care to adult education and non-formal. Most of 
them  represented  secondary  education  (37.5%),  followed  by  primary  (27%),  higher  education 
(23.2%) and vocational education and training (15.3%). The least represented sector was the non-
formal one (8.6%).  

Table 2: Details on respondents of the open public consultation - Top 5 country distribution 

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
n
i

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

Education and training 
institutions 

RO 

PT  

IT 

ES 

NL 

 (31.52%) 

(27.72%) 

(5.98%), 

(5.43%) 

(5.43%); 

Civil society/NGO’s 

BE 

DE 

RO 

IT 

ES 

Providers of digital 
tools for teaching and 
learning/organisations 
representing providers 

Academic research 
organisation 

(42.47%) 

(12.33%), 

(8.22%) 

(5.48%), 

(4.11%) 

BE 

UK 

US 

ES 

FR; DE 

(15.15%) 

(15.15%) 

(12.12%) 

(12.12%) 

(9.09%) 

ES 

DE 

RO 

UK 

IT 

(19.05%) 

(14.92%) 

(14.29%) 

(9.52%), 

(9.52%) 

421 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12453-Digital-Education-Action-Plan. 
422 On  the  basis  of  the  following  target  groups:  educators,  education  and  training  staff,  educational  and  training  institutions 
representatives, but also private sector, public authorities and others who indicated education and training was their main area of 
activity). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Private 
sector/employers 
association/trade 
unions 

Public authorities 
(local, regional, 
national, international) 

DE  

BE 

BG 

AT 

RO 

(25.85%) 

(17.31%) 

(15.38%) 

(5.77%) 

(5.77%) 

BE 

EE 

EL 

NO 

PT 

(16.67%) 

(8.33%) 

(8.33%) 

(8.33%) 

(8.33%) 

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

l
a
n
o
s
r
e
p

n
i

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R

Learners 

RO 

DE 

IT 

ES 

EL 

(64.47%) 

(5.92%) 

(5.92%) 

(4.61%) 

(3.29%) 

Parents/carers/family 
of learner/s 

RO 

BE 

IT 

DE 

ES 

(85.9%) 

(2.27%) 

(2.37%) 

(1.97%) 

(1.18%) 

Educators 

RO 

PT 

ES 

IT 

DE 

(52.63%) 

(20.6%) 

(5.52%) 

(3.22%) 

(2.07%) 

Education and training 
staff 

RO 

ES 

IT 

IT 

BE; PT 

(25.56%) 

(15.04%) 

(15.04%) 

(7.52%) 

(6.77%) 

Researchers 

      RO 

IT 

DE 

BG 

CY; ES 

   (21.74%) 

(13.04%) 

(10.87%) 

(8.7%) 

(6.52%) 

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

The Romanian overrepresentation in specific subcategories is likely to be a result of significant 
media coverage of the OPC on national television and radio, reinforced efforts from the Ministry 
of  Education  and  strong  promotion  on  social  media.  In  order  to  achieve  a  more  geographically 
balanced response, the Commission reinforced the communication campaign on the OPC in the 
other  Member  States,  mainly  through  its  Representations,  social  media  channels  and  other 
relevant networks. This led a better coverage across the Union; nevertheless Romania remained 
the country of origin of most respondents. Still, within the different respondents groups there is a 
good representation of other countries, as visible in Table 2. 

To  observe  differences  in  the  replies  and  verify  whether  the  results  are  overly  driven  by 
Romanian respondents, two analyses were conducted for all questions: one including all results 
(2,716 observations in total-sample ‘All countries’) and the other tackling the group without the 
respondents  from  Romania  (1,140  observations  in  total-  sample  ‘Without  RO’).  To  report 
transparently  the  findings,  in  all  instances  where  a  similar  trend  between  the  two  samples  was 
observed, the percentage included in the text refers to the sample ‘All countries’. In cases where 
the trend in Romanian respondents is significantly different from the overall trend, a more limited 
sample  without  Romania  is  included  in  the  text,  and  the  differences  are  explained  in  a 
corresponding footnote423.   

Additionally, the Roadmap of the renewed Action Plan, outlining the main aims of the initiative, 
was  published  for  four  weeks  on  the  Have  your  say  portal  for  the  feedback  of  citizens  and 
organisations. The Roadmap was available in English and submission of feedback was open in all 
EU  official  languages.  In  total,  59  responses  from  14  countries  were  received  -  32  from 
organisations  and  27  by  individuals 424 .  The  Roadmap  attracted  responses  from  various 
backgrounds  NGOs working on digital  skills  and education, informatics societies, trade unions, 

423 The OPC analysis observed a generally more negative trend in the level of satisfaction about the experience of online teaching 
and learning during the COVID-19 crisis, in the sample ‘All countries’ in comparison to the sample “Without RO”. 
424 Anonymously and non-anonymously.  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
higher education institutions, local  public authorities, representatives of the private sector.   The 
analysis was done in a qualitative way, identifying key trends and patterns.  

As  part  of  the  outreach  of  the  OPC,  the  Commissioner  for  Innovation,  Research,  Culture, 
Education  and  Youth,  Mariya  Gabriel  hosted  an  online  live  chat,  addressing  questions  on  the 
renewed Action Plan from citizens. The OPC closing was marked by a high-level online event, 
hosted by the Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the Digital Age, Margarethe Vestager, 
which brought around 20 stakeholders, including representatives of the European Parliament, the 
Committee of the Regions and the German Presidency of the EU, for a discussion and collected 
questions and reflections online.  

All conclusions from the stakeholder consultations are reflected in the summary below. 

2.  Summary of the consultation results 

2.1. Overall relevance of the 2018 Action Plan and the new Action Plan  

The consulted groups unanimously welcomed the idea of a new Action Plan and recognised it as 
particularly timely, especially in the context of COVID-19 related disruptions for the education 
and training systems and the increased use of digital tools  

The  relevance  of  the  2018  Action  Plan  to  the  needs  of  stakeholders  remained  high  and  a  few 
Member  States  in  the  meeting  with  attaché(e)s  stated  that  it  was  particularly  adequate  to  their 
national  context  and  inspired  national  initiatives  (BE-FR,  BG,  FR).  On  the  other  hand,  some 
Ministries (NL, DE) pointed out that the 2018 Action Plan had a limited impact at national level, 
attributed  to  low  visibility  or  the  short  implementation  period  (FI).  The  majority  (86%)  of  the 
consulted  international  and  pan-European  organisations  indicated  that  the  2018  Action  Plan 
addressed  their  needs  either  ‘fully’  or  ‘to  a  certain  extent’  (20%  and  66%  respectively).  The 
relevance  of  the  Action  Plan  was  highly  recognised  by  stakeholders  representing  school 
education (headmasters, school networks and learners) - 57% indicated that the 2018 Action Plan 
completely addressed their needs, while 42% stated that to a certain extent. On the opposite end, 
the groups that did not find the 2018 Action Plan relevant to their needs, not surprisingly, came 
from  youth,  the  non-formal  learning  sector  and  publishers’  associations,  underlining  that  their 
respective areas of operation were not within the scope of the first Action Plan.  

Similarly,  during  the  OPC  closing  event,  the  MEPs,  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  DE 
Presidency  placed  an  emphasis  on  the  timeliness  of  the  renewed  Action  Plan,  especially  in  the 
context  of  COVID-19  and  the  need  to  support  the  adaptation  and  resilience  of  education  and 
training  to  the  digital  transformation  in  times  of  crisis  and  in  the  longer  term.  The  provided 
feedback  on  the  Roadmap  was  also  highly  positive  regarding  of  the  need  to  renew  the  Action 
Plan and the relevance of the proposed way ahead, in particular in view of addressing the crisis 
and the increased need to boost digital education across the EU in a comprehensive way.  

2.2. Scope of the new Action Plan  

Extending  the  scope  of  the  Action  Plan  beyond  formal  education  to  non-formal,  informal  and 
lifelong  learning  was  strongly  requested  by  all  consulted  groups  in  the  targeted  stakeholder 
activities, as  well as in  the open public consultation  (submitted papers as part of the  OPC, live 
chat and closing event).  

In particular, some Member States (NL, BG, FI, SI, DE, CZ) considered the scope of the 2018 
Action Plan as a main limitation that should be addressed by expanding towards non-formal and 
youth sectors and covering digital education in a lifelong learning perspective. Supporting these 
views, SK pointed out the need to reinforce efforts to promote digital competence upskilling and 
reskilling  of  the  labour  force.  In  the  umbrella  organisations’  questionnaire,  75%  of  the 
72 

 
 
 
 
respondents  recognised  the  need  to  go  beyond  formal  education.  Position  papers  submitted  by 
business,  NGOs  working  on  life-long  learning  and  adult  education  also  asked  for  expanded 
scope,  reflecting  the  concept  of  learning  through  life.  Additionally,  organisations  in  the  OPC 
closing  event,  but  also  in  the  Strategic  dialogue,  emphasised  that  the  new  Action  Plan  should 
adopt  a  more  inclusive  approach,  being  particularly  sensitive  to  supporting    disadvantaged 
groups and such with disabilities or special educational needs. The EIT Community indicated that 
an expanded scope would be an opportunity to promote continuous professional development.  

Member States and MEPs, along with stakeholders working in the field of digital education also 
welcomed extending the scope and strongly called for a  lifelong  learning  approach,  including 
adults and parents, as specific groups directly affected by COVID-19 and the switch to distance 
learning and working.  

When  it  comes  to  extending  the  scope  to  youth  and  youth  workers  specifically,  the  youth  and 
your  work  community  vocalised  strongly  this  need,  as  a  way  to  further  promote  inclusion  and 
better address the specific needs of the field. Organisations representing the sector and 57% of the 
youth  workers  in  the  social  media  survey  called  on  the  Commission  to  promote  digital 
competences  and  skills  in  the  youth  sector,  an  argument  reiterated  in  the  Strategic  dialogue. 
Vocational  education  and  training  is  a  sector  already  supported  in  the  2018  Action  Plan,  but 
some  Member  States  (DE,  NL)  and  stakeholder  organisations  from  the  field,  as  well  as  from 
industry, underlined that the support in this sector should be strengthened. 

Lastly,  the  topics  of  the  three  priorities  of  the  2018  Action  Plan  remained  relevant  for  the 
consulted stakeholders from  different  backgrounds.  In particular, in the questionnaire, umbrella 
organisations  strongly  highlighted  the  relevance  of  the  areas,  pointing  to  developing  digital 
competences and skills as the most relevant one, followed very closely by making better use of 
digital technologies for teaching and learning (seen as very or quite relevant by 95% and 93% of 
the respondents respectively). The third priority- harnessing data and foresight- was still seen as 
relevant  but  to  a  lesser  extent,  having  been  seen  as  very  or  quite  relevant  by  88%  of  the 
respondents.  

2.3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and implications for education and training 

The COVID-19 crisis gave the new Digital Education Action Plan a sharper focus, where certain 
issues  such  as  the  digital  readiness  of  education  and  training  institutions,  teachers’  digital 
competences  and  the  design  and  implementation  of  online  learning,  the  creation  of  a  digital 
education ecosystem were increasingly identified as pressing to be tackled at European level. 

The  results  of  the  OPC contributed  to  contextualising  the  extent  of  digital  technologies  use  for 
education  and  training    during  the  crisis.  The  majority  (66.6%)  of  consulted  groups425 reported 
that the use  of  distance  and  online  learning had  increased  during  the crisis  (Figure 1).    This 
trend  was  observed  for  all  levels  of  education  and  training  and  was  most  prominent  for  early 
childhood education and care and primary and secondary education. It was also seen in terms of 
online learning ‘in real time’, which increased from 10.8% to 87.3%, and ‘in own time’426- from 
31.3% to 76.9%. A large proportion of the respondents having reported no prior use of distance 
and online learning before the crisis did so during (56.9%). Additionally, the vast majority of the 
respondents  indicated  they  would  continue  using  distance  and  online  learning  after  the  crisis 
period  (31%  reported  ‘yes’  and  40.8%  to  a  ‘certain  extent’),  a  view  especially  common  view 

425 The  question  was  asked  to  educators,  education  and training  staff,  representatives  of  education  and  training  institutions  and 
public authorities.  
426 Online learning in own time refers to watching videos of recorded lectures, consulting online learning materials and Massive 
Open Online Courses and others. 

73 

 
 
 
 
among  education  and training staff  (48.9%).  The citizen dialogue with  students  and teachers in 
Copenhagen  identified  a  greatly  positive  view  of  the  students  admitting  to  have  had  a  more 
personalised dialogue with their teachers during online learning. The private sector and providers 
of  digital  education  tools  reconfirmed  the  increase  in  the  use  of  their  services  for  teaching  and 
learning  during  the  crisis-  40%  shared  a  significant  increase,  while  46.7%  -  such  to  a  certain 
extent.  

Figure 1:  Use of distance and online learning before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis  

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

When it came to the success of the measures to ensure continuity of education and training during 
the crisis, most respondents identified the measures taken in their community as  predominantly 
successful  (59.4%).427 Education  and  training  staff,  educators,  and  representatives  of  education 
and training institutions were the most satisfied with the measures taken to ensure the continuity 
of  education  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  (83.5%,  73.6%,  and  83.7%).  Learners  and  especially 
parents  appeared to  be less  positive about  the success  of the measures  -  40.8% and 63.3% saw 
them unsuccessful respectively. In the sample ‘Without RO’ the trends for parents were inversed 
-  65.3%  of  saw  the  measures  successful,  in  comparison  to  34.7%  who  defined  them  as 
unsuccessful.  Representatives  from  the  higher  education  sector  showed  highest  level  of 
satisfaction – 85.6%, compared to those from early childhood and care, which proved to be the 
least satisfied - 69%. 

The respondents  in  personal capacity had the opportunity to  reflect  on the experience of online 
and  distance  learning  during  the  crisis.  They  reported  most  positive  experience  with  the 
availability of digital equipment (64.6%), and the ability to connect to the internet (62.3%), while 
the most negative experiences were related to examination and assessment (41%) and motivation 
to learn (48.1%)428. Educators and education and training staff were those reporting the most 
positive  feedback  in  relation  to  their  experience-  in  line  with  the  general  trend,  this  was 
particularly  pronounced  in  view  of  the  ability  to  connect  to  internet  (67.3%  and  84.2%),  the 
availability  of  digital  equipment  (65.6%,  and  73.7%)  and  the  interaction/communication  with 
learners  (60.4%  and  66.9%).  On  the  other  hand,  parents  appeared  to  be  the  most  dissatisfied 

427 It should be noted that there was a significant difference between the two samples, even though the trend was the same- in the 
sample  ‘Without  RO’,  the  satisfaction  went  to  83.5%.  In  general,  there  was  an  overall  more  negative  trend  in  the  level  of 
satisfaction  about  the  experience  of  online  teaching  and  learning  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  in  the  sample  ‘All  countries’,  in 
comparison to ‘Without RO’.  
428 The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’, in the sample ‘Without RO’, the trends are similar but overall more 
positive- examination and feedback was seen as the most negative experience but still predominantly positive (only 24.6% saw it 
as negative) and was followed by the motivation to learn ( seen as negative by 21% of the respondents).  

74 

 
 
 
 
group,  reporting  low  satisfaction  with  the  motivation  to  learn  of  their  children  (66.6%), 
examination/assessment  and  feedback  (52.3%),  quality  of  online  learning  content  (49.1%), 
interaction/communication  with  learners/peers  and  availability  of  online  resources  (46.2% 
each).429. Similar trends were confirmed in the follow-up open question, where parents shared that 
they were overwhelmed with the workload of supporting children’s education, especially those of 
young age. Learners, predominantly positive group in the closed questions, shared that the lack of 
face-to-face interaction led to difficulties to focus. Educators admitted having struggled to ensure 
continuation of the education and training process due to the limited of digital readiness in their 
institution, but also low infrastructure and digital equipment in the families of some learners.   

The results of the question where the OPC respondents were asked to identify what they needed 
that was not available to them during the crisis show certain discrepancies.  As visible in Table 3 
below,  the  needs  of  the  different  groups  were  diverse,  reflecting  the  specificities  of  their 
experience. Nevertheless, issues around connectivity, digital equipment were seen as particularly 
problematic,  especially  by  educators,  education  and  training  staff  and  representatives  of 
education and training institutions, while the two first groups indicated positive experience with 
these during the crisis. Partially aligned with above, was seen the need for better interaction and 
guidance  from  educators,  management  or  public  authorities,  which    was  in  top  three  of  the 
unsatisfied needs of most groups, along with guidance on how to adapt the learning material was 
missing to educators. Guidance on support for mental health was particularly sought by learners, 
parents  and  education  and  training  staff.  Funding  and  financial  support  would  have  been 
appreciated by public authorities and education and training institutions, while the private sector 
would  have  liked  more  cooperation  with  public  authorities  and  education  and  training 
institutions.   

Table 3: Top three unsatisfied needs during the COVID-19 crisis per respondent category 

Target group 

Most unsatisfied needs 

Other unsatisfied needs 

Learners 

  Regular interaction and clear 

  Regular communication with other 

instruction by educators 
(53.3%). 

Educators 

  High-speed and stable 

connection at home (38.4%). 

learners (40.1%); 

  Regular and clear communication 

from the management of the education 
institution (35.5%)  
Support for mental health (33.6%)430  

 

  Training and guidance to adapt the 
class material and the teaching 
methodology to distance and online 
learning (36.1%); 

  More regular clear communication, 

guidance and support from public 
authorities and lack of digital devices 

429 The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, the responses were slightly more positive, 
but with minor changes in the listing of most negative experiences. They ranked the following way: examination/assessment and 
feedback (47.6%), interaction with teachers/management (43.5%), motivation to learn came third (41.5%), followed by interaction 
and peer-learning with learners and availability of online learning resources (35.4% each) and quality of online learning content 
(34.7%).  
430 The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, regular interaction, clear instruction and 
guidance from teachers/educators/trainers was again the most vastly supported need, regular communication with other learners, 
such  with  the  management  of  the  education  institution  and  support  for  mental  health,  which  were  seen  as  equally  important 
(40.7% each.)  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
suitable for distance and online 
learning (34.3% each).431 

Education and 
training staff  

Parents 

  Lack of a high speed and stable 
internet connection at home for 
learners and teachers (44.4%). 

  More regular interaction, 

instruction and guidance from 
teachers/trainers/educators 
(57.4%). 

Education and 
training institutions 

  Lack of digital devices suitable 
for distance and online learning 
(58.2%). 

Private sector and 
digital technology 
providers 

  More cooperation with public 

authorities during the COVID-19 
crisis (47.7%) 

Public authorities 

  Financial support to address the 
immediate challenges of the 
COVID-19 crisis (36.4%) 

  Lack of digital devices suitable for 

 

distance and online learning (33.8%); 
Financial support at national or 
regional level (33.1%). 
  More regular and clear 

communication, guidance and support 
from the educational institutions of 
their child(ren) (45.6%); 
  Easy to use platforms (32%)432. 
  High speed and stable internet 

connection (49.5%); 

  Guidance how to support the mental  
health and well-being of staff and 
learners (38.6%). 

  More cooperation with education and 

training institutions (31.8%); 

  Opportunities to scale existing 

business (29.5%). 

  Easy to use platforms, digital devices 
that can be used for online and 
distance learning and high-speed and 
stable internet connection (27.3% 
each). 

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

The targeted stakeholder consultations were aligned with the findings above underlining that the 
crisis served as an accelerator of existing inequalities and challenges, but also created new ones. 

In  these  consultations,  educators  were  often  referenced  to  be  in  a  particularly  vulnerable 
position, often having to  find the best  way to  implement  new ways  of learning considering the 
needs  of  their  learners  and  without  specific  support  and  guidance.  Additionally,  educators 
responding to the OPC shared in the open question fields that they felt  they  had limited digital 
competences and experience with digital tools  prior to  COVID-19.  Aligned with this, ET2020 
WG DELTA and MEPs pointed out that the crisis showed very prominently the need to further 
support  the  digital  competences  of  educators  to  use  digital  learning.  In  addition,  ET2020  WG 
DELTA members highlighted the value of practical guidelines  at European level for ministries 
and  education  and  training  institutions  on  how  to  implement  distance  and  online  learning, 
including  how  to  address  particularly  challenging  aspects  such  as  assessment  and  adapting  the 
learning  content  to  online  environments.  Organisations  providing  feedback  on  the  Roadmap 
requested this  issue to  be addressed in  a  comprehensive  and  ambitious  way, learning  from  the 
experience during the crisis.  

431 The presented trends are for the limited sample ‘Without RO’.  In the sample ‘All countries’, the most important unsatisfied 
need were more regular clear communication, guidance and support from public authorities (53.3%)’, followed by  lack of high-
speed internet connection at home (36.1%) and equally the lack of training and guidance on how to adapt the class material and 
the teaching methodology to distance and online learning (36.1%). They were then followed by the lack of digital devices suitable 
for distance and online learning (34.3%).  
432 This trend is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, the third most significant need was the guidance on 
how to support the mental health and wellbeing of my  child(ren)’, supported by 35.9% of the respondents. The first two needs 
were the same for the two samples; therefore, the presented data above is for all countries.  

76 

 
 
 
Also, consulted MEPs and stakeholders in  the OPC closing event  raised  their concerns that the 
COVID-19  crisis  would  deepen  already  existing  inequalities  and  create  new  ones.  They 
suggested  leveraging  EU  funding  programmes  to  support  infrastructure  and  access  to  digital 
technologies  across  Member  States  for  both  formal  and  non-formal  settings.  This  resonated  to 
great extent with the OPC results in terms of unsatisfied needs, as most of the respondents groups 
referred to disparities infrastructure and digital tools as needs that were not met during the crisis 
(Table 3). The consulted members of the Committee of the Regions strongly referred to the need 
for digital cohesion across regions, especially when it came to groups of lower socio-economic 
background  and  remote  areas.  The  respondents  providing  feedback  to  the  Roadmap  and 
participants in the Strategic dialogue, also saw the crisis deepening already existing inequalities 
in terms of access to connectivity and equipment of disadvantaged groups and minorities, but also 
the accessibility of groups with disabilities.  

Linked to that, the discussions during the researchers’ workshop resonated with the trends from 
the  OPC-  the  participants  shared  that  the  crisis  has  prominently  showed  the  overall  limited 
capacity  of  the  education  and  training  institutions  to  implement  online and  distance  learning. 
Such  low  readiness  was  visible  at  individual  and  organisational  level  and  was  particularly 
prominent  in  terms  of  methodologies  used,  the  quality  of  the  infrastructure  and  the  overall 
planning.  They  shared  the  observation  that  institutions,  which  used  a  strategic  plan  and  open 
education policies, were  better  prepared for the switch to  online learning and performed in a 
more efficient way.  

The challenging times to social distancing also asked for reinforced effort  in supporting mental 
health and well-being. As visible in Table 3, this was a need identified by many parents, but also 
education and training institutions saw it as unmet during the crisis times and asked for additional 
support on how to address it. In the open questions, parents, especially from RO, expressed worry 
that  the  crisis  could  negatively  affect  pupils’  mental  well-being.  Closely  related  to  that,  the 
participants in the researchers’ workshop pointed out the need to address  digital well-being and 
not overlook the psychological impact of the crisis, which should be a subject of further research.  

Ministries, both in the workshops with the attaché(e)s and in the ET2020 WG DELTA, pointed 
out  the  need  to  map  and  research  how  the  crisis  was  addressed  at  national  level  and  identify 
strengths  and weaknesses of the different  approaches. Sharing the same  view with  stakeholders 
representing  digitalisation  in  higher  education,  Ministries  called  for  a  space  for  exchange  of 
practices and communication, which would provide guidance and support in times of crisis and 
during the recovery period.  In line with  that, DE proposed the creation of a  dedicated  entity  at 
European level, which would help Member States to deal with the implications of the situation 
and promote digital readiness of educations systems and institutions in the longer-term. Similar 
views were observed in the researchers workshop, where some participants also put forward the 
idea  of  a  European  Observatory,  which  would  lead  the  research  and  adopt  a  future-oriented 
approach  towards  digital  education  ,  focusing  on  peer-learning  and  networking,  bringing 
communities together and studying existing research and studies.  

Lastly, referring to the results of the OPC, the lack of precedency of the situation and its impact 
on  digital  education  in  the  longer  term  was  widely  recognised  and  led  to  changes  in  the  views 
towards digital  education.  More than 90% respondents,  with  negligible differences between the 
groups, agreed fully (67%) or to a certain extent (28%) with the statement that the crisis will have 
a  long-term  impact  on  the  education  and  training.    In  the  open  follow-up  question,  some 
educators  identified  the  crisis  as  an  opportunity  to  explore  new  approaches  of  teaching  and 
learning,  as  well  as  positive  experience  with  distance  learning,  which  can  lead  to  further 
opportunities for cooperation and establishing networks. The private sector, including providers 
of  digital  tools  and  technologies  for  education  defined  the  situation  as  a  ‘point  of  no  return’, 
where the initial resistance of the education and training community had been already overcome. 
Nevertheless, not all saw the transformation as positive- aligned with the already identified trend 

77 

 
 
above, the sentiment distribution of the qualitative analysis indicated a more negative trend in the 
responses of Romanian respondents- only 23% of the replies were positive, compared to 47.8% 
for the other countries. 

The experience during the crisis also led to changes in the views towards digital education of a 
great group of the respondents (45.9%)433- education and training staff, educational and training 
institutions,  educators,  respondents  from  the  private  sector  and  from  public  authorities  all 
significantly  improved  their  view  (74.4%,  67.4%,  57.1%,  63.6%  and  72.2%  respectively).  In 
comparison, fewer learners and parents improved their views – 55.6% and 57.8% respectively.434 
As  main  advantages  of  digital  education  were  seen  flexibility,  learning/teaching  at  own  pace 
(41.7%)  and innovative  and engaging ways  of learning/teaching  (37.1%)  On the other hand,  as 
particularly  significant  drawbacks  were  seen 
interaction  and 
communication (60.5%) and the need for connectivity equipment at home (46.1%).  

lack  of  face-to-face 

the 

2.4 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning 

The need for actions in this area was widely supported by different consulted stakeholders, both 
in the targeted stakeholder consultation, but also in the open public consultation. The importance 
of addressing the issue also progressively increased during the consultations with the roll out of 
the COVID-19 crisis.  

Firstly, using digital technologies for better teaching and learning was recognised as the second 
most important topical priority of the 2018 Action Plan by the umbrella organisations (see section 
2.2), but it was also recognised as particularly pressing to address by Member States and MEPs in 
the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  switch  to  online  and  distance  learning.  In 
particular,  FR  even  identified  it  as  the  most  important  area  of  action,  which  should  be  tackled 
with priority in the renewed Action Plan.  

Within  this  area  of  action,  all  groups  in  the  targeted  consultation  considered  supporting 
pedagogies for teaching and learning  and the development of educators’ digital competences, 
as an essential area for action. More than half of the respondents in the stakeholder questionnaires 
recognised  these  among  their  top  five  aspects  in  using  technologies  for  better  teaching  and 
learning, with particular strong support from teachers (70.8% and 71.7% respectively) and higher 
education staff (56%  and 64%) in  the social  media survey. The OPC respondents  also  strongly 
identified the need for reinforced efforts in this area: endowment of educators and teachers with 
relevant digital competences was seen as the most important element for the provision of digital 
education (61.7%; Figure 2), while at the same time teacher training and guidance remained one 
of the greatest challenges for digital education. The latter gained the support of by 41.5% of the 
respondents435,  especially  by  learners  and  parents  (48%  and  42.9%).  Not  unexpectedly,  teacher 
training and support also appeared to be the aspect of digital education where the EU could add 
value  the  most-  51.5%  of  the  respondents  identified  it  as  leading  area  of  support  (Figure  3), 
especially  those  representing  education  and  training  institutions  (58.7%),  learners  (53.9%)  and 
education  and  training  staff  (57.9%).  Educators  also  recognised  it  as  an  important  point  to  be 
addressed,  but  positioned  it  second  (52.6%),  after  support  for  connectivity  and  infrastructure 
(53%).  MEPs  and  respondents  giving  feedback  on  the  Roadmap  strongly  underlined  that 
improving educators’ digital competences is a prerequisite for efficient, successful and purposeful 

433 This percentage went up to 67.2% in the sample ‘Without RO’.  
434 The  percentage  presented  is  for  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’.  In  the  sample  ‘All  countries’,  the  trends  for  parents  and  learners 
were much less positive and also reinverted- - 52.8% of the parents indicated that their view became more negative, in the sample 
‘Without RO’ the rate went down to 22.4%. For learners the difference was equally significant- 42.1% and 14.8% respectively.  
435 Positioned at third place among the challenges for digital education, preceded only by socio-economic inequalities (45.5%) and 
insufficient infrastructure and internet at school/campus and outside (42.4%).  

78 

 
 
 
 
integration  of  digital  technologies  in  the  education  process,  asking  for  a  stronger  focus  on  this 
topic in comparison to the 2018 Action Plan. 

The support in the other stakeholder consultations was also prominent- the eTwinning NSS urged 
for  a  reflection  of  using  digital  technologies  in  cases  where  they  could  support  the  teacher  and 
improve  the  education  process.  ET2020  WG  DELTA  members  stressed  the  need  to  equip 
educators more broadly with the skills and knowledge to design and implement digital and online 
learning, a view supported by students’ organisations in their position paper. The participants in 
the  researchers’  workshop  asked  for  stronger  focus  on  the  pedagogical  design  competence, 
including  also  assessment  and  evaluation.  A  unified  European  approach  in  teacher  training  on 
digital competences, combined with reinforced funding in this direction, was seen as an enabler 
for digital readiness in the longer term- an argument supported by MEPs and the Committee of 
the Regions. Additionally, Ministries and MEPs highlighted this area as crucial in the context of 
emerging  technologies,  such  as  Artificial  Intelligence,  entering  the  education  process,  while 
students’ organisations proposed reinforced teacher training in digital literacy.  

Figure 2: Essential elements of education and training institutions for the provision of 
digital education (all target groups together)436 

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

Promoting inclusion in access  and use of digital  technologies for teaching and learning  was 
another  topic  that  was  of  central  relevance  during  the  stakeholder  consultations.  It  received  a 
wide  support  by  all  groups  in  the  targeted  consultation-  the  general  public  (41%),  umbrella 
organisations  (39.2%),  along  with  Member  States  and  MEPs.  FR  pointed  out  that  inclusion 
should be a leading priority in  the new  Action Plan, especially in  the context  of  infrastructure 
and connectivity divides between urban and rural areas. The OPC results reinforced this message, 
insufficient 
especially  as  respondents  saw  addressing  socioeconomic 
infrastructure as the two greatest challenges for digital education in Europe, supported by the 
vast  majority  (45.5%  and  42.4%  respectively),  recognised  strongly  by  education  and  training 
institutions  (58.2%  and  53.3%)  and  educators  (52.8%  and  51.4%).  Public  authorities  also  saw 
socio-economic  inequalities  as  a  top  challenge  (68.2%),  but  ranked  infrastructure  as  a  less 
relevant  challenge-  36.4%.  Parents  however  recognised  supporting  inclusion  as  challenge  of 
second highest relevance (37.7%), right after teacher training and guidance (42.9%). It should be 
noted that the issue of infrastructure was reported slightly more important than addressing socio-

inequalities  and 

436 Respondents could select all relevant. 

79 

 
 
 
 
economic inequalities by the respondents from the VET sector (55.1% and 54.4% respectively). 
Similarly to teacher training, these trends corresponded to  where the EU could add value, with 
connectivity  and  infrastructure  and  inclusion  being  second  and  fourth  most  popular  areas, 
supported by 42.6% and 40.5% of the respondents respectively, especially among educators and 
education  and  training  institutions.  Aligned  with  all  these  findings,  infrastructure  and 
connectivity were among the essential elements in the provision of digital education, supported 
by 42.6% respondents, again from education and training institutions (58.7%), but this time also 
by  the  private  sector  (81.8%).  Nevertheless,  infrastructure  was  a  point  of  concern  of  very  few 
umbrella organisations in the targeted stakeholder survey- only 17%.  

A  very  strong  message  to  tackle  connectivity  and  equipment  inequalities  came  from  MEPs  in 
encouraging  synergies  between  different  funding  programmes  to  support  Member  States  in 
formal, non-formal and informal settings of education. Position papers submitted with the OPC, 
coming  from  NGOs,  but  also  private  sector,  additionally  reinforced  the  message  of  deepened 
inequalities  and  ‘digital  poverty’  and  need  for  support  in  connectivity  and  digital  equipment  to 
address those disparities.  

The  importance  of  supporting  the  digital  capacity  of  education  and  training  institutions  and 
systems became particularly strong with the COVID-19 crisis. Opinions on the importance of this 
aspect  were  present  before  the  crisis,  usually  coming  from  organisations  focusing  particular  on 
digital  education  and  capacity  in  the  beginning  of  the  consultation  period,  but  with  the 
development  of  the  crisis,  they  became  more  prominent  in  the  consultations.  For  example, 
institutional leadership and culture was seen as important by 37% of the umbrella organisations 
and 28% of the respondents in the social media survey.  Participants in the researchers’ workshop 
shared  that  the  crisis  boosted  the  need  to  address  digital  strategies  and  capacity  building-  and 
asked  the  Commission  to  prioritise  them,  especially  in  view  of  developing  leadership  and 
supporting institutional change, beyond infrastructure and tools. The OPC results resonated with 
this  urgency-  supporting  education  and  training  institutions  to  develop  digital  education 
strategies  was  seen  as  the  third  most  popular  area  where  the  EU  could  add  value.  It  was 
supported 42% of respondents (Figure 3), especially those representing providers of digital tools 
and technologies for education (60.6%) and education and training staff (45.1 %) and to a lesser 
extent by educators (42.6%) who positioned in fifth in their ranking.  In broader terms, the lack of 
planning and vision for integrating digital technologies was the fourth most popular challenge 
for digital education in Europe, supported by 37.9% of the respondents, mainly from the private 
sector  (54.5%),  but  also  by  education  and  training  staff  (48.9%),  providers  of  digital  tools 
(42.4%) and lesser extent education and training institutions (37.5%). The closely linked  vision 
and  strategy  for  using  digital  technologies  in  the  education  process,  was  seen  as  the  second 
most important element of providing digital education (52.7%; Figure 2). It had the support of the 
same  respondents’  categories  but  in  a  slightly  different  order-  digital  technology  providers-
81.8%, private sector- 75%, education and training staff- 66.2%, but this time, also the prominent 
support  of  learners  (52.6%)  as  the  second  most  important  element.    During  the  researchers 
workshop,  participants  reiterated  the  need  to  develop  human  capacity  and  strategy,  not  on 
technology, and should address groups like school leaders in the process. Self-reflection tools like 
the  SELFIE  tool  were  given  as  examples  by  Ministries  of  education  and  researchers  as 
particularly useful ones in supporting planning and strategies.  

In the researchers workshop digital leadership and capacity were linked not only to implementing 
digital  education,  but  also  to  ensuring  effective  hybrid  solutions  between  online  and  on-site 
delivery,  also  referred  to  as  blended  learning.  In  view  of  this,  more  support  was  requested  to 
help  systems  and  institutions  to  ensure  a  fluid  and  organic  continuum  between  online  and 
offline  education.  Members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  also  pointed  out  that  blended 
learning would be increasingly used in future; therefore boosting the capacities in this direction is 
needed.  However,  the  views  of  across  the  stakeholder  groups  towards  blended  learning  varied- 
for example, students’ organisations (both at school level and higher education) emphasised that 
80 

 
 
the digital tools should not dominate over the physical aspects, ensuring that face-to-face contact 
remains central in the education and training process. The respondents in the OPC also shared 
divergent views- in the sample ‘All countries’, less than half of the replies were positive - 49.5% 
(in  comparison  the  negative  views  were  41.7%),  however,  this  was  not  the  case  in  the  sample 
‘Without RO’, where the vast majority of the replies was positive, reaching 76.2%. The positive 
opinion was consistent across the different target groups, while parents, learners and respondents 
from  the  group  other  in  personal  capacity  were  on  the  more  sceptical  side  (25.2%,  16.7%  and 
19.5%)437.  As  benefits  of  mixing  face-to-face  and  online  learning  were  outlined  flexibility  and 
learning at own pace (70.2%), face-to-face communication and interaction (63.5%), integration of 
innovative  practices  (58.2%),  along  with  the  opportunity  to  better  support  learners  from 
disadvantaged  groups (58.1%)438, greatly resonating with  the replies to  the follow-up questions, 
defining  physical  presence  as  ‘unreplaceable’.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  support  for  blended 
learning  across  respondents  from  non-formal  education,  higher  education,  adult  education 
and VET was the most significant (79.%, 75.6%, 79.9% and 69.8% respectively). In comparison, 
when it came  to the barriers the main ones were the difficulty for parents or carers to combine 
work with supporting their children’s learning (72.9%), and exclusion of learners without access 
to  suitable  technology  (70.6%).  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  one  of  the  most  recognised 
advantages  of  blended  learning-  face-to-face  communication  and  interaction  actually  addresses 
the previously discussed highest ranked disadvantage of digital education as a whole- the lack of 
face-to-face interaction and communication (see section 2.3).  

Figure 3: Where could the EU add value when it comes to digital education 

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

The  need  to  support  online  learning  and  high-quality  online  content  also  became  even  more 
prominent  and  urgent  under  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  was  perceived  as  an  area  for  EU 
intervention.  Particularly  strong  was  the  support  from  students  in  the  social  media  survey  with 
75.6%  of  them  asking  for  this  area  to  be  tackled  in  the  renewed  Action  Plan.  Although  not 

437 The presented findings are for the sample ‘Without RO’. The sample ‘All countries’ was much more sceptical towards blended 
learning - parents expressed predominantly negative opinion (63.4%), along with other  in personal capacity (36.8%) and learners 
(38.3%.) 
438 Resonating  with  the  previous  question,  there  was  also  significant  difference  between  the  two  samples.  In  the  sample  ‘All 
countries’,  there  the  most  highly  ranked  benefits  are  linked  to  the  physical  interaction-    ‘face-to-face  communication  between 
teachers and learners’ (57.5%), followed by ‘opportunity to better support learners from disadvantaged groups’ (49.6%) and ‘less 
time spent in front of the computer and more time for physical activities’ (49.3%) and ‘face-to-face communication with peers’ 
(49.2%).  

81 

 
 
 
 
recognised as among the top challenges for education in the digital age by the respondents in the 
OPC, the availability of EU high-quality online learning content and easy to use platforms were 
seen  as  important  challenges  for  digital  education  by  24.5%  and  13%  of  the  respondents 
respectively,  with  consistent  trends  across  all  target  groups.  Nevertheless,  high-quality  online 
learning resources  (platforms  and content) were  seen as the  fifth  most  popular  area  where  the 
EU  could  bring  value,  supported  by  37.3%  of  respondents,  specially  by  public  authorities, 
learners  and    parents  (64.5%,  37.5%439 and  34.3%  respectively),  in  comparison  the  group  that 
ranked them as a particularly low area of interest was the private sector (18.2%). Ultimately, the 
existence  of  digital  resources  and  materials  and  digital  platforms  and  tools  remained  an 
essential  part  in  the  provision  of  digital  education,  ranked  at  third  and  fourth  place  by  all 
respondents (49% and 47.2%), with groups like education and training staff and parents keeping 
with this trends. However, the former was seen in top two from the educators (55%440) and the 
latter was seen as a leading element for the vast majority of providers (84.8%). In comparison, a 
fourth  of  the  respondents  from  the  private  sector  and  digital  services  providers  identified  the 
importance  for  platforms  to  be  scalable.  In  addition,  the  views  of  the  various  umbrella 
organisations  resonated  with  the  trend:  43%  of  them  identified  promoting  high-quality  online 
learning  as  one  of  the  five  aspects  under  this  priority  area.  More  precisely,  stakeholders  from 
higher education institutions and student organisations and Member States asked the Commission 
to provide guidance for quality standards of online learning and content.  Researchers pointed 
that most learning materials were conservative and many times replicated of traditional learning 
sources,  asking  for  adapting  the  content  and  methods  to  online  learning.  Interoperability  and 
synergies between existing national and European online platforms, was considered as a valuable 
contribution  to  be  made  at  EU  level,  by  DE  and  FI,  and  researchers  in  the  workshop.  Member 
States  advised  the  Commission  to  promote  cross-linking  and  orchestrating  socio-technical 
ecosystems and data spaces of existing platforms. Additionally, the members of the Committee of 
the Regions and in particular the SEDEC Chair Anne Karjalainen underlined the importance of 
creating a European digital ecosystem, promoting European content, platforms and tools, a view 
supported by Member States (BE-FL). ET2020 WG DELTA and MEPs highlighted the potential 
of online platforms and content to promote lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling. As a way 
to  achieve  better  access  to  online  content,  some  Member  States  attaché(e)s  (NL,  FI)  and 
researchers  in  the  workshop  argued  in  favour  of  expanding  open  access  and  Open  Education 
Resources  (OER).  Educators  in  the  video-conference  on  the  European  Education  Area  also 
supported  this  view,  asking  for  open  and  free  access  to  quality  materials  for  all  teachers  and 
students. 

The OPC responses provided an extra level of depth of what makes digital content useful- most 
respondent  suggest  as  a  leading  characteristic  interactivity  and  user  friendliness  (50.4%), 
followed by content developing skills needed on the labour market (39.5%) and recognition by 
national  authorities  (37.5%). The  aspect  of multilingualism ranked fourth- supported by more 
than a third of the respondents in the OPC (30.5%). In addition, in position papers and during the 
Strategic  dialogue,  the  need  to  ensure  accessible  digital  learning  environments  with  adapted 
materials for learners with disabilities was underlined continuously.    

In line with  that,  recognition  of  online  and  blended  learning  was seen by  Member States  and 
international organisations as closely linked to the provision of online learning and high-quality 

439 The presented figure for the sample ‘All countries’. It should be  noted that there was a significant difference in the sample ‘All 
countries’ and ‘Without RO’- in the latter it was supported by 50% becoming one of the three most popular areas where the EU 
can add value ( alongside teacher training and connectivity, each supported by 50% in this sample).   
440 The presented figure is for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’ digital resources and materials are also seen 
as very important by 49.8%, but rank a little bit lower- at four place. Importantly, they rank a little bit lower than infrastructure 
(55.3%), which is not the case in the sample ‘All countries’. 

82 

 
 
 
 
content.    This  was  an  area  particularly  highlighted  by  the  non-formal  and  youth  sector,  and  by 
higher  education  institutions.  Private  sector  representatives  particularly  encouraged  the 
Commission  to  support  recognition  of  alternative  learning  pathways  and  promote  short-term 
programmes  for  upskilling  and  reskilling,  providing  job-ready  skills.  The  support  for  flexible 
learning paths and the recognition of new forms of learning was underlined by certain Ministries 
(NL, DE, NO) who argued for the benefit of a pan-European approach in order to support lifelong 
learning,  upskilling  and  reskilling.  They  were  in  favour  of  building  on  actions  such  as  the 
Digitally Signed Credentials of the 2018 Action Plan and asked for quality assurance as well as a 
secure and transparent infrastructure for credentials.   

The opportunities that digital technologies offer to  gather data, inform and improve education 
were widely recognised by the different groups, including Member States, umbrella organisations 
and researchers. 88% of the umbrella organisations survey recognised  data  and foresight as an 
important topic to be addressed. In comparison, the area was considered a low priority among the 
social  media  survey  respondents  (10%).  More  specifically,  stakeholders  asked  for  comparative 
longitudinal  data  on  effective  teaching  and  learning  on  European  level,  looking  at  different 
aspects of digital education. Organisations working on digital skills, as well as parents and private 
sector,  asked  for  better  data  and  measurement  on  the  levels  of  digital  competence  across  the 
EU,  going  beyond  self-assessment.  Researchers  in  the  workshop  called  for  a  framework  for 
exchange  of  data,  along  with  education  policy  indicators, which could  be mapped to  research 
constructs and data points. They pointed out as a specific policy measure of high importance the 
need to look into the future of education, rather than tackle current data that focuses on the past 
and the COVID-19 crisis. The OPC questionnaire addressed this topic to a lesser extent, while the 
Roadmap  feedback  referred  to  the  need  to  increase  research  in  designing  and  evaluating 
teaching methods and content.   

Despite  a  positive  attitude  towards  data  usage  to  inform  and  improve  education,  concerns  on 
privacy and ethical implications of data gathering, and in particular of technologies such as AI, 
were  voiced  strongly  by  Member  States  (DK,  DE,  FI,  FR,  NL)  and  education  and  training 
institutions.  Organisations  that  represented  students  and  educators  asked  for  informed  data 
gathering and usage. Private sector representatives pointed in their position papers the importance 
to create a safe and secure online environment for pupils and students of all levels. Supporting 
this view, Ministries of Education suggested training and awareness raising among educators on 
the use of AI and data in education to ensure they have the knowledge and confidence to leverage 
these technologies for enhanced learning and teaching experience, while keeping full control of 
the  education  process.  Additionally,  the  researchers  in  the  workshop  asked  for  EU  level 
framework  to  address  learning  analytics  research  and  related  trust  and  privacy  issues.  Both 
Member States and organisations working on digital learning or skills asked for specific attention 
to raising awareness of digital footprint among young people and adults.  

2.5. Digital competences development   

The  need  to  enhance  digital  competences  for  the  digital  transformation  was  recognised  as 
particularly  important  throughout  the  whole  stakeholder  consultation  process,  both  in  terms  of 
targeted and the OPC and its accompanying activities.  

Apart  from  being  seen  as  a  topic  of  leading  relevance  from  the  2018  Action  Plan  (see  section 
2.2), Ministries of Education in ET2020 WG DELTA strongly recognised boosting digital skills 
and competences as a fundamental area of work for ensuring high-quality digital education and  
underlined  the  value  of  the  European  Framework  for  Digital  Competences  for  Citizens 

83 

 
 
 
(DigComp)441. Many stakeholders stated that the crisis additionally deepened the need to support 
the development of digital skills, in terms of use in everyday life but also on the labour market. In 
position  papers,  coming  from  private  sector,  NGOs,  but  also  Ministries,  the  Commission  was 
asked to work towards boosting basic digital skills, along with advanced ones in order to support 
the European recovery effort.  

This view was confirmed by the results in the OPC, where the vast majority of the respondents - 
74.5% of those in personal capacity and 85.1% of those organisational capacity shared the view 
that the switch online learning and working had increased the importance of digital skills and 
competences  on  the  labour  market.  Representatives  of  the  private  sector  during  the  targeted 
stakeholder  consultations  and  the  OPC  closing  event  also  reiterated  their  expectations  for  such 
trends on the labour market.  

When it came to their experience during the crisis, in the OPC, more than two thirds (62%) of the 
respondents in personal capacity reported that they had improved their skills during the crisis and 
63.7% took specific steps to do so. Additionally, more than a half (55.4%) planned to take steps 
and improve their digital skills and competences in future442. Among the target groups, those with 
most  positive  attitude  towards  these  three  questions  were  educators  and  education  and  training 
staff  (84.7%,  86.2%  and  78.9%,  along  with  86.5%,  86.5%  and  83.5%  respectively).  Parents 
shared less positive views- only 58.5% shared they had improved their skills and 46.3% planned 
to  take any steps  to  enhance their digital  skills443. Among the  groups replying in  organisational 
capacity, the vast majority shared that their organisation or institution had taken steps to improve 
the  skills  of  their  staff  (74.2%)  and  that  the  digital  skills  of  the  staff  had  improved  during  the 
crisis  (81.5%).  In  line  with  the  findings  in  individual  capacity,  a  great  part  of  the  respondents 
from this group (71.3%) shared that their organisation planned to improve the skills of the staff in 
future  and  identified  online  learning  as  the  most  preferred  method  for  upskilling  (56.9%), 
followed by blended learning (42.5%).  

A  number  of  respondents  across  the  groups  self-assessed  their  skills  or  those  of  theirs  staff  as 
sufficient to implement digital learning/working or support their children in that (around 84% 
in both). Still, the need of digital skills and competences during the crisis was seen as unmet by 
around a fifth of the respondents (18.8%) and seen as an area where the EU could add value by 
more than a fifth of the respondents (21%). 

441 See Annex 3 for further details.  
442 The  reported  figure  is  for  the  sample  ‘All  countries’.  These  trends  were  even  higher  in  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  reaching 
respectively  80.5%  of  respondents  who  self-reported  improvement  in  their  skills  and  competences,  79.4%  who  took  steps  to 
improve then and 74.9% who had such plans in future. 
443 These  trends  present  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  as  there  were  significant  differences  in  the  views  when  looking  at  all 
respondents.  In this  case,  only  40.7%  of  the  parents  they  had  improved  their  skills  (54.7%  said  they  did  not)  and  the  majority 
(59.6%) did not plan to take any steps to improve their digital skills in future (in comparison only 33.4% shared plans to do so). 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Most important digital skills and competences for living and working in the 21 
century444 

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020) 

When  looking  into  the  different  types  of  digital  skills  and  competences,  digital  literacy, 
including media literacy, fighting disinformation, hate speech and online threats received the 
strongest  support from  all consulted groups.  In particular, it was identified as a priority for EU 
support by 78% of the umbrella organisations and 68% of the social media respondents and by 
three of the five eTwinning NSS. Different stakeholder groups noted that information and media 
literacy were already well-used concepts and digital literacy should build on them, establishing a 
clear  link  with  the  concept  of  digital  citizenship,  in  order  to  ensure  coherence  and 
comprehensiveness  in  the  approach  of  the  new  Action  Plan.  Ministries  of  Education  and  the 
MEPs  stressed  the  need  to  address  this  issue  in  a  strong  life-long  learning  and  inclusive 
perspective,  equipping  young  people  and  adults  with  the  skills  to  engage  with  information 
critically. The results in the OPC were similar- when asked to indicate top five important digital 
skills and competences for living and working in 21 century, respondents positioned identifying 
facts from fake information and content online the highest (39.6%), which was preceded only 
by managing the overload of information and knowledge (43.1%), an aspect that could be also 
be seen as part of digital literacy (Figure 4). The former was particularly supported by learners 
(43.4%)  and  digital  technology  providers  (42.4%),  while  the  majority  of  the  other  consulted 
groups  positioned  the  latter  as  most  important445.  Aligned  with  that,  when  asked  on  the  digital 
skills and competences they would like to improve in future, respondents positioned managing 
overload  of  information  as  the  second  most  wanted  skill  (supported  by  30.4%),  but  identifying 
facts  from  fake information  and content online was seen as far less appealing- at  seventh  place 
(supported  by  19.4%) 446.  Nevertheless,  the  support  of  learners  remained  high,  but  also  from 
parents, especially in regards to managing overload of information (supported by 31.6%), which 
was the second most popular skills they wanted to develop. Trade unions representing educators 

444 Respondents could select up to 5 digital skills and competences. 
445  Managing large amount of information was the most highly supported type of digital skills by educators- 45.7%; education 
and training staff: 45.9%; parents- 41.9%; other in personal capacity- 42.1%, education and training institutions- 45.1% and public 
authorities – 52.4%.  
446 The presented figures and order is for the sample ‘All countries. When looking at the sample ‘Without RO’, navigating safely 
online  remained  second  most  wanted  digital  skill  (26.8%),  but  identifying  fact  from  fake  information  was  positioned  eight, 
gaining the support of far 12.2% of the respondents.  

85 

 
 
 
 
in  Member  States,  but  also  Member  States  participating  in  the  OPC  (CZ,  BE-FL)  asked  for 
targeted action in boosting media and digital literacy.  

Secondly, ethics and privacy was another field where European support was particularly needed, 
especially in the context of drastically increased use of digital technologies during the COVID-19 
crisis.  During  the  meeting  of  ET2020  WG  DELTA,  a  number  of  Ministries  raised  the  issue  of 
private companies opening their platforms free to use during the crisis, without always revealing 
how personal  data was used and stored. This  showed a clear demand for enhancing knowledge 
and understanding of privacy and ethics implications of digital technologies use. This area came 
as the second most supported by the umbrella organisations under this priority (51%) and in the 
social media survey (49%). It was also particularly requested by the teachers and students in the 
outreach  event  on  the  new  Action  Plan  and  European  Education  Area.    The  OPC  results 
positioned  navigating  safely  online-protecting  personal  data  and  privacy  as  the  third  most 
important  type  of  skill  for  21  century,  supported  by  34.1%  of  the  respondents447 and  especially 
strongly  supported  by  50%  of  the  respondents  from  private  sector448.  It  was  a  skill  that  many 
wanted  to  improve  the  future,  especially  learners  and  parents  (respectively  33.3%449 and  32%), 
who  positioned  it  in  their  top  three;  when  it  came  to  respondents  in  organisational  capacity,  it 
ranked fourth (36%). The related digital skills of protecting devices and content received lower 
recognition for 21 century, having positioned at seventh place by the respondents (18.4%450), and 
ranking slightly higher when it came to the interest of respondents in personal capacity to develop 
it in future- at fourth place (23.3%451) and organisational- at sixth (27.7%). In the exchange with 
education and youth attaché(e)s, the topic was discussed in the context of increased pervasiveness 
of emerging technologies, such as AI. Member States (FR, NL, DE, DK, SI and SK) perceived 
the role  of  the  Action  Plan as  central  for  European  efforts  to  reinforce  knowledge  on  ethics 
and privacy among young people. In their position papers, international organisations providing 
humanitarian  aid  for  children  also  called  for  reinforced  European  efforts  in  the  area  of 
cybersecurity and saw the role of parents, but especially teachers as a key in the process. 

Closely  linked  to  the  theme  above,  was  the  need  to  work  towards  a  better  knowledge  and 
understanding of AI and related data in education processes and in society. This was viewed as 
a  pressing  area  to  be  addressed  in  the  new  Action  Plan,    both  in  the  umbrella  organisations 
questionnaire (41% positioned it among the top five areas for action) and during the consultations 
with  Member States and position papers submitted on ad-hoc basis or as part of the OPC (NL, 
CZ). ET2020 WG DELTA highlighted that AI  called for  a differentiation of the type of skills- 
understanding and knowledge of everyday and educational use and advanced level skills for the 
labour  market.  The  Commission  was  encouraged  to  address  them  in  an  age-appropriate  way, 
while promoting good understanding on all levels of education. Additionally, Ministries asked for 
regular  updates  of  digital  competences 
(DigComp,  DigCompEdu  and 
DigCompOrg)452 with  respect  to  associated  new  skills.  Stakeholder  organisations  working  on 

frameworks 

447 This  figure  is  for  the  sample  ‘All  countries’.  In  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  this  aspect  was  at  fourth  place  of  importance 
(34.7%), preceded by interacting, collaborating and communicating through digital technologies (35.7%), which positioned third. 
448 Navigating safely online-protecting personal data and privacy was seen as the most important digital skill for 21 century for the 
sample ‘Without Romania’, while when considering the Romanian respondents, the most popular skills for the private sector is 
collaborating and communicating through digital technologies - 54.5% compared to 37.5% ‘Without RO’.  
449 The  figure  is  presented  is  for  the  sample  ‘Without  Romania’.  The  learners  in  the  sample  ‘All  countries’ position navigating 
safely online at first place (34.2%), followed by being able to manage the overload of information (31.6%) and creating digital 
content  (30.3%).  In  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  navigating  safely  fell  to  third  place  (33.3%),  after  creation  of  digital  content 
(42.8%) and managing overload of information and knowledge (38.9%). 
450 The  figure  presented  is  for  the  sample  ‘All  countries’.  In  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  the  relevance  to protecting  devices  and 
content for 21 century was recognised as much lower- at ninth place, supported only by 13.9% of the respondents and preceding 
only understanding and knowledge of emerging digital technologies.  
451 These  figure  and  order  are  for  the  sample  ‘All  countries’.  In  the  sample  ‘Without  RO’,  protecting  devices  and  content  was 
recognised again of low relevance- at seventh place- having gained the support of 18.3%. 
452 See Annex 3 for further details. 

86 

 
 
 
digitalisation  in  higher  education  pointed  out  that  existing  national  initiatives  should  be 
leveraged,  and  exchange  of  practices  promoted  through  funding  mechanisms  and  better 
conditions  for  collaboration.  Consulted  MEPs  placed  a  stronger  emphasis  on  better  teacher 
training and continuous professional development, especially in the context of AI and data. With 
respect to the social media survey, AI was not identified as a priority for support, recognised as 
such  only  by  a  fifth  of  the  respondents.  Similar  was  the  trend  in  the  OPC-  the  closely  related 
aspect  of  understanding  new  and  emerging  technologies  was  supported  by  only  10.4%  of  the 
respondents.  When looking at  the different  categories, this one predominantly supported by the 
private sector and the providers of digital tools for education, which selected it among their five 
most important skills- supported by 27.3% and 36.7% respectively. These skills were also not the 
front-runners when it came to the digital skills and competences respondents wanted to develop 
in  future-  they  positioned  at  sixth  place  (supported  by  26.3%453)  and  by  organisations-  seventh 
(18%). 

High-quality  computing,  informatics  and  technology  education  as  a  way  to  promote  better 
understanding of the digital world was another focus area of action at European level, especially 
by stakeholder organisations, eTwinning NSS and citizens. Strengthened efforts in this area were 
requested by 40% of the umbrella organisations in the questionnaire, coming from different levels 
of education as well as  the private sector. During the workshop and in  ad-hoc meetings, higher 
education institutions and research centres on informatics as well as organisations representing IT 
professionals,  asked  for  integrating  the  subject  across  curricula  at  all  levels  and  identifying  a 
respective framework of high-quality informatics. The need for a common language resonated in 
the  views  of  the  Ministries  of  education  participating  in  ET2020  WG  DELTA.  During  the 
meeting  in  March,  the  Chair  of  the  CULT  Committee,  Sabine  Verheyen,  expressed  particular 
support for integrating informatics and technology education across all levels of education, as an 
important  component  of  ensuring  young  people  had  a  good  understanding  of  the  digital  world. 
Additionally, computing, informatics and technology education was often linked to creative use 
of digital technologies, an aspect that received a particularly strong support by the general public 
(44%)  and  the  consulted  umbrella  organisations  (41%).  In  contrast,  the  majority  of  the 
respondents  in  the  OPC  did  not  consider  the  related  skill  of  understanding  the  digital  systems 
and world as key for 21 century, having gained the support of only 16% of all respondents, but 
still  well  recognised  by  the  private  sector  (27.3%)  and  respondents  in  organisational  capacity 
from the group ‘other’ (23.5%). Another computer science related skill- creating digital content- 
was also not identified as particularly important in 21 century (supported by only 14.7% of the 
respondents,  mainly  educators,  private  sector  representatives,  education  and  training  staff). 
Nevertheless,  it  turned  out  to  be  the  digital  competence  that  most  respondents  wanted  to 
improve  in  the  future-  35%-  especially  educators  (more  than  60%)  and  education  and  training 
staff (46%).  

Lastly,  European  guidance  and  support  on  assessment  and  recognition  of  digital  skills  was 
prominently  called  for  during  the  consultations  with  umbrella  organisations,  visible  in  the 
questionnaire (41% supported it), position papers and in the workshop. This was a point coming 
from  civil  society  but  also  trade  unions  and  parents  and  Ministries  of  Education  asking  for 
guidance  on  assessing  and  certifying  digital  competences  and  skills,  going  beyond  self-
assessment.  Some  Member  States,  such  as  FR,  asked  for  unified  EU  approach  towards 
assessment and recognition of digital competences.  In addition, respondents in the social media 
survey had moderate support for this area (36.7%), especially those representing higher education 
staff.  Organisations  representing  the  IT  and  private  sector  suggested  to  link  the  assessment  of 

453 The provided figure and order is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, these skills were positioned at 
eight place, gaining the support of 16.7% of the respondents.   

87 

 
 
 
such  skills  in  secondary  level  to  DigComp  2.0 454 framework  and  to  then  promote  it  across 
Member  States,  a  trend  observed  in  the  Roadmap  feedback  and  the  Position  papers  submitted. 
The researches  in  the workshop also  reiterated the need to  focus on validation and certification 
and  to  also  explore  the  options  blockchain  certificates  offer.  The  OPC  results  also  reflect 
evaluation and certification of skills as important area where the EU could bring value, but to a 
lesser extent - 13.7% of the respondents supported this statement455.  

Bridging  the  gender  digital  skills  gap  was  considered  as  going  hand  in  hand  with  promoting 
digital  competences.  The  issue  was  strongly  highlighted  during  the  exchange  with  Members 
States  attaché(e)s  and  MEPs,  and  identified  as  a  priority  area  by  a  quarter  of  the  consulted 
umbrella  organisations,  mostly  education  employers,  non-formal  sector  and  business.  In 
particular, private sector called for measures to attract more women in STEM studies and careers 
through synergies with the EU STEM Coalition. Reinforced activities, engaging both formal and 
non-formal  sector,  together  with  dedicated  cross-country  exchanges  to  promote  exchange  of 
practices were seen as valuable by some Ministries (FR). During the live chat with Commissioner 
Gabriel, the relevance in the topic was reconfirmed by questions on how the Commission would 
address  this  issue;  even  though  the  recognition  of  this  as  a  challenge  for  digital  education  was 
very low in the OPC (less than 2% of the respondents saw it as such). 

2.6 Cooperation and exchange  

The  need  for  reinforced  cooperation  and  dialogue  between  different  stakeholders  in  the  area  of 
digital  education  was  identified  in  all  stakeholder  consultations  in  different  contexts.  The 
COVID-19  crisis  also  impacted  this  area,  by  underlining  the  fragmentation  of  national  policies 
and  experience.  Stakeholders  pointed  out  to  the  need  for  the  new  Action  Plan  to  enhance 
cooperation  as  a  key  element  to  achieve  systemic  impact  and  identify  sustainable  solutions, 
supporting education and training in the long term.  

During  the  consultations  with  MEPs  and  Members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  it  was 
underlined  at  different  occasions  that  in  order  to  have  a  strong  and  impactful  digital  education 
strategy in Europe, it would be necessary to mobilise all levels – local, regional, national as well 
as European and engage a broad variety of stakeholders in the discussion. The DE Presidency 
also reiterated this message in the OPC closing event by underlining that cooperation would lay 
at the core of making Europe the global leader in digital education.   

During  the  researchers  workshop,  experts  underlined  unanimously  the  important  role  of 
collaboration  and  cooperation  between  different  parties,  in  particular  between  research, 
international  organisations  and  policy  makers.  They  underlined  the  role  that  the  Commission 
could  play  in  supporting  such  exchange  through  instruments,  such  as  an  EU  Observatory  as  a 
space  to  bringing  voices  of  distinct  stakeholders  together  at  a  European  level.  In  line  with  this 
idea,  in  their  non-paper,  DE  advocated  for  the  creation  of  a  dedicated  entity  to  promote  the 
exchange of knowledge, good practices and data, especially in view of the COVID-19 crisis. A 
follow-up position paper supported by 6 organisations from 4 Member States (AT, DE, FR, NL) 
underlined the need for orchestrated cross-sectoral exchange, discourses and actions in the field 
of  digital  education,  along  with  strategic  collaboration  and  co-creation  at  different  levels  and 
across stakeholders. Very closely aligned to this was the proposal of other Member States (NL) 
for  stronger  European  cooperation,  creating  policy  scenarios,  supporting  national  policies  and 
exchange  of  good  practices  between  Member  States,  along  with  promoting  national  networks 
and agencies in the area of digital education to cooperate further.  

454 See Annex 3 for further details. 
455 The percentage in the sample without Romania was slightly higher-20.9% but it is still ranked at 8 place among all areas where 
the EU can add value. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Additionally,  a  number  of  papers  submitted  as  part  of  the  OPC,  coming  from  a  variety  of 
stakeholders-  employers,  NGOs,  private  sector,  social  partners,  also  Member  States,  called  for 
the  enhanced  cooperation  between  stakeholders  and  establishment  platforms,  which  would 
bring  the  community  together  in  a  structured  dialogue  on  digital  education.  The  quantitative 
questions of the OPC resonated with these views to a great extent- 41.6% of the respondents saw 
exchange  of  good  practices  and  peer-learning  as  an  area  where  the  EU  could  add  value456. 
Notably, in questions referring specifically to cooperation between public authorities, education 
and training institutions and private sector, there seemed slightly less support. In the question 
on  the  EU  added  value,  the  cooperation  between  education  institutions  and  private  sector  was 
seen as of limited value, supported by 15.1% of the respondents, mainly from the private sector 
who saw it missing during the crisis (Table 3)457. In contrast, public authorities recognised it as a 
low value action, supported by only c.30%, of them, but still higher than education and training 
institutions, where only 13% identified it as an area of EU added value.  

2.7. Funding  

There  was  an  overall  agreement  that  the  new  Action  Plan  could  offer  reinforced  funding 
opportunities.   

The  consulted  MEPs  called  for  the  strong  mobilisation  of  different  funding  programmes  - 
Erasmus+,  Horizon  Europe,  Digital  Europe  Programme,  Cohesion  funds,  the  Recovery  and 
Resilience  Facility,  InvestEU  to  support  the  ambitious  long-term  objectives  of  the  new  Action 
Plan and address the implications of the COVID-19 crisis.  Aligned with that, Member States also 
called for the new Action Plan to leverage a broad range of funding programmes- paying special 
attention  to  integrating  the  objectives  of  digital  education  in  their  yearly  and  multi-yearly 
planning  cycles  (NL)  but  also  share  information  and  good  practices  of  the  use  of  European 
Structural and Investment Funds, for example (BE-FL). 

Members  of  the  ET2020  WG  DELTA  also  pointed  that  funding  for  the  development  of  digital 
competences  should  be  reinforced  in  programmes  such  as  Erasmus+  and  the  Digital  Europe 
Programme. They suggested mapping different funding opportunities for development of basic 
to  advanced  skills  as  a  way  to  support  beneficiaries.  Social  partners  participating  in  the  OPC 
asked  for  increased  funding  from  ESF+  and  ESIF  to  further  support  adult  learning  and  digital 
skills development. Aligned with these views, in the umbrella stakeholders’ questionnaire, more 
than a fifth of the organisations did not consider that the 2018 Action Plan had provided enough 
funding opportunities.  In view of the new Action Plan, they  asked for  funding in  particular  for 
digital  competences  and  skills  (for  educators  and  learners);  high-quality  online  content  and 
community-learning networks.  

2.8. Communication opportunities 

The majority of stakeholders suggested that there is room for improvement of the communication 
of  the  new  Action  Plan.  This  was  a  strong  message  from  the  consultations  with  the  Member 
States attaché(e)s (BG, NL, SK, DE) which explained that the visibility on a national level was 
often  not  satisfactory,  with  disparities  between  the  communication  of  the  different  actions.  As 
three  preferred  ways  to  learn  about  the  Action  Plan,  they  identified  newsletters,  events  and 
webpages. 

456 The presented figure is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, the peer-learning and exchange of practices 
was still strongly supported but to a bit lesser extent by 33.3% of the respondents.  
457 It was also very strongly advocated for in the position papers submitted with the OPC, where private sector called for stronger 
cooperation in terms of infrastructure and digital tools. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EUROPEAN DIGITAL COMPETENCE FRAMEWORKS  

With  the  aim  of  establishing  a  shared  understanding  for  tackling  digital  skills  challenges,  the 
European  Commission  has  developed  three  digital  competence  frameworks:  DigComp, 
DigCompEdu  and  DigCompOrg.  A  competence  framework  defines  and  describes  the  most 
important competences in a given area, usually accompanied by detailed descriptors, proficiency 
levels  and/or  learning  outcomes.  Competences  are  defined  as  the  combination  of  knowledge, 
skills  and  attitudes,  following  the  2006  European  Recommendation  on  key  competences  for 
lifelong learning (updated in 2018)458.   

The  competence  frameworks  are  widely  used  within  Europe  and  beyond  for  developing  policy 
initiatives, educational planning and reform, training courses and curricula, self-reflection and/or 
self-assessment and certification, amongst others. In the EU use is voluntary, fully respecting the 
principle  of  subsidiarity.  Reference  frameworks  serve  the  purpose  of  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination because they provide a common language.  

1. The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp) 

The  DigComp  framework  describes  the  most  important  competences  people  need  to  have  to 
participate  in  the  digital  world.  As  Figure  1  shows,  it  consists  of  five  competence  areas,  21 
competences, examples  of use and detailed proficiency levels. DigComp  was first published by 
the  Joint  Research  Center  in  2013  and  updated  in  June  2016  (DigComp  2.0)  and  May  2017 
(DigComp 2.1), the latter focussing on detailed proficiency levels.  

Figure 1: The five competence areas of the DigComp framework  

‘DigComp  into  action’,  a  guide  for stakeholders presenting 38 inspiring  examples of DigComp 
adoption and use from all over Europe, was released in May 2018.  

DigComp is taken up in more than 16 Member States, for curricula review, student assessment, 
employability and digital skills strategies and policies. The European Training Foundation works 
with  DigComp  in  the  EU  neighbouring  and  developing  countries.  DigComp  also  formed  the 
conceptual basis for the calculation of the digital skills part of the European Digital Economy and 
Society Index (DESI), a composite index that summarises relevant indicators on Europe’s digital 
performance and tracks the evolution of EU Member States in digital competitiveness459.  

458 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong 
learning (2006/962/EC) – Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (2018/C 189/01). 
459 European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) – EU-28 values (including UK). 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
At  the  global  level,  UNESCO  and  the  International  Telecommunication  Union  are  considering 
DigComp  for  the  development  of  a  Global  Digital  Literacy  framework  as  a  contribution  to  the 
Sustainable Development Goals (4.4.2 - measuring digital literacy skills)460.  

More  than  70  projects  in  Europe  are  using  DigComp  as  an  implementation  tool  for  digital 
education/skilling, assessment/certification and/or defining digital professional profiles. So far at 
least 335,000 DigComp based training courses have been developed and 500.000 DigComp based 
certificates have been provided by external  stakeholders.  In addition,  the Joint  Research Centre 
just  released  ‘DigComp  at  Work’  report 461  and  ‘DigComp  at  Work  Implementation 
Guidelines’ 462 ,  focused  on  labour  market  intermediaries  and  the  development  of  digital 
competences for employability and in employments contexts.  

Further work will concentrate on developing an approach to combine DigComp with other related 
frameworks  such  as  EntreComp463,  and  on  finalising  a  reliable  and  validated  self-assessment 
instrument  for  DigComp (end 2020).  Finally,  an  updated version, i.e. DigComp 2.2 is  foreseen 
for  end  2020/early  2021,  with  new  examples  covering  emerging  trends  (e.g.  fake  news)  and 
technologies (e.g. AI), amongst others. External stakeholders have in the meantime also launched 
a  DigComp  Community  of  Practice  to  bring  DigComp  users  together  and  learn  from  each 
other464.  

More information available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcomp/  

 2. Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) 

DigCompEdu  was  published  in  2017  describing  what  it  means  for  educators  to  be  digitally 
competent.  It  is  directed  at  educators  at  all  educational  levels,  from  pre-primary  to  vocational, 
higher and adult education. It provides a general reference framework to support the development 
of  educator-specific  digital  competences  in  Europe.  It  details  22  educator-specific  competences 
for teaching in a digital society along six competence areas (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: The six competence areas of the DigiCompEdu framework  

Subsequent  to  the  publication  of  the  framework  an  online  community  has  been  set  up,  inviting 
stakeholders  interested  in  using  and  implementing  the  DigCompEdu  framework  to  exchange 
experiences and training materials. The community has around 200 members and brings together 

460 UNESCO - Measuring digital literacy skills: SDG indicator 4.4.2: http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/GAML6-WD-3-Measuring-4.4.2-proposal.pdf 
461 DigComp at Work: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/digcomp-work 
462 DiComp at Work Implementation Guide : https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/digcomp-work-implementation-guide 
463 Entrepreneurship Competence framework: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/entrecomp 
464 DigComp Community of Practice: https://all-digital.org/invitation-to-digcomp-community-of-practice-cop/ 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
all  those  interested  in  educators’  digital  competence  at  national  and  regional  agencies, 
researchers, training providers and educators.  

Based  on  the  framework,  the  Joint  Research  Center  is  currently  piloting  a  self-reflection 
questionnaire (DigCompEdu Check-in465) for educators from primary, secondary, vocational and 
higher  education.  The  self-reflection  exercise  has  already  been  completed  by  almost  35,400 
educators,  allowing  them  to  reflect  on  their  digital  practices,  test  their  practical  knowledge  and 
guide them in further developing their skills. Based on psychometric analysis of the pilot results, 
the  instrument  will  be  further  revised  and  piloted  again,  specifically  for  school  education 
teachers. A revised version of the self-reflection tool is foreseen for 2021: SELFIE for teachers.   

More information available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcompedu  

3. Digital Competence framework for educational organisations (DigCompOrg) and a self-
reflection tool for schools digital capacity (SELFIE) 

DigCompOrg  is  a  comprehensive  and  generic  conceptual  framework  that  reflects  all  aspects  of 
the  process  of  systematically  integrating  digital  learning  in  educational  organisations  from  all 
education sectors. The conceptual model was published by the Joint Research Center in 2015. It 
contains 8 key areas and 74 specific descriptors  on digital  age learning.  While DigCompOrg is 
for all educational organisations, a specific tool for schools was developed on its basis: SELFIE.  

Officially  launched  as  part  of  the  2018  Digital  Education 
Action Plan, SELFIE466 is an online, free and customisable 
application  that  schools in  EU  and  beyond  can  use  to  self-
reflect  on  their  level  of  digital  capacity.  Several  Member 
States and partner countries are integrating SELFIE in their 
digital  education  strategies.  With  the  support  of  the 
European  Training  Foundation,  the  tool  has  been  extended 
to  the  countries  in  the  Western  Balkans  and  other  partner 
countries  such  as  Turkey,  Georgia  and  Moldova.  In 
collaboration  with  UNESCO´s  Institute  for  Information 
Technology  in  Education  the  tool  has  been  tested  by 
Russian  schools.  Selfie  is  available  in  32  languages  and  it 

has more than 650.000 users (students, teachers and school leaders) in 57 countries. 

A feasibility study to adapt the SELFIE tool for work-based learning systems in Europe has just 
been published467. The study finds that there is a large potential for the SELFIE tool to be applied 
widely  in  work-based  learning,  especially  to  bring  Vocational  Education  and  Training  (VET) 
institutions and companies closer in discussing how they jointly embed digital technology in their 
education and training provisions. The development of a full version of SELFIE for work-based 
learning in VET is foreseen for 2020-2021.  

Further analysis of SELFIE data is also undertaken, such as on the psychometric reliability and 
construct  validity  of  SELFIE  core  items;  a  random  sampling  of  schools  to  get  representative 
agregated data; and qualitative case studies on the impact of SELFIE in schools and on how the 
tool and its impact can be further improved.  

More information available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcomporg 

465 DigCompEdu Check-in: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/self-assessment 
466 SELFIE: https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital_en  
467 Report available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/adapting-selfie-tool-work-based-learning-systems-vocational-
education-and-training 

92 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 
ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY  

TERM 

DEFINITION 

Artificial Intelligence 
(AI) 

Basic and advanced 
digital skills 

Benchmark(s) in 
education and 
training 

AI refers to IT systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing 
their environment and taking actions - with some degree of autonomy - 
to  achieve  specific  goals.  AI-based  systems  can  be  purely  software-
based, acting in the virtual world (e.g. voice assistants, search engines, 
speech  and  face  recognition  systems,  etc.),  or  embedded  in  hardware 
devices (e.g. advanced robots, autonomous cars, drones, etc.)468. 
Major  digital  transformations  such  as  artificial  intelligence,  machine 
learning  or  big  data  are  changing  labour  market’s  skills  requirements 
and, in turn, affecting skills development for the digital economy.  
All individuals should understand how digital technologies can support 
communication,  creativity  and  innovation,  and  be  aware  of  their 
opportunities, limitations, effects and risks. Basic digital skills allow a 
basic  ability  to  use  of  digital  devices  and  online  applications  (for 
instance  to  access,  filter  and  manage  information,  create  and  share 
content,  communicate  and  collaborate),  and  are  widely  considered  a 
critical component of a new set of literacy skills in the digital era, with 
reading, writing, and numeracy skills469.  
At  the  advanced  end  of  the  spectrum  of  digital  skills  are  the  higher-
level abilities that allow individuals to make use of digital technologies 
in empowering and transformative ways, such as professions in ICT470. 
Advanced  digital  skills  are  specialized  skills,  i.e.  skills  in  designing, 
developing,  managing  and  deploying  technologies  such  as  high 
performance  computing,  artificial  intelligence  and  cybersecurity  at 
ISCED level 4 and above 471. 
Quantitative  indicators  are  used  to  measure  and  compare  progress  in 
the  EU  as  part  of  the  open  method  of  coordination  in  education  and 
training.  Under  the  strategic  framework  for  cooperation  in  education 
and  training  (ET2020)  472 ,  EU  Member  States  agreed  on  a  limited 
number  of  targets  to  be  reached  by  the  EU  as  a  whole  before  2020. 
These targets  are  referred to  as ‘EU benchmarks’ and aim to  increase 
tertiary  educational  attainment;  reduce  early  leaving  from  education 
and  training;  increase  participation  in  early  childhood  education  and 
care;  reduce  underachievement  in  basic  skills  (maths,  science  and 
reading);  increase  adult  learning;  increase  employment  rate  of  recent 
graduates; increase learning mobility. A new cooperation framework in 
education and training, equipped with a revised set of EU targets, is in 
preparation. 

468 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM(2018) 237 final. 
469 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01. 
470 UNESCO (2018). Digital skills critical for jobs and social inclusion. 
471 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the 
period 2021-2027. COM/2018/434 final - 2018/0227. 
472 Council of the European Union (2020). Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European 
cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). (2009/C 119/02). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Big data (including 
digital traces) 

Blended learning  

Broadband 

Cyber security  

Computational 
thinking (including 
programming and 
coding) 

Computing and 
informatics education 
(including computer 
science) 

Digital capacity or 
readiness  

Digital citizenship 

Big  data  refers  to  large  amounts  of  different  types  of  data  produced 
with high velocity from a high number of various types of sources473. A 
key  construct  in  big data is  the concept  of digital traces.  These are in 
essence  records  of  human  –  or  human  like  –  online,  digital  activity 
captured and stored by online information systems474.  
Blended  learning  is  a  pedagogical  approach  mixing  face-to-face  and 
online learning, with some element of learner control over time, place, 
path,  and  pace.  An  example  of  blended  learning  is  the  flipped 
classroom model, in which students view lecture material prior to class, 
then  spend  class  time  engaging  in  exercises  under  the  supervision  of 
the teacher475. 
Broadband refers to high-speed telecommunications systems, i.e. those 
capable  of  simultaneously  supporting  multiple  information  formats 
such  as  voice,  high-speed  data  services  and  video  services  on 
demand476.  
Cyber security refers to all the measures adopted to defend information 
systems from external unauthorized access as well as user actions that 
compromise or support the confidentiality, integrity and availability of 
both information and systems477. 
Computational thinking, programming and coding are often used in an 
interchangeable  way  in  education  settings,  but  they  are  distinct 
activities.  Programming  refers  to  the  activity  of  analysing  a  problem, 
designing a solution and implementing it. Coding means implementing 
solutions  in  a  particular  programming  language.  Computational 
thinking, shorthand for ‘thinking as a computer scientist’, refers to the 
ability to understand the underlying notions and mechanisms of digital 
technologies to formulate and solve problems478. 
Computing and informatics education, also known as computer science 
in many countries, is a distinct scientific discipline, characterised by its 
own concepts, methods, body of knowledge, and open issues. It covers 
the  foundations  of  computational  structures,  processes,  artefacts  and 
systems, and their software designs, their applications, and their impact 
on society479.  
Digital  capacity  or  readiness  is  the  ability  to  integrate,  optimise  and 
transform  digital  technologies  in  different  processes  and  activities.  It 
can be measured by variety of indicators on different levels.  
Digital  citizenship  is  a  set  of  values,  skills,  attitudes,  knowledge  and 
critical understanding citizens need in the digital era. A digital citizen 
knows how to use technologies and is able to engage competently and 

473 Berendt B., Littlejohn A., Kern P., Mitros P., Shacklock X., Blakemore M. (2017). Big data for monitoring educational 
systems. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union. 
474 Howison J., Wiggins A., Crowston K. (2011). Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data. 
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12).  
475 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon, avaiable at http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/. 
476 Shaping Europe’s digital future: Broadband Glossary, available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/broadband-
glossary.  
477 ENISA (2018). Cybersecurity culture guidelines: behavioral aspects of cybersecurity.  
478 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. Implications for policy and 
practice. JRC Science for Policy Report. 
479 CECE (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the Same Boat?  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Digital competence 

Digital education 

Digital literacy  

Digital transition/  
transformation  

Disinformation 

EdTech (as industry 
and scientific field)  

positively  with  them.  He/she  participates  actively  and  responsibly  in 
both  on  and  offline  communities  (local,  national,  global)  at  all  levels 
(political, economic, social, cultural and intercultural)480. 
Digital  competence  is  recognised  as  one  of  the  key  competences  for 
lifelong  learning481.  Being  digitally  competent  involves  the  confident, 
critical  and  responsible  use  of,  and  engagement  with,  digital 
technologies  for  learning,  work,  and  participation  in  society482.  The 
European Digital Competence Framework (Annex 3) has identified the 
key  components  of  digital  competence  in  five  areas:  information  and 
data 
literacy;  communication  and  collaboration;  digital  content 
creation; safety; and problem solving483.  
two  different  but  complementary 
Digital  education  comprises 
perspectives: the pedagogical use of digital technologies to support and 
enhance  teaching,  learning  and  assessment  and  the  development  of 
digital competences by learners and education and training staff484. 
Digital  literacy  is  defined  by  the  Digital  Competence  framework 
(Annex 3) as the  ability  to  articulate information needs;  to locate and 
retrieve digital data, information and content; to judge the relevance of 
the  source  and  its  content;  and  to  store,  manage,  and  organise  digital 
data,  information  and  content.  It  is  the  first  of  the  five  competence 
areas of digital competence (i.e. being digitally literate is part of being 
digitally competent)485.  
Digital  transition  (digitisation)  refers  specifically  to  the  conversion  of 
information  or  data  from  analogue 
to  digital  format.  Digital 
transformation  (digitalisation),  by  contrast,  refers  to  the  adoption  or 
increase in use of digital technology by an organisation, an industry, or 
a country and therefore describes more generally the way digitisation is 
affecting economy and society486.  
False  or  misleading  information  that  is  created,  presented  and 
disseminated  for  economic  gain  or  to  intentionally  deceive  the  public 
and may cause public harm487.   
EdTech,  short  for  educational  technology,  indicates  the  industry  that 
combines  education  and  technological  advances  as  well  as  the 
scientific  field  which 
interdisciplinary  knowledge 
informing  the  use  of  technological  tools  and  devices,  processes  and 
procedures, resources and strategies to improve learning experiences in 
a variety of learning settings488. 

involves 

the 

480 Council of Europe (2019). Digital Citizenship Education Handbook.  
481 In this framework, competences are defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Key competences are those 
individuals needed for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment. 
482 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning. (2018/C 189/01). 
483 Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels 
and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. 
484 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
485 Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels 
and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. 
486 OECD (2017). Going Digital: Making the Transformation Work for Growth and Well-Being. Paris: OECD publishing. 
487 Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions - Action Plan against Disinformation. JOIN(2018) 36 final. 
488  Huang R., Spector J.M., Yang J. (2019). Introduction to Educational Technology. In R. Huang J.M. Spector, J. Yang (Eds.), 
Educational Technology: A Primer for the 21st Century. Singapore: Springer.  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Formal, non-formal 
and informal 
education 

Information and 
Communication 
Technology (ICT) 

Instructional design 

ISCED 1,2,3 

Lifelong learning 

Learning 
Management System 
(LMS) 

the 

internet, 

include  computers, 

Formal education is intentional, organised and structured. It is usually 
provided  in  schools,  colleges,  universities  and  other  formal  education 
and  training  institutions,  and  leads  to  recognised  diplomas  and 
qualifications.  Non-formal  education  takes  place  through  planned 
activities  (in  terms  of  learning  objectives  and  learning  time)  where 
some form of learning support is present, but which is not part of the 
formal education and training system. Informal education results from 
daily activities related to work, family or leisure which is not organised 
or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support489. 
Diverse set of technological tools and resources used to transmit, store, 
create,  share  or  exchange  information.  These  technological  tools  and 
live  broadcasting 
resources 
technologies, recorded broadcasting technologies and telephony490. 
The theory and practice of designing, developing, using, managing and 
evaluating  processes  and  resources  for  learning491.  The  instructional 
design  process  goes  beyond  simply  creating  teaching  and  learning 
materials and it is based on carefully analysing how students learn and 
what  content,  methods  and  tools  will  most  effectively  help  them 
achieve a specific set of learning outcomes.  It consists of determining 
the needs of the learners, defining the learning outcomes and objectives 
of instruction, organising and planning assessment tasks, and designing 
teaching and learning activities to ensure the quality of instruction492. 
The  International  Standard  Classification  of  Education  (ISCED)  is  a 
statistical  framework  for  organizing  information  on  education.  It  has 
nine levels: ISCED 0 refers to early childhood education, ISCED 1 to 
primary education, ISCED 2 to lower secondary education, ISCED 3 to 
upper  secondary  education,  ISCED  4  to  post-secondary  non-tertiary 
education,  ISCED  5  to  short-cycle  tertiary  education,  ISCED  6  to 
bachelor’s or equivalent level, ISCED 7 to master’s or equivalent level, 
ISCED 8 to doctoral or equivalent level 493. 
Lifelong  learning  includes  all  activities  undertaken  throughout  life, 
with  the  aim  of  improving  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  for 
personal,  civic,  social  and/or  professional  reasons. 494  It  covers 
education  and  training  across  all  ages  and  in  all  areas  of  life  -  be  it 
formal, non-formal or informal495.  
LMS  is  a  web-based  software  platform  made  for  delivering,  tracking 
and  managing  online  and  blended  learning.  The  main  features  of  an 
LMS  (e.g.  course  management,  learners’  enrolment,  online  activity 
tracking, etc.) allow handling all aspects of the learning process beyond 
content delivery496. 

489 Erasmus + Programme Guide (2020). Annex III- Glossary of terms. 
490UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020). Glossary.  
491 Seels B.B., Richey R.C. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the field. Washington DC: Association 
for Educational Communications and Technology.  
492 Educational Technology (2017). Definitions of instructional design.  
493 UNESCO (2011). International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 2011.  
494 CEDEFOP (2003). Quality in education and training. Glossary. Paris: OECD publishing.  
495 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon (http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/). 
496 Watson W., Watson S. L. (2007). An Argument for clarity: what are learning management systems, what are they not and what 
should they become. TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34.  

96 

 
 
 
 
Learning outcomes 
(including learning 
objectives) 

Makerspace 

Massive Open Online 
Course (MOOC) 

Micro-credentials 

Next Generation 
Access (NGA) vs 
Fixed Networks 

Online learning  

Remote education 

levels,  while 

learning  objectives  define 

Learning  outcomes  are  statements  of  what  a 
learner  knows, 
understands  and  is  able  to  do  on  completion  of  a  learning  process  in 
formal, non-formal or informal education. Learning outcomes indicate 
actual  attainment 
the 
competences to be developed in general terms497. 
A  makerspace  refers  to  any  generic  space  that  promotes  active 
participation,  knowledge  sharing  and  collaboration  among  individuals 
through open exploration and creative use of tools and technology. Its 
focus is on having a publicly accessible creative space that explores the 
maker mind-set and tinkering-practices498. 
MOOCs  are  a  subpart  of  the  existing  online  learning  offer.  The  term 
refers  to  online  courses  designed  for  a  large  number  of  learners, 
accessible  by  anyone  anywhere,  as  long  as  they  have  an  internet 
connection. Access and participation are free of charge, although extra 
services and certificates may require payment499.  

Micro-credentials,  micro-degree,  nanodegree,  digital  badge  or 
alternative  digital  credential,  often  used  interchangeably,  refer  to  any 
credential that covers more than a single course but is less than a full 
degree500.  
NGA refers to wired access networks, which consist wholly or in part 
of  optical  elements  and  which  are  capable  of  delivering  broadband 
access services with enhanced characteristics. The term fixed networks 
is  used  to  describe  the  traditional  wired  networks,  which  have  lower 
sustained bandwidths and are characterised by lack of mobility501. 
Online learning is a methodology involving the use of information and 
communication  technologies  (ICTs)  to  support  both  teaching  and 
learning.  The  term  may  refer  to  the  use  of  various  technologies  and 
tools  to  support  learning  in  different  contexts,  including  face-to-face 
settings  and  distance  learning,  separately  or  in  combination,  in  which 
case is usually called blended learning. There are many terms used to 
describe  online  learning  including  ICT-based  learning,  distance 
learning, virtual learning and e-learning502. 
Method  of  delivery,  which  involves  teaching  and  learning  activities 
where educators and learners are not physically present in one location 
at the same time. In this case, learning happens away from the physical 
site  of  an  educational  provider  with  educators  and  learners  using 
different  means  to  connect  and  engage  with  a  programme,  course  or 
educational  activity 503 .  In  this  staff  working  document,  remote 

497 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 
498 Joint Research Centre (2019). Makerspaces for Education and Training. Exploring future implications for Europe. 
Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. 
499 Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.  
500 CORSHIP (2019). Result 1.1c. Micro-credentials in EU and Global.  
501 Communication from the Commission. EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment 
of broadband networks. (2013/C 25/01).  
502 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon (http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/). 
503 QAA Guidance (2020). Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning. Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-
events/news/qaa-publishes-building-a-taxonomy-for-digital-learning  

97 

 
 
 
 
Synchronous vs 
asynchronous digital 
teaching and learning 

Upskilling/reskilling 

User-driven 
innovation 

Virtual Learning 
Environment (VLE)  

Virtual Reality (VR) 
/Augmented reality 
(AR) 

education is  used as  a broad term  which compromises, among others, 
the possibility to organise and deliver teaching and learning activities at 
distance (e.g. by using radio, TV or electronic resources) or online (e.g. 
requiring learners to use a connected device).  
There  are  two  kinds  of  digital  teaching  and  learning:  synchronous, 
(happening collaboratively and at the same time with a group of online 
learners and usually an educator) and asynchronous (happening at any 
time,  individually  or  in  group,  with  interaction  and  communication 
spanning  across  time) 504 .  Synchronous  vs  asynchronous  digital 
teaching  and  learning  are  differentiated  in  terms  of  the  time  of  the 
online  presence,  but  also  available  tools,  instructional  practices, 
number of people involved and social mode of communication505. 
Upskilling  refers  to  short-term  targeted  training  typically  provided 
following  initial  education  or  training,  and  aimed  at  supplementing, 
improving or updating knowledge, skills and/or competences acquired 
during previous training. Reskilling enables individuals to acquire new 
skills giving access  either to a new occupation or to new professional 
activities506. 
From  a  business  point  of  view,  user-driven  innovation  means  placing 
the  final  user  of  a  particular  product  or  service  at  the  core  of  the 
in  a  more  systematic  way. 507  User-driven 
innovation  process 
innovation  can  also  be  applied  to  education  and  training  by  engaging 
educators,  learners  and  staff  in  the  analysis  of  a  specific  educational 
problem and the design of possible solutions for it.  
In  the  most  general  case  VLE  refers  to  a  learning  situation  that  is 
supported  by  Internet-enabled  technologies  to  provide  tools  for 
students to learn specific content, communicate and submit work, while 
providing components for an instructor to manage the learning process, 
collect  input,  and  provide  feedback  to  students.  The  concept  is  called 
virtual  because  students  use  computer  programs  and  tools  while 
working  from  remote  locations  to  accomplish  activities  that  would 
otherwise be done in real locations such as a school or classroom508.  
VR  involves  the  use  of  a  computer  to  visually  simulate  an  artificial 
environment within which a user can interact with objects and be fully 
immersed.  AR  refers  to  the  real-time  digital  overlay  of  information 
over  physical  elements.  A  user’s  real,  visible  environment  is  the 
predominant  element,  with  extra  information  intended  to  augment  the 
actual  environment  a  user  sees  on  an  ad  hoc  basis,  rather  than  fully 
replacing it509. 

504  International Baccalaureate Organization (2020). Online learning, teaching and education continuity planning for schools. 
505  Spector J. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications. 
506 CEDEFOP (2008). Terminology of European education and training policy. A selection of 100 key terms.  
507Joseph W., Deryckere T., Martens L. (2010). User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology 
analysis. Science and Public Policy. 37.   
508  Spector J. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications. 
509 Digital Transformation Monitor. Augmented and Virtual Reality, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/dem/monitor/category/augmented-and-virtual-reality.   

98 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: LITERATURE AND SOURCES 

The present Annex presents recent research reports and literature on digital education and related 
topics.  The  full  list  of  resources  used  to  write  the  staff  working  document  is  provided  in  the 
document’s footnotes.  

Beblavý M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M., & Jacquot, M. (2019). Index of readiness for 
digital lifelong learning: changing how Europeans upgrade their skills. Final Report 2019.  

CEDEFOP  (2018).  Insights  into  skill  shortages  and  skill  mismatch:  Learning  from  Cedefop’s 
European skills and jobs survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we 
all in the same boat? 

EDUCUASE (2019). Horizon Report: 2019. Higher Education. Louisville: EDUCAUSE. 

EENEE (2019). Education outcomes enhanced by the use of digital technology. Reimagining the 
school learning ecology. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Ehlers  U.D.,  Kellermann  S.A.  (2019).    Future  Skills  -  The  Future  of  Learning  and  Higher 
education. Results of the International Future Skills Delphi Survey. Karlsruhe. 

EIGE  (2018),  Women  and  men  in  ICT:  a  chance  for  better  work–life  balance.  Research  Note. 
Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union.  

EQUALS (2019). I’d blush If I could. Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. 

European  Commission  (2019).  Digital  Education  at  School  in  Europe.  Eurydice  Report. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2019).  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  Education.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

European Commission (2018). The 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study 
(ICILS).  Main  findings  and  implications  for  education  policies  in  Europe.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2019).  PISA  2018  and  the  EU  -  Striving  for  social  fairness  through 
education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2019).  Education  and  Training  Monitor  EU  analysis.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2018).  Study  on  the  impact  of  the  internet  and  social  media  on  youth 
participation  and  youth  work  (Final  report).  Luxembourg:  Publication  Office  of  the  European 
Union.  

European Commission (2018). Women in the Digital Age. Luxembourg: Publication office of the 
European Union. 

European  Parliament  (2020).  Education  and  employment  of  women  in  science,  technology  and 
the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication 
office of the European Union. 

European  Parliament  (2018).  The  underlying  causes  of  the  digital  gender  gap  and  possible 
solutions for enhanced digital inclusion of women and girls.  Luxembourg: Publication office of 
the European Union. 

99 

 
 
 
Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in  a 
Digital World: International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. 
Amsterdam: IEA.  

Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency 
remote teaching and online learning. Educase Review. 

Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al. (2020). Handbook on Facilitating 
Flexible  Learning  During  Educational  Disruption:  The  Chinese  Experience  in  Maintaining 
Undisrupted  Learning  in  COVID-19  Outbreak.  Beijing:  Smart  Learning  Institute  of  Beijing 
Normal University. 

IFO  Institut  (2020),  Bildung  in  der  Coronakrise:  Wie  haben  die  Schulkinder  die  Zeit  der 
Schulschließungen verbracht, und welche Bildungsmaßnahmen befürworten die Deutschen?  

Joint  Research  Center  (upcoming).  Emerging  technologies  and  the  teaching  profession.  Ethical 
and pedagogical considerations based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the EU. 

Joint  Research Center (2020). The likely impact  of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based 
on  the  existing  literature  and  recent  international  datasets.  Luxembourg:  Publication  of  the 
European Union.  

Joint  Research  Center  (2019),  Makerspaces  for  Education  and  Training.  Exploring  future 
implications for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. JRC117481.  

Joint  Research  Center  (2019).  Innovating  Professional  Development  in  Compulsory  Education. 
Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union.  

Joint  Research  Center  (2019).  Innovating  Professional  Development  in  Higher  Education. 
Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union. 

Joint  Research  Centre  (2019).  The  changing  nature  of  work  and  skills  in  the  digital  age. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  

Joint  Research Centre (2019).  Evidence of  Innovative Assessment:  Literature Review and Case 
Studies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Joint  Research  Center  (2018).  The  impact  of  Artificial  Intelligence  on  Learning,  Teaching  and 
Education. Policies for the future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  

Joint  Research  Center  (2018).  Artificial  Intelligence:  A  European  perspective.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

Joint  Research  Center  (2017).  Digital  Education  Policies  in  Europe  and  beyond:  key  principles 
for most effective policies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Joint  Research  Centre  (2017).  DigComp  2.1  -  The  digital  competence  framework  for  citizens 
with  eight  proficiency  levels  and  examples  of  use,  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union. 

Joint  Research  Centre  (2017).  European  Framework  for  the  Digital  Competence  of  Educators 
(DigCompEdu), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Joint  Research  Centre  (2015).  Promoting  effective  digital-age  learning.  A  European  framework 
for  digitally-competent  educational  organisations.  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union. 

Joynes  C.,  Gibbs  E.,  Sims  K.  (2020).  An  overview  of  emerging  country-level  responses  to 
providing  educational  continuity  under  COVID-19:  what’s  working?  What  isn’t?  Report  for 
EdTechHub. 

100 

 
 
Livingstone S., Haddon L., Gorzig A. (2019). Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research 
and Policy Challenges in comparative perspective.  

NESET  (2020).  The  effects  of  digital  technology  use  on  children´s  empathy  and  attention 
capacity. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

NESET (2020). Mapping and analysis of student-centred learning and teaching practices: usable 
knowledge to support a more inclusive high-quality higher education. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union 

NESET  (2018).  Teaching  media  literacy  in  Europe:  evidence  of  effective  school  practices  in 
primary and secondary education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

NESTA (2020). Education for all: Making the case for a fairer adult learning system.  

NESTA (2020). What motivates adults to learn: A rapid evidence review of what drives learning 
new skills in the workplace.  

OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris: 
OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD  (2019),  TALIS  2018  Results  (Volume  I):  Teachers  and  School  Leaders  as  Lifelong 
Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2020). How can teachers and school systems respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? Some 
lessons from TALIS - OECD Education and Skills Today. 

OECD (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. 

OECD (2019). Skills Matter: Additional  Results from  the Survey of Adult  Skills. OECD Skills 
Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2019). Education at glance. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2019). Skills Outlook 2019. Thriving in a digital world. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2018). Bridging the Digital Gender Divide.  Include, Upskill, Innovate.  

Paniagua  A.,  Istance  D.  (2018).  Teachers  as  Designers  of  Learning  Environments:  The 
Importance  of  Innovative  Pedagogies.  Educational  Research  and  Innovation.  Paris:  OECD 
Publishing. 

Rampelt F., Orr D., Knoth A. (2019). Bologna Digital 2020: White Paper on Digitalisation in the 
European Higher Education Area. 

Selwyn  N.  (2019).  Should  Robots  Replace  Teachers?  AI  and  the  Future  of  Education.  Policy 
Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. 

Selwyn N., Hillman T., Eynon R., Ferreira G., Knox J., Macgilchrist F., Sancho-Gil J.M. (2019). 
What’s  next  for  Ed-Tech?  Critical  hopes  and  concerns  for  the  2020s.  Learning,  Media  and 
Technology.   

Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone 
S.,  Hasebrink  U.  (2020).  EU  Kids  Online  2020:  Survey  results  from  19  countries.  EU  Kids 
Online. 

Southgate,  E.,  Blackmore,  K.,  Pieschl,  S.,  Grimes,  S.,  McGuire,  J.  &  Smithers,  K.  (2018). 
Artificial  intelligence  and  emerging  technologies  (virtual,  augmented  and  mixed  reality)  in 
schools: A research report. Newcastle: University of Newcastle. 

Williamson B. (2020). New pandemic edtech power networks. Code acts in education. 

101 

 
 
Williamson  B.  (2019).  Big  Data  in  Education:  The  digital  future  of  learning,  policy  and 
practice. 1st Edition. 

World  Economic  Forum  (2020).  Schools  of  the  Future  Defining  New  Models  of  Education  for 
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 

World Economic Forum (2019). Assessing Gender Gaps in Artificial Intelligence. 

World Economic Forum (2018). The Future of Jobs Report. 

102