COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the key enabling factors for successful digital education and training Proposal for a Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training
Date: 2023-04-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: digital literacy, digital transformation, distance learning, education, education policy, educational system, investment, teacher training, teaching curriculum, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 18.4.2023  SWD(2023) 205 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the key enabling factors for successful digital education and training Proposal for a Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training {COM(2023) 205 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Structured Dialogue with Member States on digital education and skills ............................. 6 

Findings from the Structured Dialogue concerning enabling factors for digital education 
and training ......................................................................................................................... 7 

Findings from the Structured Dialogue concerning digital skills ....................................... 9 

Part I: Enabling factors for digital education and training ............................................... 12 

1. Enabling factors: an overview of terms and origins ......................................................... 12 

2. Capacity for digital education and training in European countries .................................. 13 

2.1. Digital education infrastructure ................................................................................. 13 

Connectivity and digital equipment .............................................................................. 13 

Digital education content, platforms and tools ............................................................. 20 

Digital divide ................................................................................................................ 23 

2.2. Institutional and human capacity ............................................................................... 25 

Institutional strategies, evaluation and support ............................................................. 25 

Leadership and non-teaching staff ................................................................................ 30 

Teachers’ digital pedagogy skills.................................................................................. 32 

3. Digital education policy ................................................................................................... 40 

3.1. Development and implementation ............................................................................. 40 

Digital education and training strategies ....................................................................... 40 

Coordination across sectors and levels of government ................................................. 41 

Involvement of stakeholders ......................................................................................... 43 

Relationship with the private sector .............................................................................. 44 

3.2. Monitoring and evaluation......................................................................................... 45 

National level evidence ................................................................................................. 45 

EU-level evidence ......................................................................................................... 49 

Part II: Digital skills and competences ................................................................................ 51 

1. Digital skills: an overview of terms and concepts............................................................ 51 

Digital skills and their relevance today ......................................................................... 51 

Defining digital skills .................................................................................................... 51 

Digital skills and related terms ..................................................................................... 53 

Levels of digital skills ................................................................................................... 55 

2. Existing digital skills gaps................................................................................................ 56 

2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU ................................................................ 58 

2.2 ICT specialists and emerging skills needs .................................................................. 63 

 
 
 
2.3 Further challenges to address  .................................................................................... 69 

3. Digital skills in education and training ............................................................................ 71 

3.1 The provision of digital skills from early age to adults .............................................. 72 

3.1.1 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) ........................................................ 72 

3.1.2 Primary and secondary education ............................................................................ 74 

The cross-curricular approach....................................................................................... 75 

Digital skills as part of a dedicated subject ................................................................... 76 

Digital skills within another subject ............................................................................. 76 

Digital competence assessment and quality teaching ................................................... 76 

3.1.3 Vocational education and training ........................................................................... 78 

3.1.4 Higher education ...................................................................................................... 80 

3.1.5 Adult learning .......................................................................................................... 84 

3.2 The role of informatics ............................................................................................... 89 

Key competences and pedagogical approach ............................................................... 90 

Informatics in formal education .................................................................................... 91 

Addressing the gender and representation gaps in informatics .................................... 92 

Teachers in Informatics................................................................................................. 94 

3.3 Structural challenges and emerging needs .................................................................. 95 

Annex 1: Procedural information......................................................................................... 97 

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report ......................................................... 100 

Annex 3: Thematic analysis in support of the Staff Working Document ....................... 114 

Annex 4: Glossary and list of abbreviations/acronyms .................................................... 200 

Annex 5: Literature and sources ........................................................................................ 210 

2 

 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

This Staff Working Document accompanies the proposals for a Council Recommendation on 
training  and  a  Council 
the  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital  education  and 
Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training.  

In 2020, the European Commission adopted the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-20271 
setting out a long-term approach and vision for high quality, inclusive and accessible digital 
education in Europe. The Action Plan is a key enabler of the European Education Area2 and it 
contributes  to  Europe’s  recovery  and  resilience  strategy  in  the  aftermath  of  the  COVID-19 
crisis. It is in line with the Commission’s broader priority A Europe fit for the Digital Age3 and 
Next Generation EU4 (with its centrepiece the Recovery and Resilience Facility5 ), which aims 
to  create a  greener, more digital  and resilient European Union, better fit  for the current  and 
forthcoming  challenges. Its  actions  contribute  to  achieving  the  goals  of  the European  Skills 
Agenda6, the European Social Pillar Action Plan7 and the 2030 Digital Compass: the European 
way for the Digital Decade8. 

Calling  for  greater  cooperation  at  European  level  to  address  common  challenges  and 
opportunities,  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  set  out  two  strategic  priorities  for  digital 
education and skills in Europe:  

  Fostering the development of a high-performing digital education ecosystem;  
  Enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation.    

Digital education is instrumental for learners to acquire the skills they need to thrive in today’s 
world and for Europe to become a global leader in the digital transformation. With this aim, the 
Digital Decade sets ambitious targets and objectives for Europe’s digital transformation 
by 2030. As shown in Figure 1, they include four key pillars: skills, infrastructure, business and 
government.  

1 Communication accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027, Resetting education and training for the 
digital age, COM(2020) 624 final. 

2 European Education Area explained | European Education Area (europa.eu) 

3 A Europe fit for the digital age (europa.eu) 

4 Recovery plan for Europe (europa.eu) 

5 Recovery and Resilience Facility (europa.eu) 

6 European Skills Agenda - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission (europa.eu) 

7 The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan (europa.eu) 

8 Europe’s Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 (europa.eu) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: The four pillars of the Digital Decade 

Infrastructures and skills are particularly important for education and training systems. On 
one side, the availability of connectivity (e.g. Gigabit for everyone) has a strong impact on the 
ability of education and training institutions to use digital technology in teaching and learning. 
On the other, digital skills are essential to address the needs of Europe’s society and economy, 
as well as to facilitate the efficient and meaningful application of technology in teaching and 
learning. In particular, the Digital Decade9 targets aim at ensuring that 80% of adults have at 
least basic digital skills and that 20 million ICT specialists are in employment in the EU by 
2030. Of these, women should represent a significant proportion to reach gender balance in the 
long-term.  These  are  complemented  by  a  target  set  in  the  European  Education  Area10  of 
reducing the share of low-achieving eight-graders in computer and information literacy to less 
than 15% by 2030.  

The achievement of these targets requires efforts at all levels and by all education and training 
sectors.  Considering  the  work  ahead,  in  the  context  of  the  Council  Conclusions  on  digital 
education in Europe’s knowledge societies11, Member States invited the Commission to launch 
a strategic reflection process on the digital transformation of education and training systems. In 
the 2021 State of the Union address, Commission President von der Leyen had stressed that 
that digital education and skills need leaders’ attention, and launched a Structured Dialogue 
to support Member States with an integrated, coherent and more ambitious approach. As part 
of this process, bilateral meetings with 27 Member States took place from April to November 
2022, bringing together different Commission services, and representatives of different sectors 
of government, as well as the private sector, social partners and civil society, in each country.  

The  Structured  Dialogue  established  a  useful  platform  to  discuss  with  Member  States  the 
current state of play regarding digital education and skills, existing and emerging challenges, 
as  well  as  possible  solutions  to  advance  the  delivery  on  Europe’s  ambitious  targets  and 
objectives. As part of the process, Member States nominated their representatives for the High-
Level Group of National Coordinators for the Structured Dialogue on Digital Education and 

9 Communication accompanying the 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade, COM (2021) 118 
final. 

10 Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European 
Education Area and beyond (2021-2030) 2021/C 66/01. 

11 Council conclusions on digital education in Europe’s knowledge societies, 2020/C 415/10. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Skills, reflecting a whole-of-government approach, with the mandate to represent the relevant 
departments in their countries responsible for different aspects of digital education, training and 
skills (including education, labour, digital, industry and finance).  

In  their  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  (RRPs),  Member  States  have  allocated  EUR  130 
billion to measures supporting the digital transformation – 26% of the total allocation of plans. 
Of this amount, EUR 16.5 billion is dedicated to improving connectivity and almost EUR 23 
billion to digital education and digital skills development12. Implementation of the RRPs is now 
of utmost importance.  

The  two  proposals  for  Council  Recommendations,  which  are  underpinned  by  the  present 
Staff Working Document, build on the outcomes and lessons learned through  the Structured 
Dialogue13,  and  aim  to  support  Member  States  in  the  implementation  of  reforms  and 
investments included in their national Recovery and Resilience Plans.  

The Council Recommendation on the enabling factors for successful digital education and 
training  addresses  the  first  priority  of  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  (e.g.  fostering  the 
development  of  a  high-performing  digital  education  ecosystem).  Its  objective  is  to  support 
Member  States  in  the  digital  transformation  of  their  education  and  training  systems  by 
addressing key factors such as investments in connectivity, infrastructure, content, and other 
capabilities as well as  related policy reforms which are decisive for ensuring access  to  high 
quality and inclusive digital education.  

The Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills  in education 
and  training  responds  to  the  second  priority  of  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  (e.g. 
enhancing  digital  skills  and  competences  for  the  digital  transformation).  It  aims  to  support 
Member States in addressing common challenges related to digital skills and the ability of their 
education and training systems to support their provision.  

The two initiatives are separate but complementary. The Council Recommendation on the 
enabling  factors  for  successful  digital  education  and  training  is  focused  on  human  capital 
development, infrastructure and connectivity, and promotes a whole-of-government approach 
to digital education, as essential pre-conditions for the digital transformation in education and 
training. The Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education 
and training specifically looks at the educational offer of digital skills at all levels (e.g. basic, 
advanced and specialist skills) and for all groups of the population (e.g. young people, adults 
and  professionals).  It  sets  out  measures,  complementary  to  the  ones  of  the  former  Council 
Recommendation,  addressing  all  sectors  and  levels  of  education  and  training  and  aiming  to 
strengthen digital skills development in a lifelong learning perspective.  

Both Council Recommendations address the competences of teachers and training staff, 
but from a distinct  angle.  While the Council Recommendation on the  enabling  factors for 
successful digital education and training addresses all teachers and training staff and refers to 
their  ability  to  apply  digital  pedagogy  (e.g.  the  knowledge  and  skills  needed  to  use  digital 

12 The figures in this paragraph are calculated using Annex VII of the RRF Regulation. 

13 For further details see Annex 3 of this Staff Working Document. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
technology in a purposeful way in teaching and learning),  the Council Recommendation on the 
provision  of  digital  skills  in  education  and  training  specifically  looks  at  the  availability  and 
needs of specialised teachers and training staff, namely of those who have the responsibility to 
teach students digital skills through specialised content and subjects as for instance informatics. 

The  present  Staff  Working  Document  is  divided  in  two  main  parts  addressing  the  two 
proposals for Council Recommendations.  

The document presents a synthesis and analysis of the evidence collected from the most recent 
available literature, studies and reports as well as through stakeholder consultations that have 
taken place during the preparation of both initiatives. Due to the low frequency of international 
data collection on digital education and skills, much of the quantitative evidence presented in 
the document stems from pre-COVID-19 studies. To account for the developments of the last 
several years, it is complemented by evidence from more recent reports on smaller samples, as 
well as the rich qualitative evidence collected through the Structured Dialogue. The scarcity of 
regular new data in this highly dynamic and fast-evolving field highlights the need for a more 
systematic  approach.  Five  annexes  complement  the  main  document  and provide:  further 
information  on  the  development  of  the  two  initiatives  (Annex  1);  stakeholder  feedback  and 
views (Annex 2); a report of the Joint Research Centre providing an in-depth analysis of the 
outcomes of the Structured Dialogue, of Member States’ plans for investments and reforms in 
digital education and skills through the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and of stakeholder 
feedback in response to the Call for Evidence of both initiatives (Annex 3); a glossary of key 
terms (Annex 4); references and main sources (Annex 5).  Unless otherwise stated, references 
to  analyses  of  the  Structured  Dialogues,  the  national  recovery  and  resilience  plans  and 
submissions  to  the  Calls  for  Evidence  refer  to  analyses  in  the  report  in  Annex  3  of  this 
document. 

Structured Dialogue with Member States on digital education and skills 

The Structured Dialogue was a process of exchange on digital education and skills between the 
European  Commission  and  the  Member  States  which  ran  during  2022.  The  dialogue  was 
conceived  and  implemented  in  a  transversal  whole-of-government  approach,  involving  the 
different  concerned  departments  of  governments  in  Member  States,  with  the  objective  of 
supporting Member States in the digital transformation of their education and training systems 
in an integrated, coherent and more ambitious approach, by sharing experiences and lessons 
learned, successes, good practices and challenges. 

Interaction with the Member States took place through meetings of the High-Level Group of 
National Coordinators for the Structured Dialogue on Digital Education and Skills, discussions 
in relevant Council formations, and individual bilateral meetings with all Member States. These 
bilateral meetings included representatives of different sectors of government relevant to digital 
education and skills policies (education, digitalisation, labour, finances), as well as the private 
sector, social partners and civil society, with the aim of bringing together the different strands 
of policy and making the most of the synergies between the different policy fields.  

The  discussions  covered  all  topics  of  relevance  to  digital  education  and  skills  in  a  lifelong 
perspective.  A  summary  of  the  key  findings  stemming  from  the  discussions  is  presented 

6 

 
 
below14, grouped according to the themes of the two Council Recommendations. The findings 
are referenced throughout the Staff Working Document whenever relevant, and a more in-depth 
analysis is presented in Annex 3. 

Findings from the Structured Dialogue concerning enabling factors for digital education 
and training 

Infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment  are  being  prioritised  across  a  large  majority  of 
Member States. Emerging trends, building on the learnings of the pandemic were that: large-
scale  investment  in  devices  is  taking  place;  there  is  ongoing,  substantial  investment  in 
improving  connectivity;  and  specific  measures  targeted  at  disadvantaged  learners  in  formal 
education settings commonly include the provision of free devices. There are variations within 
Member States in levels of connectivity/coverage. Two main challenges emerged with respect 
to  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment:  a  majority  of  Member  States  do  not  yet  have 
systems to track the use of digital equipment in education settings; and a few MS expressed 
concerns about the maintenance of connectivity, equipment and devices (in terms of lack of 
human 
schools, 
refurbishment/recycling,  and  in  obtaining  Finance  Ministry  support  for  investment  in 
connectivity for schools). 

and  maintenance 

to  provide 

resources 

technical 

support 

to 

Member  States  are  making  significant  efforts  to  support  their  digital  education  ecosystems 
through a range of digital content, tools and platforms, many building on work that began with 
the onset of the pandemic. An emerging trend is the development of integrated platforms that 
provide educators and students with a single entry point. Three key concerns were raised in the 
SD discussions: challenges for schools and other educational institutions to meet General Data 
Protection  Regulation  (GDPR)  obligations;  complex  interoperability  and  legacy  platform 
system challenges; and matching the pace of technological change with updated teaching and 
learning content and tools. 

Almost  all  Member  States  described  implementing  multiple  networking  and  collaborative 
initiatives  to  support  an  enabling  ecosystem  for  digital  education.  An  emerging  trend  is  a 
dedicated  digital  education  support  role  for  schools,  includes  both  technical  support  and 
maintenance as well as digital pedagogy and strategic planning elements.  

Many Member States are in the process of implementing Continuous Professional Development 
(CPD) on a large scale, building on the learnings from the pandemic, and frequently combining 
both digital skills training for educators with enhancing their digital pedagogical competences. 
Some  gaps  are  apparent:  while  participation  in  CPD  is  monitored  in  a  majority  of  Member 
States, there was much less focus on its impact. CPD programmes for education leaders were 
mentioned in some SD discussions but were less widespread than CPD for teachers, and the 
focus  on  CPD  generally  was  at  the  primary  and  secondary  levels  rather  than  Vocational 
Education  and  Training  and  Higher  Education.  Further,  in  some  Structured  Dialogue 
discussions, it was felt that solutions were needed to address low or varied teacher motivation 

14 The thematic analysis was prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and is based on presentations 
prepared by each Member State for the bilateral meetings and the notes of discussions that took place during the meetings. 
All  findings  are  presented  in  a  synthesised  format  reflecting  common  trends,  without  identifying  any  Member  State 
individually. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
to  engage  in  CPD  and  to  strengthen  digital  leadership  in  school  management.  Where  Initial 
Teacher  Education  (ITE)  was  discussed,  most  indicated  that  ITE  included  a  mandatory 
component on digital pedagogies. Challenges in relation to ITE and CPD were discussed in 17 
Structured  Dialogue  meetings,  frequently  in  relation  to  the  broader  issue  of  teacher  supply. 
Some Member States commented on a perceived mismatch between the training offer and the 
needs  of  educators.  This  could  be  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  many  Member  States  do  not 
currently have a fully-developed system to assess or monitor teachers’ skills and skills needs 
(although  several  Member  States  reported  positively  on  the  European  Commission’s  self-
assessment tools for schools and educators, SELFIE and SELFIEforTEACHERS). It was noted 
that  Higher  Education  Institutions  (HEIs),  the  primary  source  of  ITE  courses,  are  relatively 
autonomous. 

Over half of Member States (14) expressed concerns about the digital divide (in particular in 
reaching vulnerable groups), recognising it as an issue with multiple causes and manifestations. 
Member States’ authorities expressed a need for more support in effectively designing targeted 
investments  to  foster  equity  and  equality  in  digital  education,  as  well  as  in  monitoring  the 
impact and effectiveness of such efforts.   

While all Member States expressed an awareness of the importance of monitoring, evaluating 
and assessing enabling factors, Member States are at different stages of doing so: monitoring 
systems  are  well-developed  in  only  a  small  number  of  Member  States,  while  many  have  a 
fragmented or ad-hoc approach to monitoring. It was common for Member States to describe 
challenges  in  achieving  an  integrated  and  systematic  approach  to  monitoring  the  digital 
education ecosystem.  

A  clear  emerging  trend  is  the  adoption  by  a  large  number  of  Member  States  of  whole-of-
government  approaches  to  digital  education  and  digital  skills  policy  development  and 
implementation.  However,  a  majority  of  Member  States  found  these  co-ordination  efforts 
challenging  across  government  departments,  across  levels  of  government  (e.g.  national-
regional), and with different stakeholders, particularly at the implementation and monitoring 
phases. Many Member States have multiple national strategy and policy documents relating to 
digital education, which could be both a symptom and a cause of challenges in implementing 
whole-of-government approaches. 

Another emerging trend was the recent increase in EdTech activities, and many Member States 
officials recognised the potential of working with the EdTech industry to further improve or 
enhance  digital  educational  infrastructure,  tools  and  content.  Concern  or  uncertainty  was 
expressed in some Structured Dialogue meetings in relation to managing regulatory and data 
privacy aspects of the EdTech industry and/or the influence that EdTech may have on education 
systems. 

Key areas for which advice or support from the EU is needed were: research and gathering of 
evidence in relation to enabling factors; funding supports for infrastructure and connectivity; 
and  technical  and  operational  advice  or  support  concerning  data  privacy,  interoperability  of 
digital education platforms and updating of (digital) pedagogical content and tools.  

8 

 
 
Member States also sought more opportunities to exchange best practices with one another in 
a range of areas including reaching remote and vulnerable groups; engaging educators in CPD; 
digital  content  and  solutions  for  digital  pedagogies;  the  use  of  digital  education  tools  and 
frameworks such as SELFIE and DigComp; models for the provision of technical support to 
schools; and sharing of solutions to technical challenges (e.g. interoperability). 

The Structured Dialogue discussions included calls for the European Commission to strengthen 
its co-ordination and regulatory activities in a range areas, including awareness-raising and use 
of  common  language/terminology  and  standards  in  digital  education;  further  alignment  and 
connections of various initiatives within and across EU institutions; stimulation of partnerships 
between EdTech and public sector organisations; regulation of the EdTech industry; regulations 
and support concerning interoperability; monitoring Higher Education digitalisation strategies; 
data privacy policy consolidation; and alignment in the use of the European Digital Competence 
framework  (DigComp).  Member  States’  representatives  also  sought  ways  to  improve 
networking between EU countries on enabling factors themes and priorities. 

Findings from the Structured Dialogue concerning digital skills 

Digital skills initiatives outside of formal education settings was the most frequently referenced 
topic in the Structured Dialogue discussions. The focus was on delivering training to the desired 
group(s) rather than on monitoring the outcomes and impacts of these initiatives. In a majority 
of  Member  States,  digital  skills  training  offerings  were  perceived  to  be  insufficient  to  meet 
current  needs,  both  for  general  training  and  for  ICT  specialists,  with  some  tension  between 
investing  in  advanced  digital  skills  and  digital  skills  for  all.  A  majority  of  Member  States 
expressed concerns about the shortage of ICT specialists. Some Member States reported that 
engaging  adults  in  digital  skills  training  was  challenging.  Upskilling  and  reskilling  of  SME 
employees was seen to be more of a challenge in Member States where large percentages of the 
workforce were employed in SMEs.   

Recent and current curricular reforms were referenced by about two-thirds of Member States. 
There  is  considerable  variation  across  Member  States  in  the  positioning  of  digital  skills  in 
national  curricula  and,  overall,  a  low  emphasis  on  the  assessment  of  learners’  digital  skills. 
There is  an emerging  trend to  teach digital  competence both  transversally and as  a separate 
subject.  There  is  also  an  emergence  of  teaching  and  learning  informatics  at  upper  primary 
and/or lower secondary levels, commonly as a separate, core subject.  

In  Higher  Education,  there  is  more  of  a  focus  on  the  development  of  programmes  to  teach 
specialist  and  advanced  digital  skills  than  on  general  digital  skills,  although  about  half  of 
Member States reported implementing combined skills programmes (generalist-specialist). A 
strong emerging theme in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector is a focus on 
aligning and reforming VET curricula to labour market demand, with digital skills playing a 
major role in these efforts. To tackle the ICT skills shortage, Member States are implementing 
a  variety  of  initiatives  in  Higher  Education  and  VET,  including  more  course  places,  and/or 
shorter or more flexible courses, many of these supported by microcredentials development. 
Many Member States sought solutions to the labour market ‘pull’ on ICT students and identified 
competition  between  these  courses  and  those  for  ICT  teachers.  Some  Member  States  are 

9 

 
 
implementing ICT profession visa schemes and/or schemes to attract students from overseas as 
part of their efforts to tackle ICT specialist shortages.   

Several Member States reported difficulties in achieving sustained engagement of teachers and 
educators in CPD (which is exacerbated by teacher shortages in several MS); implementing and 
assessing  learning  targets  in  a  transversal  approach;  and  various  challenges  associated  with 
curricular reform.  

A clear trend in the provision of CPD and ITE in digital skills is the widespread use of online 
training at a large scale, building on the experiences of the pandemic. The general trend in ITE 
is towards the inclusion of digital skills as a core part of preparatory courses. The link between 
the  digital  skills  acquired  during  ITE  and  how  to  sustain  this  with  CPD  was  absent  from 
Structured Dialogue discussions, and the discussions did not provide much information on the 
expected  impacts  of  teacher  professional  development.  In  Member  States  where  CPD  was 
optional, there were more challenges in engaging the teaching profession, and the training offer 
tended to be more fragmented.  

One of the two dominant themes in equity and inclusion aspects of digital skills provision was 
women in ICT. The widespread concerns about the insufficient number of ICT graduates was 
viewed  in  some  of  the  Structured  Dialogue  meetings  as  an  opportunity  to  further  prioritise 
bringing more women into the profession. In this respect, various initiatives were described, 
but  these tended not  to  be accompanied by information  on their impact,  and systematic and 
comprehensive  programmes  were  not  widespread.  The  second  theme  was  digital  inclusion, 
which covered a range of targeted skilling, reskilling and upskilling initiatives. However, it was 
not  commonplace  for  Member  States  to  refer  specifically  to  individuals  with  disabilities  or 
special educational needs. A key challenge in equitable provision of digital skills raised during 
the  Structured  Dialogue  discussions  is  the  level  of  human  resources  required  to  engage 
meaningfully at local levels with the target communities. 

Monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision was, consistently with enabling factors, 
viewed  as  generally  challenging.  Several  trends  in  this  area  emerged  from  the  Structured 
Dialogue discussions: skills accreditation in VET; developing the use of microcredentials in 
Higher Education and VET; and interest in digital skills certification. Challenges in this area, 
in addition to those already identified under enabling factors, are related to scaling up successful 
initiatives;  complexity  in  developing  microcredentials  and  digital  skills  certifications; 
measurement and monitoring of teachers’ digital skills; accurate digital skills forecasting; and 
general complexity associated with impact assessment. 

Research and data in relation to digital skills provision were concentrated in the employment 
sector,  where  a  range  of  data  sources  and  methodologies  were  being  implemented  for 
forecasting. The key challenge in this area was the timely availability of appropriate data for 
digital  skills  forecasting.  Regarding  innovation,  many  Member  States  referenced  digital 
innovation hubs, and several are implementing initiatives to promote AI skills or other emerging 
and advanced technologies, often through the creation of new partnerships (for example across 
education institutions and between education and industry sectors). 

10 

 
 
Member States mentioned that they would welcome additional EU support on the following 
topics: A majority sought further opportunities to exchange learning and good practices in a 
range of areas, including engaging with hard-to-reach groups; increasing the share of women 
in  ICT;  developing  data-driven  policies;  responding  to  rapidly  evolving  skills  needs;  and 
guidance on the development of public-private partnerships. 

Member States also sought further opportunities for exchange with the European Commission 
and/or  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  Commission  to  support  the  co-ordination  of  activities  of 
Member States in a range of areas. These included the co-ordination of efforts to address digital 
skills  gaps;  support  for  multi-country  projects  on  digital  skills  provision;  evaluation  of 
digitalisation and digital skills provision  initiatives;   clarity  in  the relationships between the 
various  EU-level  digital  skills  bodies,  initiatives,  and  funding  instruments;  technical  and 
operational support for the adoption and monitoring of digital skills microcredentials; support 
for awareness-raising on digital skills, in particular among employer groups; support for the 
implementation of impact assessment; and strategies to tackle the gender gap in ICT.  

To  support  their  efforts,  Member  States  also  requested  support  at  the  EU  level  for  the 
development of (objective, psychometrically sound) digital assessment tools for general and 
specific populations; tools for the monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision, and also 
provided  suggestions  for  further  development  of  digital  skills  frameworks.  Member  States 
called  for  further  research  and  analysis  in  two  areas,  specifically:  supply  and  demand 
forecasting of digital skills, and digital skills provision mapping across formal and non-formal 
education and training systems. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
PART I: ENABLING FACTORS FOR DIGITAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

1. Enabling factors: an overview of terms and origins 

Over  the  past  decades,  there  have  been  many  initiatives  and  large  investments  aimed  at 
increasing  the  use  of  digital  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning  and  reducing  the 
administrative  burden  for  educators.  Despite  overall  progress  and  various  examples  of 
innovation,  Europe  has  not  yet  seen  a  systematic  digital  transformation  in  education  and 
training. This has become starkly evident during the COVID-19 crisis, when EU countries had 
to rely in many cases on ad-hoc solutions to ensure the continuity of education and training. 
These included the use of commercial videoconferencing platforms for delivering classes, free 
distribution of digital devices to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, setting up informal 
online digital training courses for teachers, etc.15.  

It has long been recognised that the digital transformation has the potential to support education 
and training not only by making it more resilient in times of crisis but also by enhancing its 
overall accessibility, quality and inclusiveness. This is reflected in the first strategic priority of 
the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-202716, which aims at fostering the development of a 
high-performing  digital  education  ecosystem.  The  reference  to  ecosystem  clearly  shows  the 
need  for  integration  of  several  diverse  but  inter-related  elements  which  are  at  the  core  of 
successful  digital  education,  such  as  infrastructure,  teachers’  professional  development, 
governance arrangements and targeted policies. These building blocks, which are referred as 
“enabling  factors”  are  essential  for  ensuring  high-quality,  accessible  and  inclusive  digital 
education  and  training.  They  stress  the  need  for  purposeful  and  meaningful  use  of  digital 
technologies with a view to create more and better opportunities for everyone in the digital age.  

The first list of enabling factors was provided in the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 
and complemented in the Council Conclusions on digital education in Europe’s knowledge 
societies17.  This  list  included  elements  such  as  infrastructure,  know-how  on  digitalisation, 
dialogue with stakeholders and teachers’ skills. The first part of the Staff Working Document 
(SWD) expands on the initial list, grouping the enabling factors into two categories: capacity 
for digital education and training and digital education and training policy.   

More specifically, it starts by outlining the digital education infrastructure and institutional and 
human  capacities  which  are  the  prerequisites  for  the  development  of  a  digital  education 
ecosystem. While these elements on their own cannot guarantee a structural transformation of 
education and training systems, as noted by the Council they are “the basis for the successful 
implementation  of  digital  education  and  a  prerequisite”  for  such  a  transformation.  The  next 
section  focuses  on  digital  education  policy  development,  implementation,  monitoring  and 
evaluation.  It  emphasises  the  vital  role  of  effective  planning  of  digital  strategies  and 

15 Cachia, R., Velicu, A., Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R. and Vuorikari, R. (2021). Emergency remote schooling during COVID-

19, EUR 30866 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

16  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. 

17 Council Conclusions on digital education in Europe’s knowledge societies, 2020/C 415/10. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
frameworks, and discusses what is needed in order to make the best use of existing capacities 
in a meaningful way. 

Each section presents the current state of play of the issues as well as available evidence on 
successful approaches to addressing them.  

2. Capacity for digital education and training in European countries 

2.1. Digital education infrastructure  

Connectivity and digital equipment 

The level of equity in access to digital technology impacts the degree of effectiveness of 
digital education policies. Evidence from the OECD's Programme for  International Student 
Assessment  (PISA)  shows  that  countries  whose  schools  are  better  equipped  with  sufficient 
digital educational material, such as digital equipment and textbooks, tend to perform better on 
tests  of  15-year-olds’  ability  to  use  their  reading,  mathematics  and  science  knowledge  and 
skills18.  Moreover,  integration  of  digital  technologies  in  educational  institutions  acts  as  an 
impetus for teachers to design innovative teaching that could enhance student learning, while 
at  the  same  time  a  high-speed  internet  connection  either  via  mobile/fixed  networks  or 
communication  satellites  is  crucial  to  the  implementation  of  digital  learning  activities, 
facilitation  of  student-teacher  digital  interaction  and  the  interoperability  of  systems19. 
Connectivity can be a contributing factor to better learning outcomes20 and especially in higher 
education it can prove beneficial in supporting online learning21. By extension, access to digital 
equipment and the internet constitute fundamental prerequisites towards the provision of 
effective and inclusive digital education22. 

However, these prerequisites have not yet been fully met in education and training systems 
across the EU. The latest systematic data collection across Europe on this, conducted during 
the  school  year  2017-2018,  showed  that  the  share  of  students  who  attended  highly  digitally 
equipped and connected schools varied greatly across countries and education levels, ranging 
from 35% in primary, 52% in lower-secondary to 72% in upper-secondary schools and being 
most advanced in the Nordic countries23. Experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic show that 
the situation has not progressed to a sufficient extent since then. Research has shown that the 
lack of appropriate digital equipment both in schools and households hindered the continuity 

18 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

19  OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

20  Sanchis-Guarner,  R.,  Montalbán,  J.,  &  Weinhardt,  F.  (2021).  Home  Broadband  and  Human  Capital  Formation.  SSRN 

Electronic Journal.  

21 Skinner, B. (2019). Making the Connection: Broadband Access and Online Course Enrollment at Public Open Admissions 

Institutions. Research in Higher Education, 60(7): 960-999. 

22 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

23 European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2019). 2nd Survey of 

Schools: ICT in Education. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
of some students’ learning during the pandemic24. According to the feedback received in the 
Open  Public  Consultation  (2020)25  on  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027, 
insufficient infrastructure is one of the two26 most considerable challenges for digital education 
in Europe. Almost half (49.5%27) of the responding education and training institutions pointed 
to  insufficient  connectivity  as  a  major  hindrance.  The  lack  of  digital  devices  suitable  for 
distance and online learning was reported by 34.3% of educators and 33.8%28 of education and 
training staff, with the rate going up to 58.2%29 for education and training institutions. These 
views  were  confirmed  by  stakeholders  in  the  consultations  organised  by  the  European 
Commission in 2022 and position papers submitted in response to the Call for Evidence (CfE) 
on the enabling factors for successful digital education. Moreover, in the Structured Dialogue 
with  Member  States,  “infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment”  was  one  of  the  two  main 
topics most often referred as a main challenge to digital education and training.  

The  mere  availability  of  an  internet  connection  does  not  always  mean  a  quality  high-
enough  to  significantly  support  the  learning  process.  There  is  a  considerable  quality  gap 
between a slow and high-speed and reliable connection30. Data from the school year 2017-2018 
reveal that a high-speed Internet connection (above 100 mbps) was available in schools only 
for a small number of students (11%, 17% and 18% for ISCED level 1, 2 and 3 respectively), 
with even less availability for students in rural areas (8% across all ISCED levels)31. Details on 
the  internet  speed  of  schools  across  all  ISCED  levels  and  according  to  different  sizes  of 
residential areas can be found in Figure 2. Similarly, the share of students attending schools 
with  a  Wireless  LAN  connection  differed  across  the  EU  countries  (46%,  52%  and  67%  for 
ISCED level 1, 2 and 3, respectively)32. 

24 Cachia, R., Velicu, A., Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R. and Vuorikari, R. (2021). Emergency remote schooling during COVID-

19, EUR 30866 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

25 Open Public Consultation of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. See Annex 2 for further details. 

26 Respondents to the Open Public Consultation came from 60 different countries, but due to Romania’s overrepresentation, 
the analysis was conducted using two samples, all respondents (“All countries”) and all respondents excluding those from 
Romania (“Without RO”). 42.4% in the sample of ‘All countries’ and 49.6% ‘Without RO’ of the respondents ranked 
insufficient infrastructure and internet at school/campus and outside as the second greatest challenge for digital education 
in Europe, while social inequalities between learners was ranked first with 45.5% (in the sample of ‘All countries’ and 
53.8% ‘Without RO’). 

27 49.5% in the sample ‘All countries’ and 51.6% in the sample ‘Without RO’ 

28 33.8% in the sample ‘All countries’ and 32.3% in the sample ‘Without RO’ 

29 58.2% in the sample ‘All countries’ and 56.3% in the sample ‘Without RO’ 

30 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

31 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. 

32 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
Figure  2:  Internet  speed  according  to  location  of  schools  (All  ISCED  levels,  in  %  of 
students, EU level, 2017-18) 

D
E
C
S

I

D
E
C
S

I

D
E
C
S

I

1

2

3

C I T Y   O F   1 5 , 0 0 0   C I T I Z E N S   O R   A B O V E

8%

8%

12%

36%

23%

13%

V I L L A G E   /   S M A L L   C I T Y   B E L O W   1 5 , 0 0 0

18%

15%

18%

C I T Y   O F   1 5 , 0 0 0   C I T I Z E N S   O R   A B O V E

V I L L A G E   /   S M A L L   C I T Y   B E L O W   1 5 , 0 0 0

3%
7%

10%

13%

21%

13%

20%

C I T Y   O F   1 5 , 0 0 0   C I T I Z E N S   O R   A B O V E

8%

19%

21%

31%

24%

49%

V I L L A G E   /   S M A L L   C I T Y   B E L O W   1 5 , 0 0 0

4%

5%

12%

20%

51%

20%

8%

22%

28%

8%

21%

8%

144 kbps to less than 2 mpbs

2mbps to less than 5mbps

5mbps to less than 10mbps

10mbps to less 30mbps

30mbps to less than 100 mbps More than 100mbps

Source: 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education33  

When it comes to higher education, for most EU Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), National 
Research  and Education Networks (NRENs) are the sole providers of high-capacity internet 
connection34, while also supporting them with other services, such as cloud storage and Virtual 
Learning Environments (VLEs). 

With respect to access to digital devices at school level, it is estimated that in 2018 there 
was  an  average  number  of  18  students  per  computer  at  ISCED  level  1,  and  7  and  8 
students per computer at ISCED levels 2 and 3 respectively35. The availability of school 
computers with internet connection for teachers varies across countries36. During the COVID-
19 pandemic, a survey of teachers run on the School Education Gateway showed that the biggest 
challenge in switching to online or distance learning was the access to technology (computers, 
software,  stable  internet  connection,  etc.),  not  only  by  pupils  (mentioned  by  49.2%  of 
respondents), but also by teachers (34.3% of respondents)37. As a consequence, approximately 
50% of high-income and upper-middle income countries provided ICT tools and free Internet 
connectivity to teachers during the crisis38.  

In addition, there is still a significant share of European students who attend schools with 
digital equipment that is not highly operational. While available data varies largely across 
countries,  the  variability  in  the  quality  of  digital  equipment  is  a  common  challenge.  More 

33 Ibid. 

34  Géant  (2020).  Compendium  of  National  Research  and  Education  Networks  in  Europe  -  2020.  Retrieved  from 

https://about.geant.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Compendium_FINAL2.pdf  

35 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. 

36  OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

37  School  Education  Gateway 

(2020).  Survey  on  online  and  distance 

learning  –  Results,  Available  at 

https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/viewpoints/surveys/survey-on-online-teaching.htm  

38 UNICEF (2020). What have we learnt? Overview of findings from a survey of ministries of education on national responses 

to COVID-19. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
specifically, in 2018, only 61% of ISCED level 1 students, 65% of ISCED level 2 and 73% of 
ISCED  level  3  attended  schools  where  more  than  90%  of  their  digital  equipment  was 
operational39. Additionally, PISA 2018 results on the level of adequacy of digital technologies 
at the schools of 15-year-old students as perceived by their principals40 (see Figure 3) show 
wide variations across EU countries in relation to ensuring access to properly equipped digital 
devices both in terms of hardware and software. Top OECD performers are also included in the 
figure for purposes of comparison. 

Figure 3:  Adequacy  of  digital  technologies  and  availability  of  qualified  technical 
assistance staff in schools 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Slovenia

EU average

Sweden

Slovenia

EU average

New Zealand

Luxembourg

New Zealand

Denmark

Norway

EU average

EU average

Denmark

EU average

EU average

Germany

Portugal

Greece

Portugal

Luxembourg

Greece

The availability of
adequate software
is sufficient

An effective online
learning support
platform is
available

The school has
sufficient qualified
technical assistance
staff

Number of digital
devices
connected to the
Internet is sufficient

Number of digital
devices for
instruction is
sufficient

Digital devices at
the school are
sufficiently powerful
in terms of
computing capacity

EU range

EU average

EU minimum

EU maximum

OECD maximum

Source: OECD analysis based on PISA 201841  

Raising the availability of digital infrastructure has been at the forefront of most digital 
strategies in OECD countries, including EU Member States42. For many countries in Europe 
investments in infrastructure constitute a specific objective of their digital education strategy43. 

39 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. 

40  OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

41 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

42 OECD (2020). Digital strategies in education - Exploring education policies on digital technologies. 

43 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. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Structured  Dialogue  and  the  national  recovery  and  resilience  plans  show44  that  this 
continues to be the case: for the period until 2026 unprecedented investments have been planned 
by  Member  States  with  the  support  of  EU  and  national  funds;  around  a  total  of  EUR  16.5 
billion45 is dedicated for investments in providing and enhancing their overall connectivity46 
through the national plans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)47 . Many Member 
States also plan large-scale investment in devices for pupils.  

However, the extent to which countries prioritise their most recent investments in digital 
education infrastructure depends on their starting point48. The Structured Dialogue showed 
that investments in infrastructure, connectivity and equipment tended to be more widespread 
among Member States with less well-developed digital education ecosystems. A few Member 
States have already solved the connectivity issue, while for others, with pronounced geographic, 
economic and demographic discrepancies, it remains a significant  challenge.  Looking at  the 
persisting  needs  in  digital  infrastructure,  stakeholders’  contributions  point  to  the  need  for 
further investments in this area. 

A special focus on underprivileged communities (those without or with slow connectivity) 
was mentioned as  a priority by most Member  States in the Structured Dialogue. Other 
actions  that  have  already  been  implemented  involve  providing  education  and  training 
institutions with targeted funding to improve their connectivity levels as well as supporting the 
connectivity of schools located in remote areas where commercial investment is less likely to 
be  provided49.  Some  countries  have  exploited  the  already  existing  infrastructure  capacity  in 
higher education to help improve the connectivity of other educational sectors. For example, in 
cases where National Research and Education Networks are the main connectivity providers 
for HEIs, schools and vocational education and training (VET) institutions tend to also benefit 
from the already installed capacity to cover their needs50. 

Investments in bridging digital equipment gaps are also set to continue in most Member 
States under the national recovery and resilience plans, but the specificities of how this is 
achieved  vary.  During  the  Structured  Dialogue  a  few  Member  States  indicated  concrete 
student-device ratio targets they would like to achieve, while a small number of EU countries 
appear to have already met their targets in this regard. A general trend is the provision of one 
device  per  student  from  upper  primary  level  onwards  and  one  device  for  every  four  or  five 
students among  younger grade levels. While some countries prefer to provide or subsidise a 
portable digital device for each student, another common practice is leveraging students’ own 

44 Thematic analyses of national recovery and resilience plans on digital skills and education and adult learning and skills: 

Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard (europa.eu) 

45 The amount is calculated using Annex VII of the RRF Regulation. 

46 European Commission (2022). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 - Digital Infrastructure.  

47 Recovery and Resilience Facility 

48 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

49 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

50 Ibid.  

17 

 
 
                                                           
personal  digital  devices  through  the  Bring  Your  Own  Device  (BYOD)  strategy51.  However, 
concerns related to the quality of students’ own devices give rise to issues of equity, privacy 
and  security.  Additionally,  the  effectiveness  of  this  strategy  may  be  limited  due  to 
interoperability  issues  that  may  arise  by  the  use  of  a  variety  of  digital  technologies  in  an 
institution52.  There  are  also  cases  where  institutions  have  used  a  combination  of  the  two 
approaches, allowing the use of school or district devices together with the BYOD strategy53. 
Besides  the  provision  of  digital  devices  to  students,  catering  for  teachers’  access  to  digital 
equipment  is  also  essential54,  with  many  Member  States  referring  during  the  Structured 
Dialogue to investments in devices for teachers. 

Capital  investments  (Capex)  in  digital  technologies  are  however  not  sufficient,  as  they 
must be accompanied by continuous operational expenditure (Opex) for maintenance and 
upgrading55. A few Member States express concerns about the maintenance of connectivity, 
equipment and devices (in terms of lack of human resources to provide technical support and 
maintenance to schools, refurbishment/recycling, and in obtaining Finance Ministry support for 
investment in connectivity for schools), with some of them highlighting the need to incorporate 
device and equipment refurbishment and recycling in digital education infrastructure planning. 
The  introduction  of  new  software  or  equipment  demanding  higher  connectivity  or  device 
capacity  often  requires  additional  investments  for  upgrading  the  existing  infrastructure56. 
Anticipation  of  maintenance,  upgrading  and  other  investment  needs  could  prove  beneficial, 
allowing  solutions  to  take  place  before  future  shortcomings  emerge.  A  cost-benefit  analysis 
would also set the ground for more successful investments and distribution of digital equipment 
to educational institutions57. Stakeholders consider that such costs are not always sufficiently 
well considered in EU funding programmes in support of digital education infrastructure.  

Against this backdrop, representatives of both the private and the formal education sector 
in  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultations  (2022)  emphasised  the  importance  of  the 
continuity  of  investments  in  digital  education.  This  is  confirmed  by  academic  literature, 
which stresses that a long-term perspective should permeate any digital infrastructure related 
programme,  and  that  the  free  provision  of  connectivity  and  equipment  only  for  a  restricted 
period of time, as was the case in a number of countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, can 
prove problematic in the sense of requiring families to pay for this service after the emergency 
period is over58.  

51 Ibid.  

52 Ibid. 

53 Ibid. 

54 Ibid. 

55 Ibid. 

56 Ibid. 

57 Ibid. 

58 Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance 

education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2): 107–114. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
The establishment of  monitoring mechanisms is also crucial. In the Structured Dialogue, 
several  Member  States  pointed  to  difficulties  in  gathering  systematic  data  on  devices  and 
equipment  available in  schools, thus  making planning of future impactful  investments  more 
difficult.  Maintaining  a  database  with  the  available  digital  technologies  would  enable  better 
understanding  of  digital  divides  and  better-informed  policy  development  to  address  them59. 
Additionally, as the Structured Dialogue showed, while some Member States have (or are in 
the process of developing) systems in place to track infrastructural investments in educational 
institutions, several noted a lack of a national or regional system to track the use of equipment.  

As regards higher education institutions, the Commission Expert Group on quality investment 
in education and training stressed in its final report that recent investments on innovative digital 
infrastructure that took place in response to the pandemic should be regularly monitored and 
evaluated in terms of their impact and effectiveness on educational outcomes60.  

Digital education content, platforms and tools 

Respondents to the public consultation (2020) rated  digital resources and materials and 
digital platforms and tools as the third and fourth most essential elements in the provision 
of digital education. In the school year 2017–2018 only about half of lower-secondary school 
students in Europe had access to a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) at school (54%), with 
the figure standing at 32% for primary and 65% for upper-secondary students61. A few years 
later,  although  it  can  be  assumed  that  VLEs  have  become  more  widespread,  educators  who 
responded to the 2020 public consultation still found the lack of easy-to-use digital platforms 
to be a problematic aspect, hindering teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
This is not surprising given that during the pandemic most countries had to rely at least to a 
certain extent on ad hoc solutions, such as the use of commercial videoconferencing platforms 
for delivering classes. Respondents (of the various stakeholder groups) reported that although 
available digital environments for online collaboration were satisfactory, they still presented 
large limitations, as they were not tailored to the educational needs62. With regard to higher 
education, several Member States raised concerns during the Structured Dialogue that HEIs are 
not yet integrating digital content and tools sufficiently to fully exploit their potential. It is not 
fully clear how representative this is, given that HEIs enjoy greater autonomy than lower levels 
of education, and were thus less frequently examined in the Structured Dialogue discussions by 
central authorities.  

59 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

60  European  Commission  (2022).  Investing  in  our  future:  quality  investment  in  education  and  training,  Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

61 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. 

62 Also see: Cachia, R., Velicu, A., Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R. and Vuorikari, R. (2021). Emergency remote schooling during 

COVID-19, EUR 30866 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
Educational  systems  in  Europe  have  developed  policies  towards  the  improvement  of 
availability and development of digital  learning resources63. Recurring examples of such 
efforts from the Structured Dialogue include: 

  development of new digital teaching and learning content and tools, and/or 

digitalisation of teaching and learning materials; 

  open education resources as well as platforms that give access to digital educational 

content, remote/blended teaching and learning platforms, and platforms that facilitate 
schools’ day-to-day administrative and communication activities;  

 

 

investments fostering interoperability of systems; 

teaching and learning content/tools for emerging technologies such as artificial 
intelligence, the Internet of Things, and big data analytics. 

Although  digital  education  content  is  widely  available,  the  lack  of  mechanisms  to 
guarantee its quality and appropriateness is a reason for educators’ hesitance to use it. 
Digital content that is “relevant and of high quality” was identified by respondents to the public 
consultation  (2020)  as  the  third  most  important  aspect64  “related  to  the  usefulness  of  online 
resources and content”, while it was ranked first by digital technology providers. However, the 
available content is  often not  in  line with  teachers’  needs. EdTech providers are not  always 
aligned with what could be meaningful and beneficial to teachers and students in practice65.  
Digital education content that has the consideration of end-users at the core of its development 
and is tailored to specific learning needs can be more effective in the learning process66. The 
involvement of end-users in the design is thus a critical factor for the development of digital 
education resources that can potentially be impactful67.  

Lack  of  contextualisation  and  language  barriers  are  aspects  that  could  limit  the 
accessibility  and  use  of  digital  education  content  by  educational  institutions.  Digital 
learning  resources  adapted  to  local  contexts  and  available  in  different  languages  are  not 
common68. UNESCO’s report on the digital transformation of education69 underlines that in the 
development  of  digital  education  content  the  local  context  and  language  of  the  educational 
settings and their surrounding communities should be taken into account. It also suggests that 

63 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

64 Digital content that is “interactive and user-friendly” ranked first, and content that is responsive to “the need to develop skills 

further and the needs of the labour market” ranked second. 

65 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Weber, H, Elsner, A. Wolf, D., Rohs, M. & Turner-Cmuchal, 
M. (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 

66  UNESCO (2020). The digital transformation of education: Connecting Schools, Empowering Learners. Geneva: Broadband 

Commission for Sustainable Development. 

67 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Weber, H, Elsner, A. Wolf, D., Rohs, M. & Turner-Cmuchal, 

M.  (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 

68 UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

69 UNESCO (2020). The digital transformation of education: connecting schools, empowering learners. Geneva: Broadband 
Commission for Sustainable Development. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
local EdTech providers should be involved in the identification of high-quality digital education 
content, enabling them to internalise quality and build on it70.  

Quality assurance needs to take a central place when it comes to policy considerations on 
digital education content. A number of European educational systems have already focused 
their  efforts  on  ensuring  the  quality  of  digital  learning  resources,  while  a  few  have  adopted 
policies including the development of specific quality standards71. The use of “quality labels” 
is identified by stakeholders as one way to ensure quality in digital learning resources, however 
this entails the development of “common quality standards”72.  

In parallel, the use of digital learning environments is often accompanied by concerns on 
privacy and security risks. Such concerns were expressed in stakeholders’ submissions to the 
CfE, as well as by participants of the 2022 targeted consultations. The significance of securing 
transparency in the products developed by digital technology providers was highlighted by a 
range of stakeholders. The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 
the EU has significantly increased the threshold for accountability in the processing of data73, 
however  its  implementation  has  likely  varied  across  Member  States74.  In  this  regard,  the 
literature points to the need for governments to take systematic actions with regard to concerns 
on privacy protection specific to the digital learning environments, e.g. ensuring that content 
providers are mindful of data privacy and promoting learners’ awareness  of their rights75  76. 
Data privacy and security were amongst the issues discussed during the Structured Dialogue 
and for which Member States ask for support at EU level, echoing also  the calls of the CfE 
submissions. 

Interoperability is highlighted as particularly important for effectively operating existing 
different  digital  tools  and  systems.    During  the  pandemic,  many  countries  had  either 
developed  dedicated  national  online  platforms77  or  helped  to  consolidate  existing  learning 
management  systems  and platforms, in  an  attempt to  support the tremendous changeover to 
online and remote education. This switch highlighted the barriers in exchange of information 
between  the  numerous  technological  solutions  in  use  (such  as  school  information  and 
administration  systems,  virtual  exchange  platforms,  learning  management  systems,  and 
learning record store systems), especially in areas like identity management, sharing learning 

70 Ibid. 

71 European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2019).  Digital Education  at School  in  Europe.  Eurydice  Report.  Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

72 Engelhardt, K. (2021). The future of school beyond COVID-19, 2020-21 Brussels: European Schoolnet. 

73 OECD (2020). Protecting children online: An overview of recent developments in legal frameworks and policies, OECD 

Digital Economy Papers, 295, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

74 Ruohonen, J. and Hjerppe, K. (2022). The GDPR enforcement fines at glance, Information Systems, 106, 101876. 

75 Kardefelt-Winther, D., Day, E., Berman, G., Witting, S.K., and Bose, A., on behalf of UNICEF’s cross-divisional task force 
on child online protection (2020). Encryption, Privacy and Children’s Right to Protection from Harm. Innocenti Working Paper 
2020-14. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. 

76  Hillman,  V.  (2022).  Bringing  in  the  technological,  ethical,  educational  and  social-structural  for  a  new  education  data 
governance, Learning, Media and Technology. 

77 Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance 

education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. 

21 

 
 
                                                           
records,  and  course  exchange.  Such  challenges  were  highlighted  by  Member  States  in  the 
Structured Dialogue, and several countries also sought EU-level support in overcoming them; 
aligning with the calls of stakeholders responding to the CfE. 

The Structured Dialogue showed that significant efforts and investments are being made 
by  Member  States  to  achieve  interoperable  education  systems,  in  order  to  enhance  the 
usability of relevant services, as well as the accessibility and sustainability of data and content 
available on these platforms. Interoperability challenges (caused by longstanding factors and 
dynamics such as the reliance on proprietary and/or outdated siloed systems, lack of uniform 
data standards, and fragmentation in the marketplace) are now being centrally considered, for 
instance by national frameworks (like the Référentiel général d'interopérabilité in France78) or 
common open standards. As regards the latter, central authorities can encourage educational 
institutions to adhere to open standards and include interoperability as a central criterion in the 
upgrading of their technological systems. For instance, external evaluations of schools and HEIs 
could include criteria on interoperability and alignment to open standards79. Governments can 
also  play  a  strong  role  in  facilitating  knowledge-sharing  on  the  significance  of  open 
technologies, as well as to support the development of platforms for institutional exchanges on 
relevant good practices80. 

Finally,  education  systems  need  to  be  ready  to  adapt  and  respond  to  disruptive 
technologies,  such  as  generative  artificial  intelligence  and  other  emerging  technologies, 
which  quickly  enter  learners’  environments,  with  the  potential  risks  this  entails. 
Generative AI systems (e.g. large language models) are information technology systems, either 
software or hardware based, that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment 
and taking actions - with some degree of autonomy - to achieve specific different purposes. To 
benefit  from  the  ground-breaking  potential  and  large-scale  impact  of  such  emerging  digital 
tools, educational systems need to take into account the implications  that their misuse could 
potentially entail. 

Digital divide 

Social inequalities between learners were identified as the most significant challenge for 
digital education in Europe among the  respondents of the public consultation  (2020)81. 
PISA 2018 results indicate gaps in the availability and adequacy of digital technologies between 
students from advantaged and disadvantaged schools, with more shortages being reported by 
principals  of  disadvantaged  schools82.  Discrepancies  across  and  within  European  countries 
during  the  pandemic  in  relation  to  learners’  digital  competences  and  accessibility  to  digital 
technologies, meant that a large part of the European student population – including learners 
from remote areas, students with a low socio-economic status, as well as migrant and refugee 

78  Référentiel général d'interopérabilité (RGI) 

79 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

80 Ibid. 

81 45.5% in the sample of ‘All countries’ and 53.8% ‘Without RO’ 

82 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
learners – was at risk of exclusion from distance learning83. This was also indicated by a study84 
based on EU data and conducted in the context of the RESISTIRÉ project85, which showed that 
students with a lower socio-economic status were less likely to have access to online learning. 
A  correlation  between  the  level  of  income  and  access  to  the  internet  and  digital  devices  is 
illustrated by Eurostat data86  87, indicating a lower access to digital tools and the internet by 
disadvantaged learners in comparison to their peers. At the same time, the pandemic revealed 
the inadequacy of education systems to cater for the needs of some learners with disabilities, as 
the digital tools that would allow their access to education were not available to them88. 

Before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  ‘digital’  dimension  was  not  explicitly  included  in 
measures promoting inclusive education, while at the same time equity and inclusion often 
constituted implicit objectives within digital strategies89. The equity challenges that were 
highlighted  by  the  onset  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  brought  the  digital  divide  into  the 
foreground, functioning as a trigger for many Member States to develop initiatives specifically 
targeting  the  digital  inclusion  of  vulnerable  groups  of  learners,  including  for  example  the 
provision  of  digital  equipment  to  pupils  in  need90.  Most  Member  States  in  the  Structured 
Dialogue referenced recent investments in devices for students during the pandemic, providing 
either free or subsidised devices (occasionally these being accompanied by free or subsidised 
connectivity). The development of tailored educational programmes and supports designed to 
promote digital inclusion of priority groups was also mentioned. However, not much is known 
about the outcomes and impacts of such efforts. Overall, Member States widely expressed their 
concerns  for  tackling  the  digital  divide  among  learners  and  promoting  inclusion  in  their 
countries. 

Education policymakers show an increasing attention to the provision of digital tools that 
enhance  access  to  education  for  students  with  special  educational  needs91.  Stakeholders 
responding to the CfE placed a strong emphasis on accessibility, raising also concerns about 
the  inclusion  of  disadvantaged  students.  Accessible  digital  technologies  in  line  with  the 

83  European  Commission  (2021).  Enhancing  Learning  Through  Digital  Tools  and  Practices:  How  Digital  Technology  in 

Compulsory Education Can Help Promote Inclusion. 

84 Stovell, C., Lionello, L., Rossetti, F., Charafeddine, R., Nugent, S., Still, A.,Tanwar & J., Tzanakou, C. (2022) RESISTIRE 

D3.2 - Summary report on mapping quantitative indicators – cycle 2. Zenodo.  

85 Resistire  

86  European  Commission  (2021).  Enhancing  Learning  Through  Digital  Tools  and  Practices:  How  Digital  Technology  in 

Compulsory Education Can Help Promote Inclusion. 

87 Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Dinis Mota Da Costa, P., Karpinski, Z. and Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on 
education:  Reflections  based  on  the  existing  literature  and  recent  international  datasets,  EUR  30275  EN.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

88    European  Commission  (2021).  Enhancing  Learning  Through  Digital  Tools  and  Practices:  How  Digital  Technology  in 

Compulsory Education Can Help Promote Inclusion. 

89 Ibid. 

90 Ibid. 

91 Ibid. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
Harmonised  European  Standards92  could  largely  facilitate  the  learning  of  students  with 
disabilities,  while  emerging  technologies  could  provide  further  opportunities  for  more 
personalised  learning  tailored  to  the  individual  needs  of  students.  For  example,  assistive 
technologies can facilitate access to education for learners with diverse and/or complex learning 
needs, while artificial intelligence and robotics can support customised learning and provide 
immersive  learning  opportunities93.  User-adapted  digital  education  resources  can  further 
facilitate the learning of vulnerable groups of learners94. 

Inclusive education can also be supported by e-learning, open education and MOOCs that 
can  provide  learning  opportunities  for  pupils  with  limited  access  to  education  due  to 
physical, geographical or cultural barriers95. Another way to support inclusivity in education 
is through the use of learning analytics which allow a real-time collection and analysis of data 
that  could  be  used  to  improve  students’  learning96  by  making  it  more  personalised  and 
enhancing learners’ engagement97. Learning analytics can facilitate the diagnosis of needs as 
well  as  the  planning  of  targeted  interventions  in  educational  settings,  and  thus  potentially 
promoting equity in learning98. Moreover, the Commission is expanding the scope of the EU-
funded  Safer  Internet  Centres99  to  impart  digital  skills,  in  particular  digital  literacy,  also  to 
vulnerable groups of children. 

While  assistive  and  accessible  technologies  have  the  potential  to  enhance  the  learning 
process, there is no systematic data on their availability, making it difficult to have a clear 
picture of the remaining shortages nor their current impact on the inclusion and learning 
outcomes of learners with special needs. Moreover, in the Structured Dialogue only a few 
Member States mentioned investments in assistive technologies, signalling a potential need for 
further prioritisation and co-ordination in integrating such technologies in education.  

2.2. Institutional and human capacity 

Institutional strategies, evaluation and support 

92 Harmonised European Standard EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03) Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services - 
defined in line with the WAD Implementing Decision Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1339 of 11 August 
2021  amending  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/2048  as  regards  the  harmonised  standard  for  websites  and  mobile 
applications, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2021/1339/oj 

93  European  Commission  (2021).  Enhancing  Learning  Through  Digital  Tools  and  Practices:  How  Digital  Technology  in 

Compulsory Education Can Help Promote Inclusion. 

94 Ibid. 

95 Ibid. 

96  European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Weber, H, Elsner, A. Wolf, D., Rohs, M. & Turner-Cmuchal, 

M.  (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 

97 Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2022). Smart Education Technology: How It Might Transform Teaching (and Learning). New England 
Journal of Public Policy: 34(1): 5. 

98 Ibid. 

99 Digital Strategy Safer Internet Centres 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
Available  evidence  shows  that  infrastructural  improvements  are  not  always  integrated 
and pedagogically used by schools across Europe100. Data from 2017-2018 indicated a low 
use of computers at schools, with one fifth of European ISCED level 2 students and one quarter 
of ISCED level 3 never or almost never101 using a computer for learning102. Only about half of 
ISCED level 2 and 3 students (52% and 59%, respectively) used a computer at least once a 
week. With regards to the use of Internet, 68% and 73% of students at ISCED level 2 and 3 
respectively used the Internet at school at least once a week. In parallel, PISA 2018 results show 
considerable disparities between countries in terms of the capacity of their schools to use digital 
technologies for teaching, while sometimes  gaps were  also  present  between advantaged and 
disadvantaged schools103. There is no recent large-scale study on the use of digital technologies 
in educational institutions at European or international level. Moreover, the literature reviewed 
does not provide much insight into the quality of teaching and learning when digital devices are 
used, failing to show consistent relationships between computer access, usage and educational 
outcomes. 

The lack of planning and vision for integrating digital technologies was found in the 2020 
public consultation to be one of the most significant challenges for digital education in 
Europe.  As  shown  by  the  International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  (ICILS), 
teachers in schools that followed a collaborative approach to digital education were more likely 
to integrate digital technologies in their practice104. A whole-school approach can therefore be 
considered essential towards promoting innovative teaching and learning practices105 that can 
have a lasting impact106. Stakeholders of the targeted consultations (2022) highlighted the need 
for such an approach through the development of school digital strategies that could facilitate 
the promotion of digital education in schools. 

Pre-pandemic data show that only  about one third of students across  all ISCED levels 
attended schools with written statements on the use of digital technologies for learning107. 
The development of a school digital plan was a requirement only in a few educational systems 
in Europe, while in a few cases school digital plans were encouraged through the provision of 

100 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

101 As reported for the last three months prior to the survey. 

102 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. 

103 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

104 European Commission (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS): 

Main findings and implications for education policies in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

105 Cachia R., Ferrari A., Ala-Mutka K., Punie Y. (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. 

106 Ilomäki, L. and Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: Innovative digital school 
25. 

Technology 

Enhanced 

Learning 

and 

13, 

in 

model. 
https://telrp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41039-018-0094-8   

Research 

Practice 

107 31 % of ISCED level 1 students, 34 % of ISCED level 2 and 30 % of ISCED level 3 

25 

 
 
                                                           
incentives,  such  as  funds  for  digital  infrastructure108.  More  recent  evidence109  indicates  that 
there has been no major change in such requirements in recent years110, while in the Structured 
Dialogue only a number of Member States mentioned the introduction of digital work plans in 
schools.  

The use of the available digital technologies has not reached its full potential in higher 
education  either,  although  Higher  Education  Institutions  (HEIs)  have  an  overall  more 
advanced  digital  infrastructure  than  institutions  of  other  educational  sectors111.  Higher 
education educators’ age, role and discipline are parameters that affect the use of ICT in their 
teaching. Lack of time and support from their institutions are other factors that educators also 
find as limiting the use of digital technologies112. Practices that require more advanced digital 
pedagogical  capacity,  as  for  example  using  digital  tools  for  collaborative  or  personalised 
learning  and  simulation-based  learning,  are  less  used113.  The  fact  that  HEIs  across  OECD 
countries  have  a  high  degree  of  autonomy,  means  that  the  level  of  their  digital  maturity  is 
subject to the priorities and decisions of their leadership114, limiting the possibility of central 
authorities  to  steer  HEIs’  digital  education  policy.  However,  central  authorities  can  still 
incentivise and act as a driving force for HEIs in terms of their prioritisation and planning for 
digital maturity115. Further actions can be taken in terms of the professional development of 
academics as well (see section on “teachers’ pedagogy skills”). 

Evaluation at an institutional level can also play a key role in further enhancing the use 
of digital technologies in schools. Assessment of the level of their “digital maturity”, including 
the extent to  which leaders and teachers, as well as students, have the ability to  use  ICT in 
teaching and learning processes, can inform the implementation of digital education, assist with 
the  identification  of  gaps  and,  thus,  maximise  impact.  Towards  this  end,  the  European 
Commission has developed a competence framework for citizens (DigComp116), for schools 

108 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

109  European  Commission  (2022).  Education  and  Training  Monitor  2022.  Comparative  report.  Luxembourg:  Publications 

Office of the European Union. 

110 The  establishment  of  a  school  digital  plan  is  a  top-level  requirement  in  only  four  countries  (Ireland,  France,  Italy,  and 
Portugal) and in another five countries (Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Austria) it is included in the school 
development plan. 

111 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

112 Ibid. 

113 Martin, F., Polly, D., Coles, S., & Wang, C. (2020). Examining higher education faculty use of current digital technologies: 
importance, competence, and motivation. 

114 Marshall, S. (2018), Shaping the university of the future: using technology to catalyse change in university learning and 
teaching, Springer. 

115 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 
OECD. 

116 DigComp  

26 

 
 
                                                           
(DigCompOrg117) and one for educators (DigCompEdu118). At the same time, collecting the 
views  and  concerns  of  stakeholders  could  also  bring  to  light  different  needs  and  challenges 
inhibiting the use of technologies, as well as provide useful information on the types of support 
needed both at institutional and human capacity level119. 

A number of education systems in the EU encourage schools to assess their digital capacity 
as part of their internal self-evaluation, supporting them in the process120. Indicatively, in 
2018-2019, the use of self-assessment tools for the evaluation of teachers’ digital competences 
was promoted by 15 European education systems 121, while the use of self-assessment tools by 
schools (e.g. SELFIE122) or teachers (e.g. SELFIEforTEACHERS123) was present in about half 
of the Member States in the Structured Dialogue. Their use was also indicated as a supporting 
measure  to  facilitate  schools’  digitalisation  by  the  stakeholders  who  took  part  in  the  2022 
targeted  consultations.  SELFIE  is  an  example  of  a  self-reflection  tool,  developed  by  the 
European Commission, which can be used by schools for the evaluation of their digital capacity. 
As regards the VET sector, over the last years, a new module on work-based learning has been 
developed as part of the SELFIE tool (SELFIE WBL), that helps bring VET institutions and 
companies closer together to discuss how to achieve a smart integration of digitalisation into 
work-based learning. 

The selection of appropriate tools, data privacy and cybersecurity are additional issues in 
relation to which education institutions need support. To ensure that students are provided 
with high quality digital education, educational institutions need to be supported in selecting 
digital solutions that are tailored to their needs and have the potential to purposefully support 
teaching and learning124. Even in decentralised systems where educational institutions select 
their digital resources themselves and decide on how to use them, top-level authorities can still 
support them, for instance by offering access to centrally developed tools or providing guidance 
on the safe use of digital technologies in school125. During the Structured Dialogue Member 
States raised concerns about the ability of schools and other educational institutions to meet 
GDPR126 obligations (considering the large amounts of data that stand under the responsibility 

117 DigCompOrg Framework 

118 DigCompEdu 

119 Ganimian, A., Vegas E. and Hess F. (2020). Realizing the Promise: How Can Education Technology Improve Learning for 

All?, Washington: The Brookings Institution. 

120 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

121 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

122 SELFIE 

123 SELFIE for TEACHERS | European Education Area (europa.eu) 

124 UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

125 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

126 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 

persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data  

27 

 
 
                                                           
of  schools  as  “data  controllers”)  and  to  ensure  cybersecurity  of  their  systems  and  users 
(particularly in the light of recent trends towards cloud-based and integrated tools and services). 
These are areas for which support at the level of the EU is sought. Currently, systems operate 
in an unpredictable manner, with Member States taking ad hoc measures such as the ban of 
certain  applications  for  education  in  Germany127  or  in  France128.  Some  stakeholders  in  the 
private  sector  therefore  call  for  increasing  trust  and  transparency  in  digital  education  by 
“whitelisting” digital education products and services at EU level,  based on quality, privacy 
and security criteria. 

Supporting learners’ digital well-being emerged as an area of concern in both the CfE 
submissions  and  the  Structured  Dialogue  discussions.  Some  respondents  to  the  CfE 
highlighted the need to raise young people’s awareness on potential harmful effects of the use 
of technology. In the Structured Dialogue, a few Member States cited examples of initiatives 
designed to promote safe and healthy use of digital technologies or address cyberbullying, while 
expressing their concerns about  the digital well-being of students. These concerns suggest  a 
need for a more co-ordinated approach to digital well-being across EU educational systems. 
The recently adopted Council Conclusions on supporting well-being in digital education129 call 
for Member States to strengthen learners’ and educators’ well-being when designing national 
policies  and  strategies  in  digital  education,  raise  learners’  and  educators’  awareness  of  the 
potential risks in the digital world and support schools in the promotion of digital well-being.  

Leadership and non-teaching staff 

Effective leadership constitutes an essential parameter in boosting institutional capacity 
to  integrate  digital  technologies,  next  to  the  availability  of  digital  infrastructure  and  the 
establishment  of  policies  directing  the  digitalisation  process130.  Teachers’  attitudes  towards 
digital education constitute a significant indicator of the application of digital technologies in 
teaching and learning131. The cultivation of positive attitudes that would motivate teachers to 
integrate  digital  technologies  in  their  practice  requires  a  cultural  change  in  schools,  which 
entails  communicating clearly the significance of  ICT integration, prioritising inclusiveness, 
facilitating the use of ICT by creating space for this purpose in the daily activities, as well as 
provision of training132. In this process, school leadership plays a crucial role.  

Representatives of the formal education sector in the targeted stakeholder consultations 
(2022)  called  for  additional  support  for  headmasters,  to  ensure  that  they  gain  the 

127 Skelton Klovig, S (30 November 2022) Microsoft 365 banned in German Schools over privacy concerns. Retrieved from 
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252527842/Microsoft-365-banned-in-German-schools-over-privacy-concerns  

128  Kundaliya,  D.  (21  November  2022)  France  bans  Office  365  and  Google  Workspace  in  schools.  Retrieved  from 

https://www.computing.co.uk/news/4060509/france-bans-office-365-google-workspace-schools  

129 Council conclusions on supporting well-being in digital education, 2022 O.J. (C 469/04). 

130 Costa, P., Castaño-Muñoz, J. and Kampylis, P. (2021). Capturing schools’ digital capacity: Psychometric analyses of the 

SELFIE self-reflection tool. 

131 Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013).  Under which conditions does ICT have a 

positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(1), 4-14.   

132 National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). (2009). Using digital technologies to promote inclusive practices 

in education.  

28 

 
 
                                                           
necessary  skills  to  promote  digital  education  in  their  schools.  In  2018  only  one  third  of 
European education systems included explicitly in their national strategies specific measures 
towards the training of school leaders133. The Structured Dialogue showed that even four years 
later only a few Member States were implementing programmes specifically targeted at school 
or  institutional  leaders  to  enable  them  to  support  the  digital  transformation  of  their  school, 
placing an overall lower emphasis on training provision to school leaders relative to teachers. 

Moreover, inadequate pedagogical and technical support for teaching staff is perceived 
by teachers as a significant obstacle to the incorporation of digital technologies in teaching 
and learning134. Teachers’ feedback135 highlighted insufficient awareness, lack of the required 
knowledge,  skills  and  confidence,  and  difficulty  to  keep  up  to  date  with  continuous 
technological  development.  Teacher  training,  promotion  of  trustworthy  resources  and  more 
campaigns targeting parents and carers are needed. A lack of pedagogical models on how to 
use ICT for learning is also reported as another barrier. In PISA 2018, only about half of the 
principals  of  15-year-old  students  (54%)  across  OECD  countries  reported  an  adequacy  of 
qualified technical assistant staff in their schools, with the shortages being more prominent in 
disadvantaged schools136. At EU level the figures were similar (see Figure 3 of the previous 
section). At the same time, only 67% of the principals of 15-year-old students in EU countries 
found that sufficient professional resources were available to teachers to learn how to use digital 
technologies, with the figures illustrating again an average larger insufficiency in disadvantaged 
schools137. 

An emerging term used by educational systems in this regard is that of the “digital or ICT 
coordinator”. In 2018 about half of the educational systems in Europe had policies supporting 
the appointment of digital coordinators in schools138, while more recent data from the Education 
and Training Monitor 2022139 show that in only 10 EU education systems appointing digital 
coordinators  in  schools  constitutes  a  top-level  requirement140.  A  common  practice  in  the 
European  education  systems  is  to  assign  the  role  of  the  ICT  coordinator  to  ICT  teachers  or 
teachers  with  a  specialisation  in  ICT;  this  may  also  involve  the  reduction  of  their  teaching 
hours141.  The  responsibilities  of  ICT  coordinators  vary  across  Member  States  and  between 

133 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

134 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. 

135 European Commission (2022). How to make Europe’s Digital Decade fit for children and young people?: A report from the 

consultation with children and young people. European Union. 

136 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.  

137 Ibid. 

138 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

139  European  Commission  (2022).  Education  and  Training  Monitor  2022.  Comparative  report.  Luxembourg:  Publications 

Office of the European Union. 

140 The Flemish Community of Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Austria and Slovenia. 

141  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

29 

 
 
                                                           
schools of the same country, but usually they are responsible both for the provision of technical 
and pedagogical support in their school142. Many Member States in the Structured Dialogue 
recognised that such ICT support should not be limited to only including the technical aspect, 
but to also involve pedagogical guidance in the use of digital tools in teaching, learning and 
assessment and support in the development and implementation of school digital plans. The 
crucial  role  of  ICT  coordinators  was  emphasised  by  the  stakeholders  in  the  targeted 
consultations (2022), who saw space to further develop and professionalise this emerging role.  

Teachers’ digital pedagogy skills 

The positive impact of the use of digital technologies in schools is equivalent to teachers’ 
and  educators’  ability  to  integrate  them  effectively  in  the  learning  process143  and  take 
advantage of their possibilities to transform and enrich their teaching144. As the literature 
indicates, “it is not whether technology is used (or not) which makes the difference, but how 
well the technology is used to support teaching and learning”145.  

To  achieve  this  positive  impact  in  teaching  and  learning  teachers  need  to  have  the 
necessary competences and positive attitudes that would enable them to use the digital 
tools  effectively146  and  develop  “digital  pedagogies”  that  support  learning147.  According  to 
findings  from  the  International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  (ICILS),  teachers 
with  higher  confidence  about  their  capability  in  using  ICT  were  more  likely  to  support  the 
development of their students’ ICT skills than less confident teachers148  149. It is noteworthy 
that  if  not  used  appropriately,  digital  tools  may  even  cause  distraction  to  students,  and  thus 
negatively  affect  the  teaching  process150.  To  be  able  to  deploy  appropriate  pedagogical 
strategies  when  using  digital  resources,  teachers  need  to  have  sufficient  Technological 

142 The role of an ICT coordinator may involve supporting teachers in using digital tools as well as embedding them into their 
teaching, managing the school digital platforms, providing training to teaching staff, assisting in the development and 
implementation of a school digital plan, as well as the promotion of digital education activities (European Commission, 
2019b). 

143 Comi, S.,  Argentin,  G.,  Gui,  M.,  Origo,  F.  &  Pagani,  L.    (2017).  Is  it  the  way  they  use  it?  Teachers,  ICT  and  student 

achievement, Economics of Education Review, 56, 24-39. 

144  Redecker,  C.  (2017).  European  Framework  for  the  Digital  Competence  of  Educators:  DigCompEdu.  Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

145  Låg, T., & Sæle, R. G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A systematic review 

and meta-analysis. AERA open, 5(3). 

146 Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L. (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond: 
Key  Design  Principles  for  More  Effective  Policies.  Redecker,  C.,  P.  Kampylis,  M.  Bacigalupo,  Y.  Punie  (ed.). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

159  Låg, T., & Sæle, R. G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A systematic review 

and meta-analysis. AERA open, 5(3). 

148  Fraillon,  J.,  Ainley,  J.,  Schulz, W.,  Friedman,  T.  &  Gebhardt,  E.  (2014). Preparing  for  Life  in  a Digital  Age:  The  IEA 
International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  International  Report.  Heidelberg:  Springer  International 
Publishing.  

149 Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T. & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA 
International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  International  Report.  Amsterdam:  Springer  International 
Publishing. 

150 OECD (2019). How’s Life in the Digital Age? Opportunities and Risks of the Digital Transformation for People's Well-

being. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)151. The use of ICT in the educational process 
proves especially important for educators who teach students with special educational needs 
(SEN). Lack of digital skills and competences to use ICT in their teaching may weaken their 
capacity to support SEN students’ learning and inclusion. 

However, available evidence demonstrates significant shortages in European educators’ 
digital skills. PISA 2018 showed that across OECD countries on average only 65% of 15-year-
old  students  had  teachers  with  the  necessary  technical  and  pedagogical  skills  to  use  ICT  in 
teaching  and  learning152.  At  the  same  time,  the  results  of  the  2018  OECD  Teaching  and 
Learning International Study (TALIS)153 revealed that there was a significant number of EU 
teachers who resisted innovation; 72% of teachers reported that most teachers at their school 
were open to innovation. Data from the same year show that only 19% of ISCED level 1, 15% 
of ISCED level 2 and 30% of ISCED level 3 students had teachers who used digital technologies 
in more than 75% of lessons, with wide variations across EU countries154. One fifth of educators 
(20.4%)155 who responded to the public consultation (2020) reported that during the pandemic 
they had insufficient digital skills and competences. 

The lack of teachers’ skills in using ICT in the educational process is perceived by teachers 
as a significant obstacle to ‘progress in ICT in education’156. TALIS 2018 results suggested 
that provision of training is beneficial to the use of ICT in the teaching process. Teachers who 
had  received  relevant  training  or  collaborated  on  a  regular  basis  with  their  colleagues,  used 
digital technologies more frequently and had more confidence in supporting their students with 
ICT. Training is therefore an important contributing factor towards increasing the use of the 
available  digital  infrastructure  in  schools157.  The  need  to  equip  educators  and  teachers  with 
digital competences was identified by the public consultation (2020) respondents as the most 
important element  in  the provision  of digital  education, while teacher  training and  guidance 
prevailed as one of the  most pressing challenges for digital  education. The need for teacher 
training opportunities was recognised as particularly important throughout the consultations of 
2022 and in most cases it was highlighted as the top priority.  

While VET teachers are slightly more likely to use ICT than teachers in general education, 
there  remains  ample  scope  for  further  teacher  training.  In  TALIS  2018,  74%  of  upper 

151 Ulferts, H. (ed.). (2021). Teaching as a Knowledge Profession: Studying Pedagogical Knowledge across Education Systems, 

Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

152 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

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

Publishing. 

154 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. 

155 20.4% in the sample “All countries” and 18.8% in the sample “Without RO”. 

156 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

157 Gil-Flores,  J.,  J.  Rodríguez-Santero  and  Torres-Gordillo,  J.  (2017).  “Factors  that  explain  the  use  of  ICT  in  secondary-
education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure”, Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 
441-449.  

31 

 
 
                                                           
secondary VET teachers of six  OECD countries and regions  that provided available data158, 
stated  that  they  used  digital  tools  in  teaching,  while  general  education  teachers  presented  a 
lower share of 66%159. This is in line with evidence from the European Commission’s SELFIE 
tool, which indicates that VET teachers are slightly more likely to declare use of ICT in their 
teaching than general education teachers160. Despite the quite broad use of digital tools in VET 
education, about half (46%) of VET teachers of the countries and regions with available data 
highlighted  digital  skills  as  the  area  where  training  is  needed  the  most161.  For  educators  of 
higher education, although there is an evident need for training in ICT skills for teaching, the 
fact that many perceive teaching as less prestigious than conducting research162, implies that 
they have a low motivation to take part in relevant training163.  

Following the first wave of policy measures to promote digital education which prioritised 
the provision of digital infrastructure, the focus of many educational systems has turned 
to  the  development  of  digital  capacity  of  teachers164.  In  2018  digital  competences  were 
included  among  the  essential  competence  criteria  for  all  teachers  in  the  teacher  competence 
frameworks  of  about  two  thirds  of  the  European  educational  systems,  with  some  countries 
having adopted a framework specifically focusing on teacher-specific digital competences or 
standards165. In the Structured Dialogue teacher training was a central topic in discussions with 
all Member States. Most comments focused on Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Continuous 
Professional  Development  (CPD)  in  primary  and  secondary  education  levels,  while  less 
significance was attached to supporting the development of digital pedagogies for educators in 
the Higher Education or VET sectors. 

Stakeholders from the formal education sector particularly highlighted the importance of 
offering support to educators in both ITE) and CPD. The purpose is to enable them to use 
digital technologies in teaching and learning in a meaningful and efficient way. Across OECD 
countries, only 56% of lower secondary teachers who participated in TALIS 2018 were trained 
in the use of digital technologies in teaching as part of their ITE programme, with the share 
being considerably higher among teachers who more recently completed their studies. At the 
same time, only 43% felt well or very well prepared to use digital resources for teaching when 

158 In the context of the TALIS analysis VET teachers were defined as those who declared teaching practical and vocational 
skills in the year of the survey. The type of their programme or school was not considered. Data was available for Sweden, 
Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia, Canada (Alberta) and Türkiye (OECD, 2021). 

159 OECD (2021). Teachers and Leaders in Vocational Education and Training, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and 

Training. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

160 Ibid. 

161 Ibid. 

162 Blackmore, P. and Kandiko, C. (2011). Motivation in academic life: a prestige  economy, Research in Post-Compulsory 

Education, 16:4, 399-411. 

163 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

164  Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L. (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond: 
Key  Design  Principles  for  More  Effective  Policies.  Redecker,  C.,  P.  Kampylis,  M.  Bacigalupo,  Y.  Punie  (ed.). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

165 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

32 

 
 
                                                           
graduating166.  As  regards  teachers’  in-service  training,  in  TALIS  2018  lower-secondary 
teachers  classified  ICT  skills  for  teaching  as  the  second  most-needed  area  for  professional 
development167. 60% of those stated that they had received training on digital skills for teaching 
during the past year (57% across the EU), with 17.6% (of those who participated in training) 
expressing  a  high  need  for  further  professional  development  in  this  area.  Educators’ 
participation in training on digital skills and need for such training presents heterogeneity across 
OECD countries (see Figure 4)168.  

Figure 4: Teachers' participation in and need for professional development in ICT skills 
(2018) 

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

i

a
v
t
a
L

e
r
o
p
a
g
n
S

i

3
9

.

i

)
a
n
h
C
(

i

a
h
g
n
a
h
S

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

.

8
6

.

1
4
-

.

6
5
-

.

4
3
-

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z
w
e
N

i

n
a
p
S

y
l
a
t
I

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

n
e
d
e
w
S

7
4

.

.

3
6

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
e
r
o
K

.

8
0
-

.

3
4
-

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
D
C
E
O

s
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
i
n
U

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R

k
a
v
o
S

l

.

2
2
-

3
2
-
U
E

y
a
w
r
o
N

s
u
r
p
y
C

.

9
4
1

n
a
p
a
J

.

6
8
-

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
t
l
a
M

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

% teachers for whom ICT skills were included in PD
% of teachers with high level of need for PD in ICT skills (without recent PD on the subject)
% of teachers with high level of need for PD in ICT skills (with recent PD on the subject)

.

3
3

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R

h
c
e
z
C

)
K
U

(

d
n
a
g
n
E

l

)

i

m
u
g
e
B
(

l

.

m
m
o
C

h
s
i
m
e
F

l

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Notes:  Countries  and  economies  are  ranked  in  descending  order  of  the  proportion  of  teachers  that  engaged  in 
professional development activities on ICT skills for teaching in the 12 months prior to the survey; Statistically 
significant  differences  between  teachers  for  whom  ICT  skills  for  teaching  was  included  in  their  professional 
development activities and teachers for whom it was not included are shown next to the country/economy name. 
Source: OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, Table 
I.5.24169. 

Evidence  collected  through  the  Structured  Dialogue  indicates  that  Initial  Teacher 
Education  (ITE)  in  most  Member  States  includes  a  mandatory  or  core  component  on 
digital  pedagogies.  There  are  some  instances  of  Member  States  where  digital  pedagogy  is 
either non-mandatory, or its inclusion in the study programme is currently under review. ITE 
in most Member States is provided in HEIs, most of which have autonomy over their curricula 

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

Publishing. 

167 The most widely reported need for training was teaching students with special educational needs. 

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

Publishing. 

169 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and training content.  The autonomy of HEIs in defining teacher training curricula has slowed 
down the introduction of digital pedagogy skills into the initial training of teachers in several 
countries, as it cannot be centrally mandated. There is a need to further improve the ITE training 
offer in Member States and ensure its more consistent implementation with regard to digital 
pedagogies.  

Pre-Covid data (2018) showed that almost all educational systems in Europe support the 
development of teachers’ digital competences through different continuous professional 
development  activities  (see  Figure  5)170.  In  most  European  educational  systems,  a  certain 
amount of in-service training is mandatory171, however the decision on the subject matter of the 
training usually lies with the schools172. This implies that it is not obligatory for teachers to 
participate  in  training  specifically  on  improving  their  digital  skills,  if  this  is  not  a  top-level 
requirement. When it comes to educators of higher education, participation in trainings is not 
mandatory in the majority of EU countries173. In the VET sector, for 19 EU countries CPD is 
mandatory,  although  not  all  specify  the  content  of  CPD  programmes  VET  educators  are 
required to take174. 

Figure  5:  Methods  of  supporting  the  continued  development  of  teacher-specific  digital 
competences, primary and general secondary education (ISCED 1-3), 2018/19175 

Source: Eurydice report (European Commission, 2019)176 

170 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

171  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). Teaching Careers in Europe: Access, Progression and Support. Eurydice 

Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

172 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015). The Teaching Profession in Europe: Practices, Perceptions and Policies. 

Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

173 OECD (2019). Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance. Higher Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

174 Cedefop (2022). Teachers and trainers in a changing world: building up competences for inclusive, green and digitalised 
vocational education and training (VET): synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop research paper, No 
86. 

175 Only methods supported by top-level authorities are considered. 

176 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Educational  systems  offer  CPD  activities  in  different  ways,  such  as  the  provision  of 
courses  through  national  or  regional  CPD  institutions  or  the  allocation  of  funding  to 
public or private training providers177. As shown in Figure 5, educational systems combine 
different approaches in supporting the development of digital competences of teachers (i.e. CPD 
activities, teacher networks and self-assessment tools). CPD courses may be delivered either 
face-to-face  or  online,  including  Massive  Open  Online  Courses  (MOOCs).  The  content  of 
training courses may include several topics, ranging from basic ICT skills to the pedagogical 
use of digital tools in different school subjects. For example, the Commission, under the new 
European strategy for better internet for kids, is developing MOOCs for teachers for different 
age groups of pupils with lessons on media literacy, online safety and consumer risks online178.  
In  most  of  the  cases  where  digital  competences  form  part  of  the  teacher  competence 
frameworks, educational systems promote their use, while also providing CPD opportunities179. 
Some stakeholder submissions to the CfE reflected the view that professional development in 
digital pedagogies should be viewed through the broader lens of CPD more generally. 

The  Structured  Dialogue  discussions  showed  that,  building  on  the  learnings  of  the 
pandemic,  many  Member  States  have,  or  are  in  the  process  of,  implementing  CPD 
programmes for educators at a large scale, using online tools, often in combination with 
other formats (e.g. face-to-face training, digital platforms to enable collaborative exchange). 
However, CPD in VET and Higher Education received a lower focus relative to primary and 
secondary  levels,  implying  a  need  for  further  prioritisation  and  co-ordinated  approaches  to 
teacher training in those sectors. A recent report of the European Centre for the Development 
of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) outlines a variety of CPD programmes on improving the 
digital skills of VET teachers across several Member States, stressing that in the aftermath of 
the pandemic CPD on digital skills has been considered a priority180. Other relevant supporting 
efforts include increasing the attractiveness of VET teaching, improving the quality of teacher 
training provision and enhancing the pedagogical  preparedness  of VET  educators.  In higher 
education, actions that have been taken worldwide include for instance the establishment of 
national  centres  providing  programmes  and  resources  to  enhance  the  teaching  skills  of 
academics181, as well as efforts to enhance the prestige of teaching through several ways, such 
as including teaching quality in HEIs’ strategic priorities or offering awards for excellence in 
teaching182. 

177 Ibid. 

178  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Decade for children and youth: the new European strategy for a 
better internet for kids (BIK+), COM/2022/212 final. 

179 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

180 Cedefop (2022). Teachers and trainers in a changing world: building up competences for inclusive, green and digitalised 
vocational education and training (VET): synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop research paper, No 
86. 

181  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

182 Hénard, F. and Roseweare D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices. Paris: OECD 

Publishing. 

35 

 
 
                                                           
A key challenge for some Member States is the perceived mismatch between the training 
offer  and  the  needs  of  educators.  As  highlighted  during  the  Structured  Dialogue  and  the 
feedback to the CfE, there is a need to tailor digital education training to the different roles and 
skills levels of teachers. This need is further exacerbated by the fact that most Member States 
do not currently have a process in place to assess or monitor teachers’ digital pedagogical skills 
(or digital skills). While it is acknowledged by some Member States that international studies 
such as TALIS and ICILS provide valuable insights into the education system, these sources 
do not provide the required information for matching training offers to teachers’ needs. The 
development of a more comprehensive approach to the assessment of teachers’ needs would 
thus be beneficial. In parallel, CPD courses should not be limited to technical teaching skills, 
but they should also cover digital pedagogy and its adaptation to different subjects, and address 
the  specific  needs  of  students  (e.g.  use  of  assistive  technologies  for  SEN  students)183.  This 
approach can enable teachers support “learning with technology” by integrating ICT in a cross-
curricular manner, aiming at facilitating students’ learning184. They can also support “learning 
from and through technology” by using digital technologies as an information source and means 
of learning. In this way, teaching and learning is not limited to the mere use of technology to 
improve students’ digital skills (“learning about technology”)185. 

Stakeholders who responded to the CfE highlighted the need to strengthen the provision 
of  teacher  professional  development  on  digital  pedagogy.  Some  called  for  more 
investments,  while  a  few  stressed  also  the  need  to  encourage  participation  in  teacher 
training,  as  well  as  the  recognition  of  teachers’  efforts.    This  was  underlined  by  the 
stakeholders of the targeted consultations (2022) as well, suggesting the provision of incentives 
to teachers to engage in training on digital pedagogy. Incentives may include financial benefits, 
career  development,  reduction  of  teaching  hours,  prizes,  etc.186.  Other  ways  that  can  act  as 
drivers to engage in digitally enhanced teaching is through the inclusion of digital competencies 
in professional standards for teachers or certification frameworks that promote recognition of 
their skills187.  

An aspect that should be taken into account in this regard is the lack of dedicated time for 
professional development, which was also reported by the stakeholders as a discouraging 
factor for educators to engage in training. As demonstrated in PISA 2018, on average across 
OECD countries only for 60% of 15-year-old students their principal mentioned sufficient time 
of  the  school’s  teachers  for  lesson  preparation  that  includes  the  use  of  digital  tools188.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  even  though  digital  technologies  and  platforms  facilitate  some  elements  of 

183   OECD  (2023/forthcoming).  Shaping  the  future of  digital  education:  enabling  factors  for  quality,  equity  and  efficiency. 

Paris: OECD. 

184 Lloyd, M. (2005). Towards a definition of the integration of ICT in the classroom. In AARE 2005, AARE, Eds. Proceedings 

AARE '05 Education Research - Creative Dissent. Parramatta, New South Wales: Constructive Solutions. 

185 Ibid. 

186 Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013), The use of ICT in education: A 

survey of schools in Europe, European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11-27. 

187 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

188 OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
teachers’  work,  navigation  of  the  available  resources  and  planning  for  lessons  that  embrace 
digital pedagogy requires time189. This signals the importance of sufficient time allocation for 
teachers for preparing digitally-enhanced lessons.  

Literature  indicates  that  flexible  and  innovative  teacher  training  formats,  such  as  job-
shadowing, national and international staff exchanges, peer learning, and communities of 
practice, have more impact and longer-lasting effects than traditional training formats. 
The creation of communities of practice was identified as an effective way to provide support 
to teachers and encourage exchange of practices by participants of the targeted consultations 
(2022). Some teachers across Europe seem to opt for the informal learning provided by such 
communities. According to 2018 data, 41% of primary level and 29% of lower secondary level 
students had teachers who had taken part in an online community for professional development 
on ICT during the past two years190. As Figure 5 illustrates, about two-thirds of the European 
education  systems  had  already  established  teacher  networks  on  ICT  in  education.  The 
development of communities of practice can take place at different levels (i.e. European level, 
national level, regional or school level). European platforms, such as the e-Twinning191, can 
provide  a  variety  of  opportunities  for  collaboration  and  learning  across  teachers  of  Europe, 
while  national  and  regional  authorities  can  establish  teacher  networks  and  develop  national 
digital platforms for teachers (this could also be achieved through funding external institutions 
to provide those services)192. At school level, leaders could encourage the creation of in-school 
communities  of  practice  targeted  to  supporting  teachers  in  addressing  commonly  identified 
needs  for  change  and  promoting  innovation  in  the  school  environment193.  A  proactive  and 
pedagogically  skilled  leadership  is  essential  for  promoting  a  school  culture  that  stimulates 
teacher collaboration and professional development194. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Structured  Dialogue  discussions  on  teacher  training 
opportunities  in  digital  pedagogies  tended  not  to  include  references  to  their  actual  or 
expected impact, whether on teachers or students. At the same time there were not many 
references  across  Member  States  on  efforts  taken  to  ensure  continuity  of  teacher  training 
provision. Training that takes the form of single courses or courses that are provided for a short 

189 Minea-Pic, A. (2020). Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies, OECD Education Working 

Papers, No. 237. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

190 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. 

191 eTwinning 

192 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

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

Publishing. 

194 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

37 

 
 
                                                           
period of time usually have a low impact on educational outcomes195 196. This rather fragmented 
and ad-hoc nature of support for teacher learning and development may be underpinned by a 
range of factors, including the non-mandatory nature of CPD in many Member States. Similarly 
to investments in digital infrastructure, investments in teacher training should follow a forward-
looking approach in order to be impactful. 

3. Digital education policy 

3.1. Development and implementation 

Digital education and training strategies 

While efforts to date have focused on the availability of digital technologies and tools, less 
emphasis  has  been  placed  on  the  policy  framework  that  can  enable  innovation  and 
support an inclusive and effective use of digital technologies197. An upcoming report by the 
OECD  finds  that  a  strategic  vision  for  digital  education  supported  by  impact-focused 
investments, comprehensive governance and concrete policy implementation has not yet been 
fully adopted by all its member countries198. While the majority of EU countries had already 
included digital  education elements  in  their policy  orientations even prior to  the COVID-19 
pandemic199, respondents to the 2020 public consultation considered these efforts insufficient 
and underscored the need for a more strategic and consistent approach to digital education in 
Europe.  

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, less than half of EU countries had a specific strategy 
for digital education, with only little progress having been made more recently200. A lack 
of  a  strategic  focus  to  digital  education  is  evident  even  in  cases  where  digital  education 
strategies are in place.  

In light of the lessons learnt from the pandemic, as well as the strong emphasis on the 
digital  transformation  in  the  EU’s  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF),  the  digital 
dimension has recently gained greater prominence in EU Member States’ policies. The 
Structured  Dialogue  showed  that  Member  States  tend  to  have  a  high  number  of  distinct 
strategies for the digital transformation, which sometimes even include separate digitalisation 
strategies for different sectors or levels of education. An emerging trend is for countries to adopt 
overarching digital transformation strategies, which attempt to bring together all government 
efforts to promote digitalisation across sectors, e.g. in the economy, public administration and 

195  Glazerman, S.,  Isenberg,  E.,  Dolfin,  S.,  Bleeker,  M.,  Johnson,  A.,  Grider,  M.  &  Jacobus,  M.    (2010).  Impacts  of 
Comprehensive  Teacher  Induction:  Final  Results  from  a  Randomized  Controlled  Study  (NCEE  2010-4027),  US 
Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. 

196 Garet, M. S., Heppen, J. B., Walters, K., Parkinson, J., Smith, T. M., Song, M., Garrett, R., Yang, R., & Borman, G. D. 
(2016). Focusing on mathematical knowledge: The impact of content-intensive teacher professional development (NCEE 
2016-4010), U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 

197  OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. 

Paris: OECD. 

198 Ibid. 

199 Ibid.  

200 Ibid.  

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
education  and  skills.  However,  such  strategies  often  simply  provide  an  overview,  while  the 
implementation continues through specific sectoral strategies and measures, without benefitting 
from cross-sectoral collaboration and the synergies and efficiencies this could bring. Moreover, 
although broader strategies serve the purpose of better aligning digital  education with wider 
educational or societal objectives, they often address digital education in a less comprehensive 
way, overshadowing it by encompassing only some of its aspects201, for example by focussing 
only  on  digital  skills  acquisition202.  Such  an  approach  largely  restricts  the  scope  of  digital 
education, as the use of digital technologies has the potential to advance educational outcomes 
more broadly203.  

Most  commonly  digital  education  strategies  are  not  supported  by  concrete 
implementation  plans204. The  lack  of  specific  time  bound  measures  on  putting  the  broader 
objectives into practice and mechanisms for monitoring the implementation may risk limiting 
the  impact  of  policies.  Moreover,  while  data  on  the  funds  allocated  to  implementing  digital 
education  strategies  is  limited,  available  information  about  the  resources  of  broader  digital 
transformation strategies shows an inadequacy of funding mechanisms for the majority205.  

Finally, it is commonplace that countries that had introduced digital education strategies 
prior  to  the  pandemic  have  neglected  to  renew  them  upon  their  expiration.  Regular 
revisions of the strategies should take place as naturally as technological advances to allow for 
a better alignment of the associated investments and the governmental strategic objectives206. 
In the majority of OECD countries, more advanced digital technologies (e.g. AI, Blockchain, 
etc.)  are rarely mentioned in  digital  education strategies207. The importance  of continuity  of 
reforms  and  investments  in  digital  education  was  particularly  emphasised  in  the  2022 
stakeholder consultations as well.  

Coordination across sectors and levels of government 

The planning and implementation of digital education and training strategies presents a 
new challenge in this policy field, as it necessitates collaboration and coordination with 
multiple  sectors  of  government,  most  notably  those  responsible  for  infrastructure, 
finance,  research  and  employment.  Recently,  various  organisations  have  proposed 
frameworks  aiming  to  give  policy-makers  a  blueprint  for  designing  comprehensive  digital 
education policy ecosystems. Some notable examples include the Organisation for Economic 

201 Ibid. 

202 van der Vlies, R. (2020). Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital 

technologies. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 226. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

203 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

204 van der Vlies, R. (2020). “Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital 

technologies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 226. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

205 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

206 Ibid. 

207 Ibid. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
Cooperation and Development208 and the European Training Foundation209. Such theoretical 
frameworks demonstrate the role of policy areas other than the educational sector and the need 
for coordination with them, as was also reflected in the contributions from stakeholders who 
participated in the 2022 consultations and called for a holistic approach to digital education.  

An example of such a whole-of-government approach at the European level is the High 
Level Group of National Coordinators for the Structured Dialogue on Digital Education 
and Skills. The Member State representatives nominated as national coordinators were given 
the mandate to represent the relevant departments in their countries responsible for different 
aspects of digital education, training and skills (including education, labour, digital, industry 
and  finance).  Similarly,  participants  in  the  bilateral  meetings  included  government  officials 
from  many  different  ministries  and  government  agencies  in  every  country,  and  often 
commented  that  participation  in  the  Structured  Dialogue  was  the  first  time  they  met  in  a 
structured way at the national level.  

In the Structured Dialogue, Member States also  recognised  that national,  regional  and 
local structures  that enable whole-of-government approaches should be a key factor in 
enabling the successful development and implementation of digital education policies. A 
majority of them noted that they are willing to continue using the newly established lines of 
communication  and  collaboration,  which  had  arisen  in  response  to  the  pandemic,  across 
government  and  other  levels  of  the  system,  as  well  as  with  social  and  industry  partners. 
However, while a majority of Member States recognise the importance of whole-of-government 
approaches  to  digital  education,  in  practice  such  coordination  efforts  are  experienced  as 
very challenging and frequently technically complex, in particular at the implementation 
and monitoring stages.  

Member States with regional governance structures and high levels of local autonomy also 
emphasised  coordination  challenges  across  governmental  levels.  For  instance,  some 
countries where the governance of education and training systems is devolved to the regions 
pointed  to  challenges  in  obtaining  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  overall  situation  with 
digital education, when teacher education and training is not within the responsibility of the 
central  authorities.  Decentralisation  has  incrementally  become  very  common  across  EU 
countries in the recent years; demonstrated by increased school autonomy and involvement of 
different  entities  in  the  education  governance  (e.g.  education  inspectorates,  professional 
development  organisations,  etc.),  resulting  in  “multi-level  decision-making  processes”  with 
inconsistent links among the different levels210. A strategic vision for digital education along 
with  the  corresponding  implementation  mechanisms  should  facilitate  the  distribution  of 
responsibilities  among  the  different  governmental  levels,  other  relevant  bodies  as  well  as 
educational  institutions  and  enable  cooperation  among  them211.  In  the  2022  EU  Week  of 

208 Ibid. 

209 ETF Digital Education Reform Framework 

210  Burns,  T. & Köster,  F. (2018). Educational  Research  and  Innovation  Governing  Education 

in  a  Complex 

World, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

211 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
Regions and Cities workshop on digital education and skills the need of empowering local and 
regional authorities in managing investments in digital education and skills was underlined.  

Digital education strategies across  EU countries present a lack  of explicit coordination 
mechanisms  and  distribution  of  responsibilities  among  the  different  actors  and  bodies 
involved  in  the  development,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  digital  education 
policies212. In cases where digital education is included in broader digital strategies, allocation 
and coordination of responsibilities is likely to be more fragmented213. It is a common practice 
for countries to assign such responsibilities to a digital affairs ministry or body, while there are 
fewer  cases  where  the  responsibility  is  allocated  to  an  above-ministerial  body  with  a  better 
capacity in coordinating policies214. As regards the implementation of digital education policies, 
evidence  from  2018-2019  indicates  that  many  European  countries  had  assigned  this 
responsibility to an agency outside the ministry of education or had established for this purpose 
a new external agency215. 

Involvement of stakeholders 

In  addition  to  different  parts  of  government,  the  development  of  meaningful  digital 
solutions  and  their  widespread  adoption  greatly  depend  on  the  involvement  of,  and 
ownership  by,  many  relevant  stakeholders.  As  the  European  Commission’s  Digital 
Education  Action  Plan  stresses,  promotion  of  a  high-quality  and  inclusive  digital  education 
requires an ecosystem approach, involving a collective effort of actors across all governmental 
levels, education and training institutions, and the private and public sector216. The need for a 
well-functioning and inclusive digital education ecosystem that would ensure cooperation at 
different levels also received wide recognition across all groups of stakeholders of the 2022 
consultations.  

In the Structured Dialogue, actions and initiatives that incorporated engagement between 
actors in the digital education ecosystem appeared in about one-third of topic instances 
and across all Member States, reflecting widespread engagement practices at various levels 
(practices  are  not  limited  to  the  decision-making  processes).  A  majority  of  those  related  to 
engagement among public actors within the education and employment sectors, very frequently 
with stakeholders (including trade unions, teacher representative bodies and inclusion actors) 
on issues relating to digital education, and in some cases, such as the higher education sector, 
cross-institutional engagement on digital education enablers (e.g. interoperability). Some noted 
the development of national or regional forums to facilitate discussion and share learning across 
digital  education  issues.  However,  a  number  of  Member  States  highlighted  challenges  in 

212 Ibid. 

213 Ibid. 

214 Gierten, D. and Lesher, M. (2022). “Assessing National Digital Strategies and their Governance”, OECD Digital Economy 

Papers, No. 234, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

215 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

216  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. 

41 

 
 
                                                           
involving all stakeholders in digital education and skills reforms, particularly in countries with 
regional governance arrangements.  

Social partners, as representatives of workers and employers have a specific role to play 
in  digital  education  and  skills.  Member  States should  further  promote  social  dialogue  and 
involve social partners in the design, implementation and evaluation of employment policies, 
including in projections and identification of training needs to develop skills intelligence. At 
the  same  time,  Public  Employment  Services  play  a  crucial  role  in  promoting  the  early 
identification  of  skills  shortages  and  trends  linked  to  growing  job  opportunities,  in  devising 
national  skills  strategies,  identifying  skills  shortages  and  job  opportunities,  and  they  are 
increasingly involved in guidance and supporting skills provision. Therefore, their involvement 
in the digital education and training decision-making is vital. 

Both research and stakeholder consultations indicate that stakeholders should be involved 
during  the  whole  policy  cycle,  from  the  policy  design  to  the  implementation  and 
monitoring phases217. Some stakeholders suggested the establishment of national mechanisms 
that would facilitate a cross-sectoral and cross-level dialogue, ensuring the involvement of the 
different governmental bodies and other stakeholders and reflecting the wide range of needs 
and priorities. Close attention should be paid to the involvement of educators in the decision-
making processes, from the policy design to the implementation stage218, fostering in this way 
ownership, as well as the involvement of the educational institutions. To ensure that provision 
of external support to educational institutions on improving their digital capacity is impactful, 
investments need to consider the actual needs they are aiming to cover (i.e. digital equipment, 
training, etc.). Educational systems should thus seek institutions’ insights on their needs when 
planning investments on digital education.  

Relationship with the private sector 

When it comes to the involvement of the private sector in the digital education ecosystem, 
many Member States in the Structured Dialogue recognised the potential of working with 
the EdTech industry to further enhance digital educational infrastructure, tools and content, 
while a small number also noted examples of successful public-private partnerships. Responses 
to the public consultation (2020) showed that ad hoc partnerships were established during the 
pandemic,  including  the  ministries  of  education  and  public  authorities,  as  well  as  private 
entities, NGOs and other organisations, with respondents expressing a willingness to continue 
working with these partners in the future. The need to promote more public-private partnerships 
was also stressed by a small number of stakeholders’ submissions to the CfE.  

Nonetheless,  concerns  were  expressed  in  the  Structured  Dialogue  discussions  by  some 
Member States in terms of managing regulatory aspects of the EdTech industry and the 
influence that EdTech may have on education systems. At the same time, the stakeholders 
of the 2022 consultations underlined the need to prevent the risk of commercialising education. 
UNESCO’s recent guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans suggests that digital 

217 Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L. (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond: 
Key  Design  Principles  for  More  Effective  Policies.  Redecker,  C.,  P.  Kampylis,  M.  Bacigalupo,  Y.  Punie  (ed.). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

218 Schleicher A. (2020). TALIS 2018, Insights and interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
solutions  should  be  assessed  on  the  basis  of  humanistic  values  and  educational  needs219. 
Governments  could  boost  quality  assurance  through  the  encouragement  of  collaboration 
between  the  education  sector  and  education  technology  providers220.  To  date  the  education 
sector has not been adequately involved in the development of digital education technologies, 
however  the  involvement  of  practitioners  would  be  beneficial  in  ensuring  a  pedagogical 
dimension221 and alignment of digital content to the real needs of learners and teachers222.  

As noted earlier, stakeholders of the targeted consultations (2022) also raised the issue of 
ensuring transparency and data protection. Similar concerns for the role of private entities 
were raised by the stakeholders’ submissions to the CfE, referring to the importance of digital 
sovereignty, data protection and data privacy. In this regard, the concepts of “privacy by design” 
and “security by design” were advocated. On the other side, representatives of the private sector 
in the 2022 consultations called for cooperation between the public and private sector, while 
recognising  the  importance  of  their  own  role  in  promoting  privacy  and  security  in  their 
products. 

 3.2. Monitoring and evaluation  

National level evidence 

In support of the education systems’ efforts to reinforce digital education, evidence-based 
policy-making  acts  as  a  catalyst  for  the  development  of  comprehensive  and  effective 
approaches223. A comprehensive monitoring and  evaluation  framework  that  is  in  alignment 
with the system’s strategic vision for digital education and training is vital to assess progress in 
the digital transformation, the effectiveness of investments, as well as the impact on educational 
outcomes, so as to identify potential challenges and adjust strategies224. In the rapidly evolving 
digital  education  domain,  regular  monitoring  and  timely  evaluation  of  policies  and  actions 
should  play  a  pivotal  role  for  the  development  of  a  high-performing  and  inclusive  digital 
education  and  training  ecosystem.  Monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment  activities  were 
widely referenced in the Structured Dialogue (in 26 of 27 Member States, covering 18% of all 
topic  instances  relating  to  enabling  factors  discussed  in  the  meetings),  reflecting  the  high 
importance of this issue to Member States. The need for a systematic monitoring and evaluation 
of digital education policies was also strongly supported by the stakeholders participating in the 
2022 consultations.  

219 UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

220 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

221 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Weber, H, Elsner, A. Wolf, D., Rohs, M. & Turner-Cmuchal, 

M. (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 

222 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

223 Pellegrini, M., & Vivanet, G. (2021). Evidence-Based Policies in Education: Initiatives and Challenges in Europe. ECNU 

Review of Education, 4(1), pp. 25–45. 

224 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

43 

 
 
 
                                                           
However, evidence shows that systematic monitoring and evaluation of digital education 
strategies and policies is not yet a common practice in European educational systems (as 
shown in Figure 6)225. Around half of the countries surveyed in a 2018-2019 study had some 
type of such a practice in place, with only a few conducting it on a regular basis. Similarly, in 
the  Structured  Dialogue  only  about  half  of  Member  States  mentioned  monitoring  activities 
within  the  broader  implementation  plans  of  their  national  strategies.  At  the  same  time,  the 
discussions revealed a variation in the development of Member States’ monitoring systems.  

Figure 6: Monitoring and/or evaluation of digital education strategies and policies carried 
out in the last five years by top-level authorities, 2018/19 

Source: Eurydice report (European Commission, 2019)226 

Comprehensive  monitoring  systems  and  the  development  of  innovative  monitoring 
indicators are underway in a small number of Member States, while the majority follow 
a more ad hoc approach to monitoring. This is in line with OECD’s recent data collection 
from September 2022 indicating some first efforts of more systematic monitoring by a number 
of countries227, while challenges are still widespread across educational systems. As shown by 
the Structured Dialogue discussions, challenges in monitoring, evaluation and assessment were 
relatively  high  among  Member  States  (28%  compared  to  an  average  of  16%  across  topics, 
spread  across  20  Member  States).  For  instance,  as  mentioned  earlier,  a  few  Member  States 
highlight  difficulties  in  centrally  auditing  school  devices  and  equipment.  While  some  have 
systems in place (or are in the process of developing) to track infrastructural investments in 
educational institutions, several noted a lack of a national or regional system to monitor the use 
of equipment. Additionally, most of the cases of systematic monitoring and evaluation practices 

225 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

226 Ibid. 

227 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

44 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
concern  school  education,  while  the  majority  of  countries  still  find  it  difficult  to  monitor 
digitalisation of HEIs in a consistent way228.  

The Structured Dialogue discussions demonstrated the use of external quality assurance 
mechanisms as a common practice for Member States, but digital education is not always 
covered.  Schools  are  usually  evaluated  periodically  by  public  inspectorates,  while  HEIs 
undergo  external  evaluation  by  public  or  private  entities229.  Teachers’  use  of  digital 
technologies  for  example  can  be  assessed  through  both  internal  and  external  evaluation 
practices230.  However,  according  to  the  Education  and  Training  Monitor  2022,  external 
evaluations of schools do not usually include digital education criteria231. Only 13232 out of the 
23233  Member  States  in  which  external  evaluation  is  a  top-level  requirement  have  specific 
criteria on digital education. Such criteria can be related to the quality of digital infrastructure 
and the use of digital technologies both across the different school subjects and in the school 
management  systems  (i.e.  channels  facilitating  communication  with  parents  or  other 
stakeholders,  such  as  the  school  website,  as  well  as  management  of  virtual  learning 
environments or collaborative digital tools)234.  

The use of self-assessment tools by schools (e.g. SELFIE & SELFIE WBL235) or teachers 
(e.g.  SELFIEforTEACHERS236)  is  another  way  of  monitoring  and  evaluating  digital 
education. By the time of writing, SELFIE has been used by over 4.6 million users, involving 
25,295 schools and 627,949 teachers in 84 countries.  Uptake is especially prominent in Spain 
and Portugal, with 2.4 million users in Spain and 700,000 in Portugal, as national ministries of 
education  actively  promoted  the  use  of  SELFIE  in  schools.  For  the  SELFIEforTEACHERS 
tool, over 100,000 primary and secondary teachers have completed a self-reflection to date with 
numbers  growing  steadily.  Member  States  that  reported  using  self-assessment  tools  in  the 
Structured Dialogue had a positive impression of them. However, their use was present in only 
about half of the Member States and for the majority it tended to occur in a bottom-up approach. 
Some also sought support to further integrate the use of these tools more formally or extensively 
in monitoring and evaluation activities.  

228 Ibid. 

229 Ibid. 

230  OECD.  (2019).  PISA  2021  ICT  Framework,  retrieved  from  https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-ICT-

Framework.pdf. 

231  European  Commission  (2022).  Education  and  Training  Monitor  2022.  Comparative  report.  Luxembourg:  Publications 

Office of the European Union. 

232 The  Flemish  Community  of  Belgium,  Czechia,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland  (general  lower  secondary  education),  Spain, 

France, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania and Sweden. 

233 Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland do not conduct external evaluation of schools. 

234 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

235 SELFIE 

236 SELFIE for TEACHERS | European Education Area (europa.eu) 

45 

 
 
                                                           
Although  the  above  practices  indicate  a  range  of  data  collection  instruments  and 
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, in most countries the evidence base stems from 
ad hoc data collections, with only a few instances of periodic data gathering that allows 
monitoring  of  trends  and  impact  over  time237.  Building  an  effective  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework for the digitalisation of education and training entails rigorous planning 
and  long-term  investment238,  and  should  be  considered  from  the  initial  stages  of  the  policy 
cycle.  UNESCO’s recent report on “Guidelines for ICT in education and masterplans” proposes 
an iterative approach to digital education policy-making, where each step informs the next one 
in  the  process,  both  in  terms  of  “what  works”  and  what  the  challenges  are;  this  practice  is 
especially  important  for  digital  education  as  technology  is  rapidly  evolving239.  Most 
importantly, it is vital to build a monitoring and evaluation infrastructure that is driven by the 
national strategic vision for digital education and training and the impact it is expected to make; 
focusing on the strategic objectives can set the ground for the identification of relevant targets 
and indicators240.  

Stakeholders of the targeted consultations stressed the importance of designing policies in 
a way that allows the evaluation of their impact. They particularly noted that it is crucial to 
move  beyond  measuring  the  output  (e.g.  provision  of  digital  infrastructure)  and  focus  on 
monitoring  the  outcome  (e.g.  impact  on  learning).  In  the  context  of  investments  in  digital 
education specifically, stakeholders underscored the need for a clear definition of their expected 
impact and the indicators to be measured. Indicators of connectivity and infrastructure provide 
only part of the picture insofar, as information on the frequency and quality of usage of these 
resources for teaching, learning and assessment activities are most commonly not available. 

EU-level evidence 

From an EU perspective, the current gaps in the available evidence-base hinder impactful 
and  efficient  policy-making  on  digital  education,  as  well  as  responding  timely  to  the 
implications of emerging and disruptive technologies for education and training.  

The scarcity of relevant national data is compounded by the infrequency of data collection 
at the international level. The use of large-scale international assessments to monitor the state 
of  play  in  their  digital  ecosystems  was  mentioned  by  two-thirds  of  Member  States  in  the 
Structured Dialogue241. However, as  evidenced by  the many instances of pre-pandemic data 
presented in this Staff Working Document, the majority of international and European studies 
appear  only  at  very  long  time  intervals,  thus  failing  to  keep  pace  with  the  rapidly  evolving 

237 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

238 Ibid. 

239 UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

240 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

241 Some Member States acknowledged that these studies cannot address all national monitoring and evaluation needs and that 

supplementary national data collection and monitoring activities are needed. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
 
digital education domain. At the international level, the OECD’s Programme for International 
Student Assessment (PISA) is conducted every three  years, and The Teaching and Learning 
International  Survey  (TALIS)  only  every  5  years.  The  International  Association  for  the 
Evaluation  of  Educational  Achievement’s  International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy 
Study (ICILS) occurs at 5-year intervals. At the European level, the European Commission’s 
Survey of schools on ICT in education has taken place twice; in 2011-2012 and in 2017-2018. 
Nowadays the evolution of digital education and training entails a much higher need for a data-
driven policy, while at the same time updated evidence is not available on a regular basis.  

In addition to their low frequency, existing international data systems present significant 
gaps in terms of the available evidence on most digital education dimensions, including 
for example the availability of digital infrastructure242 and related investments, as well as 
the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning, limiting in this way countries’ capacity 
to  build  an  effective  monitoring  and  evaluation  infrastructure243.  In  the  Structured  Dialogue 
Member States commonly referred to challenges posed by the lack of systematic monitoring of 
device  usage  in  schools  and  lack  of  data  on  teachers’  digital  pedagogical  skills  and  related 
training needs. 

Considering  the  available  evidence  supporting  the  development  of  comprehensive 
monitoring and evaluation systems in digital education and training policy, stakeholders 
of the targeted consultations stressed the need to conduct  more research in the area of 
effective  monitoring  and  develop  appropriate  indicators.  An  upcoming  OECD  study 
proposes a set of generic indicators for digital education that could be a basis for developing 
monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  at  national  and  international  level244.  The  list  prioritises 
indicators for which recurrent data collection already exists, while recognising that the current 
national and international data collections do not cover the full digital education ecosystems 
and all enabling factors. Moreover, as noted previously, several key indicators are monitored 
only at very long intervals and are not always able to keep pace with technology developments.   

In view of strengthening their evidence base, educational systems, besides adapting their 
existing  data  collection  systems,  could  also  benefit  from  the  development  of  new  data 
collections as well as new sources of data245. In this process several constraints need to be 
taken into account; collecting new data corresponding to all the different components of digital 
education  can  be  a  long  process,  requiring  considerable  financial  and  human  capacity246. 
Moreover,  the  rapid  development  of  technology  does  not  always  allow  for  timely  analysis. 
Sources could include for example research studies, frameworks measuring educators’ digital 
competences, surveys on teachers’ and students’ perceptions, self-evaluations of educational 

242 Connectivity is an area of digital infrastructure that is monitored relatively well. 

243 OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: 

OECD. 

244 Ibid. 

245 Ibid. 

246 Ibid. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
institutions,  quality  assurance  evaluations,  administrative  data,  etc.247.  Data  collection 
procedures  could  be  supported  through  the  use  of  learning  analytics  and  big  data  from 
educational institutions248, as well as through national and international cooperation platforms 
that facilitate exchange and better use of evidence249. When technology-supported monitoring 
practices are used, it is of paramount significance to follow policy frameworks that ensure a 
secure and ethical use of students’ private data250.  

Overall,  including  a  digital  dimension  to  existing  data  collections,  updating  and  repeating 
preceding  studies,  integrating  relative  international  benchmarking,  as  well  as  using  more 
qualitative data sources, could be used by educational systems as possible streams of evidence 
development  for  digital  education  to  support  their  efforts  in  establishing  an  effective  and 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation infrastructure.  

247 Ibid. 

248 van der Vlies, R. (2020), “Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital 
Paris, 

Education  Working 

Publishing, 

No. 226, 

Papers, 

OECD 

technologies”, 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/33dd4c26-en. 

OECD 

249 Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L. (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond: 
Key  Design  Principles  for  More  Effective  Policies.  Redecker,  C.,  P.  Kampylis,  M.  Bacigalupo,  Y.  Punie  (ed.). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

250 UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
PART II: DIGITAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCES 

1. Digital skills: an overview of terms and concepts 

Digital skills and their relevance today 
The  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027  puts  the  development  of  digital  skills  and 
competences as a priority for education and training systems. The Plan considers that digital 
skills are essential for life in a digitalised world and notes the ever-increasing demand for digital 
skills trigged by the digital transformation of society and the economy.251  

The COVID-19 crisis showed very clearly the importance for everyone to be digitally skilled: 
62% of respondents to the Open Public consultations held in preparation for the Action Plan 
felt that they had improved their digital skills during the crisis.252 The Staff Working Document 
accompanying the New Skills Agenda considers digital skills to be part of basic skills, alongside 
literacy and numeracy, as they are indispensable in daily life for full and active participation in 
society and in the labour market.253 The Staff Working Document accompanying the Digital 
Education Action Plan254 claims that being digitally competent is both a necessity and a right. 

Higher  levels  of  digital  skills  are  linked  to  better  employability  and  learning.  In  the  2022 
Amazon-Gallup Digital Skills Study255, respondents with intermediate or advanced digital skills 
earn on average respectively 40 and 65 percent more than workers who do not use a computer 
at work – regardless of factors like gender and educational attainment. A study from 2016 on 
tenth-graders  in  Italy  found  that  higher  digital  skills  have  a  positive  impact  on  academic 
achievement (with the effect being stronger for students with low academic performance or low 
family  background).256  This  is  supported  by  a  2022  study  carried  out  at  university  level  in 
France,  which  found  that  a  high  level  of  digital  skills  has  a  positive  influence  on  student 
performance and the probability of achieving a high grade.257 

Defining digital skills 
Digital  skills  can  be  broadly  defined  as  the  ability  to  use  technology  and  digital  devices 
effectively, critically, efficiently and responsibly, to complete tasks and solve problems. The 
Council  Recommendation  on  Key  competences  for  lifelong  learning  (adopted  in  2006  and 
updated  in  2018)  defines  digital  competence  as  the  ability  to  confidently,  critically  and 

251 Communication from the Commission accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and 

training for the digital age. COM/2020/624 final 

252  .  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  Digital  Education  Action Plan 2021-2027-  SWD(2020) 209 

final. 

253 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying   a new skills agenda for Europe:   Working together to strengthen 

human capital, employability and competitiveness, SWD/2016/0195 final 

254 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027- SWD(2020) 209 final. 

255  Gallup  &  Amazon  (2002).  AWS  Global  Digital  Skills  Study.  The  economic  benefits  of  a  tech-savvy  workforce. 

https://www.gallup.com/analytics/402284/aws-digital-skills-study.aspx  

256 Pagani, L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., & Stanca, L. (2016). The impact of digital skills on educational outcomes: evidence from 

performance tests. Educational studies, 42(2), 137-162. 

257 Ben Youssef, A., Dahmani, M., & Ragni, L. (2022). ICT use, digital skills and students’ academic performance: Exploring 

the digital divide. Information, 13(3): 129. 

49 

 
 
                                                           
responsibly use and engage with digital technologies for learning, work, and participation in 
society258. 

This  encompasses  a  range  of  abilities  such  as  proficiency  in  computer  programs  and 
applications, knowledge  of the internet  and digital  communication tools, the ability to  work 
with digital media and content (e.g. text, images, audio, video), and the ability to analyse and 
interpret data. 

The European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) has identified the key components 
of  digital  competence  in  five  areas:  information  and  data  literacy;  communication  and 
collaboration;  digital  content  creation;  safety;  and  problem  solving259.  In  a  nutshell,  being 
digitally competent requires being able to search for information and data and evaluate it; being 
able  to  communicate  and  collaborate  in  various  forms  through  digital  means;  being  able  to 
create, edit, and improve digital content in a variety of forms (from text to audio content to the 
ability to create computer programmes); knowing about digital safety and well-being, caring 
for  the  environment;  being  able  to  solve  problems  through  digital  means  (from  technical  to 
conceptual  ones)  and  to  innovate  through  technologies.  DigComp  2.2  (2022)  is  the  fourth 
version  of  the  European  Digital  Competence  framework.  Updates  to  the  previous  version 
incorporated  enhancements  to  the  following  elements:  fact-checking  online  content  and  its 
sources; remote or hybrid work context; digital accessibility; green and sustainability aspects 
of interacting with digital technologies; well-being and safety; and interaction with AI systems 
and data literacy. 

Although the above definitions from the Council Recommendation and the descriptors from the 
DigComp framework refer to competences, in the context of this work the term ‘digital skills’ 
and ‘digital competence’ are used as synonyms. Skills and competences are related but distinct 
concepts that are often used interchangeably. Skills are the specific abilities or techniques (such 
the ability to speak a language or to play an instrument). CEDEFOP defines them as the “ability 
to apply knowledge and use know-how to compete tasks and solve problems.”260 Competences, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  broader  attributes  or  characteristics  that  describe  how  an  individual 
performs in a defined context. In the 2006 Recommendation of Key Competences for lifelong 
learning,  competences  are  defined  as  a  combination  of  knowledge,  skills  and  attitudes 
appropriate to the context. Competences are not limited to specific tasks or duties, nor are they 
limited to cognitive elements or functional ones261. Notwithstanding the encompassing nature 
of the concept of competence, in the frame of this work the term ‘digital skills’ is preferred as 
it is the most commonly used expression in standard English. It should however be underlined 
that, within this work, the use of the term ‘skills’ does not refer solely to technical or applied 
abilities,  as  digital  skills  require  a  specific  knowledge  and  a  set  of  abilities,  attitudes  and 

258 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning - 2018/C 189/01. 

259 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 EU. 

260 Cedefop (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy: a selection of 130 terms. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office.  

261 Ibid.   

50 

 
 
                                                           
behaviours. Therefore, the choice of the word ‘skills’ over competence is of a linguistic and 
pragmatic nature rather than of a conceptual one. 

The  definition  and  descriptors  that  the  Commission  adopts  on  digital  skills  are  meant  to  be 
overarching and encompassing, thus including a comprehensive understanding of digital skills 
that would include technical and operational aspects alongside critical thinking and cognitive 
skills. The domain of digital skills has “low floor, high ceiling”262, and “wide walls”. Seymour 
Papert postulated that effective technology provides easy ways for novices to get started (low 
floor) but also ways for them to work on increasingly sophisticated projects over time (high 
ceiling). This was exemplified in his Logo programming language, where children started by 
drawing simple shapes and gradually moved on to create more complex geometric patterns.263 
Mitch Resnick adds another dimension: ‘wide walls’.264 He posits that people need a diversity 
of pathways to engage with personal interests and learn new skills, and the freedom to explore. 
This  metaphor  of  low  floor,  high  ceiling  and  wide  walls  is  not  only  relevant  for  exploring 
approaches to programming, but exemplifies the very nature of digital skills, the multitude of 
applicability  and  the  width  of  complexity  it  entails.  It  comes  as  no  surprise  therefore  that  a 
plethora of terms is used to describe concepts that have partial or full overlapping with digital 
skills.  

Digital skills and related terms 
As academic literature and policy debates originated more than 40 years ago, a multitude of 
terms has been emerging. The following lines will draw some differentiation between the main 
concepts that are currently used (namely: ICT skills, media literacy, computational thinking), 
while underlying that for this line of work the expression ‘digital skills’ is considered as the 
most encompassing one.  

Definitions of ICT skills (or computer skills) were developed in the 80's and converge in “an 
understanding of computer characteristics, capabilities and applications, as well as an ability to 
implement  this  knowledge  in  the  skilful  and  productive  use  of  computer  applications”265. 
Definitions  have  survived  unaltered  for  over  thirty  years266,  and  are  mainly  based  on  the 
development of operational and technical skills and knowledge, and a constant reference to the 
usability  of  devices  (software,  hardware)267.  Nevertheless,  the  term  is  still  in  use  with  a 
somewhat wider connotation. For OECD, ICT skills are defined as “using digital technology, 
communication  tools  and  networks  to  acquire  and  evaluate  information,  communicate  with 
others and perform practical tasks”268. The reference to the evaluation of information indicates 

262  As formulated by Seymour Papert. 

263 Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books. 

264 Resnick, M. (2016). Designing for Wide Walls. Design.blog 

265 Simonson, M. R., Maurer, M., Montag-Torardi, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987). Development of a standardized test of computer 

literacy and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 231-247. 

266 Reed, K., Doty, D. H., & May, D. R. (2005). The Impact of Aging on Self-efficacy and Computer Skill Acquisition. Journal 

of Managerial Issues, 17(2): 212–228. 

267 They are at time referred to ‘ICT end-users skills’. 

268 OECD. (2013). OECD Skills Outlook 2013. First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development. Paris.  

51 

 
 
                                                           
a shift towards a slightly different set of competences that are more commonly related to media 
literacy.  

At the end of 2007, the European Commission adopted a communication which defined media 
literacy as “the ability to access the media, to understand and to critically evaluate different 
aspects  of  the  media  and  media  contents  and  to  create  communications  in  a  variety  of 
contexts”269. There is a long academic tradition on studies in media literacy. Media education 
is typically concerned with a critical evaluation of media, with the analyses of audiences and 
the construction of media messages, and the understanding of the purpose of these messages.270 
Traditionally  stemming  from  semiotics  and  social  studies,  media  literacy  education  has 
typically  stirred  away  from  the  more  technical,  tool-related  ICT  literacy,  leading  to  a  long-
lasting tradition of a distinctive split between these two disciplines in university courses and 
school curricula271.  

The term media literacy was first introduced in the 1980s and has gained increasing importance 
in  recent  years  with  the  widespread  use  of  digital  media  and  the  upsurge  of  phenomena  as 
disinformation and fake news. Exposure to large-scale disinformation, including misleading or 
false information, is a major challenge for citizens272. While there are clear regulatory aspects 
to tackle disinformation273, media literacy has a very central role to play in supporting citizens 
(from young people to adults) in their ability to evaluate media messages. For this, the European 
Commission launched in 2022 a set of guidelines to support teachers and educators in tackling 
disinformation, where media literacy is defines as “the ability to access the media, to understand 
and  critically  evaluate  different  aspects  of  the  media  and  media  contexts,  and  to  create 
communications  in  a  variety  of  contexts.”  274  It  can  be  argued  that  the  current  upsurge  of 
Artificial Intelligence applications and the generation of deepfake275 bring to the fore the need 
(even in a media literacy context) to include an understanding of technical, ICT-related issues, 
as novel digital technologies make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake 
media.276  

269 European Commission (2007). A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment. COM(2007) 833 final  

270 Buckingham, David. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 

271 Sefton-Green, Julian, Nixon, Helen and Erstad, Ola (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “digital literacy”. 

Pedagogies: an international journal, 4 (2): 107-125.  

272  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. 

273 Durach, F., Bârgăoanu, A., & Nastasiu, C. (2020). Tackling disinformation: EU regulation of the digital space. Romanian 

journal of European affairs, 20(1). 

274 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (2022). Guidelines for teachers and 
educators  on  tackling  disinformation  and  promoting  digital  literacy  through  education  and  training.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union.  

275 These are hyper-realistic videos using face swaps that leave little trace of manipulation, which only appeared from 2017 – 
see  Chawla,  R.  (2019).  Deepfakes:  How  a  pervert  shook  the  world. International  Journal  of  Advance  Research  and 
Development, 4(6): 4–8.  

276  Westerlund,  M.  (2019).  The  emergence  of  deepfake  technology:  A  review. Technology  innovation  management 

review, 9(11). 

52 

 
 
                                                           
A term that has emerged in the last decade is computational thinking: shorthand for ‘thinking 
as a computer scientist’, the term refers to the ability to understand the underlying notions and 
mechanisms of digital technologies to formulate and solve problems277. Its difference from ICT 
skills lays in the fact that it is a thought process, thus independent from technology, and requires 
specific  problem-solving  abilities.  It  entails  competences  in  problem-solving,  abilities  in 
examining  data  patterns  and  questioning  evidence278;  collecting,  analysing  and  representing 
data, decomposing problems279; abstraction and debugging280 . As noted in a 2022 JRC report, 
the  relevance  of  computational  thinking  stems  from  the  fact  that  there  is  an  overwhelming 
majority of member states that are considering inserting (or have already inserted) aspects and 
concepts  of  computational  thinking  in  their  curricula.281  Computational  thinking  is  strongly 
connected  to  Informatics  /  Computer  Science.  Unlike  ICT  skills,  the  emphasis  is  on  the 
cognitive aspects rather than the operational ones.  

Levels of digital skills 
As stated above, digital skills have low floor, high ceiling and wide walls. This is reflected in a 
diversity  of  proficiency  levels  and  degrees  of  complexity.  Levels  of  digital  skills  can  be 
considered as a spectrum: from basic skills, which are related to low, operational abilities to 
make use of digital devices and understand issues related to the digital and online world, to the 
higher spectrum, which sees higher-level abilities that allow individuals to make use of digital 
technologies in empowering and transformative ways, such as professions in ICT282.  

In Eurostat, an example of an indicator for measuring digital skills is the Digital Skills Indicator 
2.0283, a proxy for digital skills developed to measure them against the five competence areas 
of  DigComp  (information  and  data  literacy  skills,  communication  and  collaboration  skills, 
digital content creation skills, safety skills and problem-solving skills). To have at least basic 
overall digital skills, people must know how to do at least one activity related to each area. It 
shall be noted however that it is assumed that individuals having performed certain activities 
have  the  corresponding  skills.  Therefore,  the  indicators  can  be  considered as  proxy of 
individuals’ digital skills.284 For this indicator, in other terms, activity in a certain area is equal 
to proficiency.  

277 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. JRC Science for Policy Report. 

278 Charlton, P., & Luckin, R. (2012). Time to re-load? Computational Thinking and Computer Science in Schools (Briefing 2, 

27 April). The London Knowledge Lab. 

279 Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational Thinking and Media & Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach to 

Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills. TechTrends, 1–7. 

280 Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking 

A guide for teachers. Computing at School. 

281 Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M.A., Jasutė, E., 
Malagoli,  C.,  Masiulionytė-Dagienė,  V.  and  Stupurienė,  G.,  Reviewing  Computational  Thinking  in  Compulsory 
Education, Inamorato Dos Santos, A., Cachia, R., Giannoutsou, N. and Punie, Y. editor(s), Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union 

282 UNESCO (2018) Digital skills critical for jobs and social inclusion. 

283 Vuorikari, R., Jerzak, N., Karpinski, Z., Pokropek, A. and Tudek, J., (2022). Measuring Digital Skills across the EU: Digital 

Skills Indicator 2.0, JRC Technical Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

284  Eurostat  (2021):    Database  –  Digital  Economy  and  Society  –  Eurostat  (europa.eu):  Individuals’  level  of  digital  skills 

[ISOC_SK_DSKL_I21]  

53 

 
 
                                                           
Moving  beyond  basic  levels  of  digital  skills,  the  scenarios  get  even  more  complex  and 
articulated. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) defines three main proficiency 
levels: basic (foundation for use of digital means); intermediate (use of digital technology in 
meaningful  and  beneficial  ways);  and  advanced  (for  ICT  specialists).285  DigComp  provides 
eight proficiency levels defined through learning outcomes, each level represents a step up in 
citizens’ acquisition of the competence according to its cognitive challenge, the complexity of 
the tasks they can handle and their autonomy in completing the task286. Although the above 
differentiations  are  useful,  the  applicability  of  digital  skills  to  different  domain  of  life, 
citizenship, learning and leisure gives way to a variety of needs, and this complexity is hardly 
grasped  through  the  above  categories.  New  advanced  and  highly  specialist  digital  skills  are 
emerging287  that  over-simplify  the  category  of  ICT  professional  –  as  professionalism  in  the 
digital  domain already  covers a multitude of aspects  (AI, Cybersecurity,  programming, data 
analysis to name a few). In addition, the emergence of new types of digital skills is rendered 
even  more  complex  by  the  lack  of  a  common  understanding  of  what  these  skills  are.  For 
example, the lack of cybersecurity skills that exists in the labour market, is partly driven by the 
fact that different actors in the sector have a different understanding of the competences and 
skills at play288. 

Moreover, there is a widening number of highly skilled people that, without being categorised 
as  ICT-professionals,  have  advanced  or  highly  specialised  digital  skills  that  cover  a  very 
specific or a relatively wide domain. For instance, professionals in social media hold advanced 
competences  in  purposeful  digital  communications,  medical  doctors  that  use  complex 
visualisation and data analysis tools are also extremely skilled in digital but are not part of the 
ICT sector. The width and breadth of digital skills makes it challenging (albeit not impossible) 
to design certification schemes and qualifications that aim at grasping an overarching concept 
of digital skills. DigComp 2.0 includes digital skills for work, suggesting 8 proficiency levels 
covering from Basic/Foundation, intermediate, advanced up to highly specialised levels. These 
could cover the need of education and training content, assessment and certification services 
for  individual  competences  at  expert  level.  For  non-ICT  specialists,  dedicated  content  and 
certification could also be developed. 

2. Existing digital skills gaps 

In  the  world  of  tomorrow,  we  must  rely  on  digitally  empowered  citizens,  a  digitally  skilled 
workforce and digital experts. Individual digital skills across Europe are insufficient to meet 
the needs of the economy and the society, as suggested by aggregate statistics from both the 

285 International Telecommunications Union (2020). Digital Skills Assessment Guidebook. 

286 Carretero Gomez, S., Vuorikari, R. and Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 
with eight proficiency levels and examples of use, EUR 28558 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. 

287 International Telecommunications Union (2019). Digital Skills Insight. 

288 ENISA (2022), European Cybersecurity Skills Framework (ECSF) - User Manual. 

54 

 
 
 
                                                           
supply side (measured as individual digital skills) and the demand side (measured as the level 
of skills required by the labour market)289.  

Access to the internet and use of digital tools is no longer a novelty. They have become essential 
for citizens, companies, organisations, and governments. The COVID-19 crisis and the need to 
ensure fast and effective recovery accelerated this trend and contributed in raising awareness 
on the importance of investing in digital skills at all levels, be it for young people, adults or 
professionals. Moreover, data show290 a mismatch between the digital competences required at 
work  and  those  possessed  by  the  EU  workforce,  which  challenges  EU  innovation  and 
competitiveness. 

The increasing pervasiveness of digital tools in our society requires policies to support citizens, 
workers and businesses. To this purpose, European legislation set specific targets for re- and 
up-skilling European citizens at different age levels. Europe’s Digital Decade goals in the skill 
area are that, by 2030, 80% of citizens should possess at least basic digital skills and at least 20 
million ICT specialists are employed in the EU291. Further 2030 goals292 in the education area 
aim at reducing the level of low-achieving eight-graders in digital skills below 15%. 

Table 1: Status quo vs targets 

Share of low-achieving eight-graders in digital 
literacy  

Status quo293 

2030 target 

34%*294 

Below 15% 

Share of adults with at least basic digital skills  

54%295 

80% 

Employed ICT specialists 

9 million,  

20 million,  

81% male296 

better gender 
balance 

* Please notice that this number cannot be considered a meaningful EU average as it refers to 
the average share of low achievers in the six countries that participated in ICILS 2018297.  

289 See following references for examples. 

290 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. 

291 Decision establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030, PE/50/2022/REV/1 (2022), 

292 Council Resolution on a strategic framework  for European cooperation in education and training towards the European 

Education Area and beyond (2021-2030), 2021/C 66/01 (2021), 

293 All data, With the exception of the first value (marked by *), refer to 2021. 

294 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. 

295 EU-27. Eurostat (2021): Database – Digital Economy and Society – Eurostat (europa.eu):  Survey on the use of ICT in 

households and by individuals [ISOC_I]. 

296 EU-27. Eurostat (2021): Microdata – Eurostat (europa.eu):  European Union Labour Force Survey [EU_LFS]. 

297 Seven EU countries participated in ICILS 2018 but Italian data are excluded from the average, as testing in Italy took place 
at the beginning at the school year and data is not comparable to that of the other countries. The next ICILS data collection 

55 

 
 
 
                                                           
Reaching these targets will require continuous effort and targeted measures. A recent simulation 
by Codagnone et al. (2021) reveals that by the end of this decade, Europe will not be able to 
reach the Digital Decade target on basic digital skills if no drastic measures and investments on 
the supply side are taken: the current trajectory reveals that by 2030, only 64% of the population 
will possess at least basic digital skills.298 

As for the second Digital Decade target, the simulation by Codagnone et al. (2021) shows that, 
following the current trajectory, only 13.3 million ICT specialists will be employed by 2030 
(6.7 million below the envisaged target) if no further steps are taken. 

The following section gives an overview of the level of digital skills for different groups of the 
population and across Member States, over the entire skill spectrum: from basic to advanced 
and specialist digital skills.  

2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU 

Digital skills are increasingly becoming a differentiating factor with high impact on people 
empowerment,  social  inclusion  and  employability.  Rapid  and  widespread  digitalisation  has 
changed Europe’s society and increased the demand for digital skills and competences at all 
levels  and  in  all  sectors  of  the  economy.  The  Covid-19  pandemic  outbreak  prompted  an 
acceleration of the process, forcing people of all ages and backgrounds to quickly learn new 
competencies, in particular related to digital technologies. While the disruption enabled some 
to quickly acquire new skills, it has also exacerbated already existing digital skills gaps299. 

Results from the public consultation run in preparation of the Digital Education Action Plan 
2021-2027300 confirmed the growing importance that citizens give to digital competences. It 
showed  that  the  use  of  technologies  done  during  the  initial  stages  of  the  pandemic  led  to  a 
perceived  increased  level  of  digital  skills  and  revealed  individuals’  willingness  to  further 
improve them in the future.  

However an analysis of the  available data shows that the  level  of digital skills of different 
segments of the population remains low.  

In 2021, only 54% of the population in the EU had at least basic digital skills301 (Figure 7). 
Change over time has been limited. Between 2015 and 2019 (first and last year with available 

will  take  place  in  2023,  22  Member  States  are  planning  to  participate  in  the  core  module,  and  17  in  the  optional 
computational thinking module. 

298  Codagnone,  C.,  Liva,  G.,  Gunderson,  L.,  Misuraca,  G.,  Rebesco,  E.,  (2021).  Europe’s  Digital  Decade  and  Autonomy, 
Publication for the committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of 
Life Policies. Luxembourg: European Parliament 

299 Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Dinis Mota Da Costa, P., Karpinski, Z. and Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on 
education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets, EUR 30275 EN. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union 

300 Open Public Consultation of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. See Annex 2 for further details. 

301 EU-27 value. Eurostat data on individual’s level of digital skills from 2021 on are based on new methodology and thereby 
are not directly comparable to the ones collected in 2019 and before. In particular, the Digital Skills Indicator 2.0 (DSI) is 
a composite indicator based on selected activities related to internet or software use that individuals aged 16-74 perform 

56 

 
 
 
                                                           
comparable data) the share of adults with basic digital skills increased by only 2 percentage 
points302. 

Figure 7: At least basic skills (% of 16-74-year-old individuals) - Eurostat 2021 

%
2
9
7

,

%
9
8
7

,

%
5
0
7

,

%
7
8
6

,

%
5
6
6

,

%
2
4
6

,

%
8
3
6

,

%
4
3
6

,

%
3
3
6

,

%
0
2
6

,

%
2
1
6

,

%
7
9
5

,

%
4
6
5

,

%
3
5
5

,

%
2
5
5

,

%
2
4
5

,

%
5
2
5

,

%
8
0
5

,

%
2
0
5

,

%
7
9
4

,

%
1
9
4

,

%
9
8
4

,

%
8
8
4

,

%
6
5
4

,

%
9
2
4

,

%
2
1
3

,

%
8
7
2

,

I
F

L
N

E
I

K
D

E
S

S
E

U
L

R
H

T
A

R
F

T
M

Z
C

E
E

T
P

K
S

E
B

L
E

V
L

Y
C

I

S

U
H

E
D

T
L

T
I

L
P

G
B

O
R

%
9
3
5

,

7
2
U
E

Source: Eurostat 

Figure 7 shows that major disparities still exist between Member States: the share of people 
aged 16 to 74 who had at least basic digital skills is highest in the Netherlands and Finland (both 
approx. 79%) and lowest in Romania (27.8%). Differences related to gender, level of education, 
and socio-economic backgrounds persist. In addition there is a 15 percentage point gap between 
rural  residents  (46%)  and  city  residents  (61%)  that  remained  stable  over  the  period  2014-
2019303 (Figure 8).   

By 2022, the share of EU households with internet access had risen to 93% and the number of 
people in the EU not using the internet fell in almost all countries between 2015 and 2022 (7% 
in 2022).  89% of individuals were regular internet users (using it at least weekly), while almost 
84% were using it either every day or almost every day. However having an internet connection 
and using the internet is not sufficient and evidence clearly shows that it must be paired with 
the appropriate skills to take advantage of the opportunities of the digital society. 

in five specific areas (Information and data literacy, Communication and collaboration, Digital content creation, Safety, 
and Problem solving). The area of Safety was added in 2021 to reflect the five competence areas of the revised Digital 
Competence Framework and better align the indicator to the needs of today’s digital economy and society.  

302 A change in survey methodology prevents comparisons between 2021 and previous editions of the survey. EU-27 value: 
54% in 2015 and 56% in 2019. Eurostat (2021): Database – Digital Economy and Society – Eurostat (europa.eu):  Survey 
on the use of ICT in households and by individuals [ISOC_I]. 

303 Staff working document accompanying the long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas - COM(2021)166 Final 

57 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 8: At least basic skills (% of 16-74-year-old individuals) by gender, level of 
education and living area (EU27 values) 

%
2
5

%
6
5

S
E
L
A
M
E
F

S
E
L
A
M

%
4
5

S
L
A
U
D

I

V

I

D
N

I

L
L
A

%
9
7

F
O

L
E
V
E
L

H
G

I

H

H
T
I

W

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

%
0
5

L
A
M
R
O
F

M
U

I

D
E
M

H
T
I

W

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

%
2
3

F
O

L
E
V
E
L

W
O
L

R
O

O
N

H
T
I

W

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

%
1
6

S
E
I
T
I

C

E
H
T

N

I

G
N

I

V

I
L

%
6
4

S
A
E
R
A

L
A
R
U
R

N

I

G
N

I

V

I
L

Source: Eurostat 

On  average,  the  level  of  digital  skills  among  the  labour  force  is  higher  than  that  of  the 
population.  However,  more  than  a  third  of  the  labour  force  in  the  EU,  including  employed 
people and the unemployed, are lacking basic digital skills, even though  87% of jobs in the 
EU+  now  require  them304  .  Following  the  Covid-19  outbreak,  60-70%  of  EU+  workers  use 
standard software at work (web browsing, emailing, word processing, spreadsheets) requiring 
basic or moderate digital skills. Half of EU+ workers use specialised software and about 1 in 
10 require very high digital procifiency. Research305 show that even in sectors not traditionally 
related  to  digitisation  (e.g.  farming,  health  care,  construction,  etc.)  and  for  more  traditional 
professions, such as medical doctors or lawyers, there is a significant increase in the demand 
for sectoral  knowledge  combined with  digital  skills enabling the use of digital  solutions  for 
specific business cases. To name two examples, medical doctors are increasingly relying on 
advanced  digital  technologies  such  as  artificial  intelligence  for  providing  more  accurate 
diagnoses or process data of their patients in electronic health records whereas farmers are more 
and more using advanced data analysis to optimise their production processes. 

Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  are  particularly  experiencing  an  increased 
competition for digitally skilled talent as they compete with larger companies on an already 
tense  job  market.  The  Structured  Dialogue  on  Digital  Education  and  Skills  revealed  that 
upskilling and reskilling of SME employees is therefore of high priority for a large majority of 
Member  States.  However,  2022  data  by  Eurostat  shows  that  only  20.9%  of  SMEs  provided 
training to all their staff in order to enhance their ICT related skills, compared to 69.5% of large 

304 Cedefop (2022). Challenging digital myths, first findings from Cedefop’s second European skills and jobs survey. 

305 European Commission (2017). ICT for work: Digital skills in the workplace. 

58 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
companies (i.e. a ratio three times lower)306. In this respect, a recent report307 demonstrated that 
the  greatest  barrier  to  providing  digital  skills  training  to  SME  employees  is  a  lack  of  time: 
whereas SME managers are not inclined in having their staff undergo training during working 
hours as they fear a loss in productivity, staff, in turn, are less willing to get a training outside 
their working hours. Additional barriers concern the availability of training opportunities, cost, 
inflexible timetables and distance. 

Outcomes of the Structured Dialogue show common concerns about the mismatch that exists 
between the supply and  demand of digital  skills.  The last Cedefop European skills  and jobs 
survey308 show that 46% of the adult population in the EU lacks even basic digital skills309. This 
means  that  many  workers  use  ICT  every  day  at  work  without  having  the  skills  to  do  so 
effectively310,  an  element  long  considered  to  have  a  negative  effect  on  workplace 
performance311. This is supported by a recent publication examining which workers were best 
positioned  to  work  from  home  during  the  COVID-19  lockdown.  The  study  shows  that  the 
likelihood of working from  home decreases for  workers without tertiary  education and with 
lower  levels  of  skills.  These  findings  raise  important  questions  on  the  extent  to  which  the 
pandemic exacerbated existing labour market inequalities and whether these inequalities could 
worsen  with  intensified  adoption  of  technology312.  They  also  call  for  renewed  and  focused 
action to develop the digital skills of the workforce 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 skills313. 

The  level  of  digital  skills  level  of  European  students  (i.e.  individuals  above  16  whose 
employment status is ‘student’) is higher compared to that of the overall population and labour 
force with 77% of them in 2021 having basic or above basic digital skills.314  

306  Eurostat  (2022):  Database  -  Digital  economy  and  society  -  Eurostat  (europa.eu):  Enterprises  that  provided  training  to 

develop/upgrade ICT skills of their personnel by size class of enterprise [ISOC_SKE_ITTS] 

307  European  Commission  (2019): Digital    Skills:  New  Professions,  New  Educational Methods,  New  Jobs.  Retrieved  from 

https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60738  

308 Cedefop (2022). Setting Europe on course for a human digital transition: new evidence from Cedefop’s second European 

skills and jobs survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

309 “Eurostat (2022): News Article - Eurostat (europa.eu): How many citizens had basic digital skills in 2021?” reports similar 
numbers.  However,  only  individuals  who  have  used  the  internet  3  months  prior  to  the  survey  were  asked  about  their 
activities. An 11% of individuals, included in the measured 46%, didn’t access internet in the last 3 months and therefore 
their digital skills could not be assessed. 

310 OECD (2016). Skills for a Digital World. Policy Brief on the Future of Work. 

311 European Commission (2017). ICT for Work: Digital Skills in the Workplace. 

312 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, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

313 European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. COM(2020)441 final/2. 

314 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. 

59 

 
 
                                                           
However, in 9 out of 14 Member States315 that participated in the two rounds of the International 
Computer and  Information  Literacy Study (ICILS)316, more than one third  of pupils did  not 
possess the most basic proficiency level317 in digital skills318.  

ICILS showed that despite the growing awareness on the need to equip young people with the 
digital  skills  necessary to be  empowered and safe online (e.g. digital  literacy), in  2018 only 
53% of the 15-year-olds in the EU reported being taught how to detect whether information is 
subjective  or  biased.  Moreover,  a  2019  Eurobarometer  poll319  reported  that  41%  of  young 
Europeans judged that critical thinking and media were not taught sufficiently in schools. 

Figure 9 shows that, in 2018, the majority of students in most countries scored at or below level 
2 (e.g. need support), a result clearly highlighting the need to support young people developing 
digital skills when using digital devices.  

Figure 9: Distribution of students' scores on the computer and information literacy scale 

%
6
3

%
5
2

%
8
1

%
9
1

B E L O W   L E V E L   1 :

L E V E L   1 :  

L E V E L   2 :

L E V E L   3 :  

L E V E L   4 :  

U N D E V E L O P E D  
( B E L O W   4 0 7   S C A L E   P O I N T S )

B A S I C / F U N C T I O N A L  
( 4 0 7 - 4 9 1   S C A L E   P O I N T S )

N E E D   S U P P O R T  
( 4 9 2 - 5 7 6   S C A L E   P O I N T S )

I N D E P E N D E N C E / A U T O N O M Y  
( 5 7 7 - 6 6 1   S C A L E   P O I N T S )

P R E C I S I O N  
( A B O V E   6 6 1   S C A L E   P O I N T S )

%
2

Source: ICILS 2018 

315 ICILS 2018: DK, DE, FR, IT, LU, PT, FI. ICILS 2013: CZ, DK, DE, HR, LT, NL, PL, SI, SK.  

316  The  International  Computer  and  Information  Literacy  Study  (ICILS)  is  a  performance  test  measuring  international 
differences in computer and information literacy and computational thinking of students in their eighth year of schooling.  

317 Students’ scores on computer and information literacy - defined as individual’s ability to use computers to investigate, create 
and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society - were divided in 
four levels of increased sophistication in the use of digital technologies. 

318 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. 

319 Standard Eurobarometer 92 - Autumn 2019  

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
At a young age, girls outperform boys in computer and information literacy320 and in Science, 
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)321, and tend to use digital tools for school 
activities more than boys.322. According to the OECD's Programme for International Student 
Assessment  (PISA),  boys  and  girls  are  equally  likely  expected  to  work  in  a  science-related 
field323. However with age and at higher levels of education, girls tend to steer away from some 
STEM324 and ICT subjects and this is reflected in their lower participation in related higher 
education  studies  and  professions  in  the  labour  market.  Despite  large  differences  between 
countries325, in 2020 women represented only 18% of students enrolled in ICT studies and one 
in  five  ICT  specialists326.  Geographical  and  socioeconomic  background,  including  migrant 
status and language spoken at home, are identified as having a statistically significant effect on 
students’ achievement327. 

2.2 ICT specialists and emerging skills needs  

Europe also faces a shortage of digital experts who can develop cutting-edge technologies and 
the sector has a strong gender imbalance. 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  organisation328.  The 
majority of Member States expressed concerns about the significant shortage in ICT specialists 
in the Structured Dialogue on Digital Education and Skills, confirming the need to do further 
work to attract a larger and more diversified talent pool into the digital sector. A CEDEFOP 
study in 2019329 reported that 53% of EU companies had difficulties filling vacancies for ICT 

320 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. 

321 OECD (2019). Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus, n° 93.  

322 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. 

323 OECD (2017). What kind of careers in science do 15-year-old boys and girls expect for themselves? PISA in focus. Paris: 

OECD publishing.  

324 Data suggest that gender disparity in STEM graduates has shrunk in 2020 compared to previous years. Certain scientific 
fields,  like  biological  sciences,  show  a  higher  percentage  of  female  graduates  compared  to  males.  (source:  Eurostat 
(2020): Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu):  - Tertiary education statistics) 

325 For instance in Eastern Europe women occupy nearly half of the high-tech jobs.  In 2020 in Czechia, Hungary and Malta, 
almost every 9 out of 10 ICT specialists were men, while in Bulgaria almost every third ICT specialist was a woman. 

326 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.  

327 Karpiński Z., Di Pietro G.,  Biagi F. (2021), Computational thinking, socioeconomic gaps and policy implications, Compass 

Briefs in Education, n.12, January 2021, Amsterdam: IEA.   

328 In 2022 the percentage of large enterprises employing ICT specialists (77,6%) was more than 5 times higher than that for 
small  sized  enterprises  (15,1%).  Eurostat  (2022):  Database  -  Digital  economy  and  society  -  Eurostat  (europa.eu): 
Enterprises  that  provided  training  to  develop/upgrade  ICT  skills  of  their  personnel  by  size  class  of  enterprise 
[ISOC_SKE_ITSPE] 

329 Cedefop (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 

Union. 

61 

 
 
 
                                                           
specialists. Consistently, Eurostat reports that 62.8% of enterprises with at least 10 employees, 
which tried to recruit ICT specialists, had hard-to-fill vacancies in 2022330. 

ICT knowledge and advanced digital skills are mostly requested from ICT professionals and 
ICT technicians, followed by research, engineering and clerical occupations. The demand for 
ICT  specialists  is  specifically  striking  in  key  industrial  ecosystems  such  as  automotive, 
aerospace,  electronics  as  well  as  in  critical  technologies  for  all  sectors  such  as  data, 
cybersecurity  and  semiconductors.  In  cybersecurity,  to  name  one  example,  the  shortage  of 
professionals in Europe ranges between 260,000331 and 500,000332, while studies estimate the 
Union’s needs at 883,000 professionals333. According to such data, at best, the European Union 
requires a 29% rise in its cybersecurity workforce to close the gap on the job market. This skills 
gap hampers the EU’s capacity to develop cutting-edge technologies such as AI and 5G, and to 
defend  our  critical  infrastructure.  In  addition,  the  increasingly  complex  cybersecurity  threat 
landscape combined with an evolving policy environment that places new forms of obligations 
on  Member  States  and  businesses,  make  the  lack  of  an  adequately  skilled  cybersecurity 
workforce a risk to securing the resilience of the European Union. However, and even more so 
following the COVID-19 pandemic, digital skills demand in many occupations, especially non-
ICT ones, is on the rise334. 

Sweden had the highest relative share of ICT specialists in the total work force, with 407,100 
persons  employed  as  ICT  specialists  followed  by  Finland  with  188,000  ICT  specialists. 
Relatively  high  shares  of  employed  ICT  specialists  were  also  recorded  in  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands,  Ireland,  Estonia,  Belgium  and  Denmark,  with  each  reporting  at  least  1  in  20 
persons within their workforce employed as an ICT specialist. By contrast, at the other end of 
the range, ICT specialists accounted for 2.6 % of the total workforce in Romania and by 2.4 % 
in Greece (Figure 10)335. 

330 Eurostat (2022): Database - Digital economy and society - Eurostat (europa.eu): Enterprises that recruited or tried to recruit 

ICT specialists by size class of enterprise [ISOC_SKE_ITRCRS] 

331  (ISC²)  (2023):  (ISC²)  in Assessing  Cyber  Skills on  the  basis  of the  ECSF,  ENISA  webinar  (Youtube),  16 

February 2023  

332 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, EU Policy on Cyber Defence, JOIN(2022) 

49 final  

333  (ISC²)  (2023):  (ISC²)    in Assessing  Cyber  Skills on  the  basis  of the  ECSF,  ENISA  webinar  (Youtube),  16 

February 2023  

334 Cedefop (2021), Digital skills: challenges and opportunities during the pandemic. 

335  Eurostat  (2021):  Database  -  Digital  economy  and  society  -  Eurostat  (europa.eu):  Employed  ICT  specialists  -  total 

[ISOC_SKS_ITSPT] 

62 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 10: ICT specialists (% of work force)  

9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0

5
4

,

7
2
U
E

0
8

,

4
7

,

7
6

,

7
6

,

3
6

,

2
6

,

6
5

,

6
5

,

9
4

,

9
4

,

8
4

,

7
4

,

6
4

,

5
4

,

5
4

,

3
4

,

1
4

,

9
3

,

9
3

,

8
3

,

8
3

,

8
3

,

6
3

,

5
3

,

5
3

,

6
2

,

4
2

,

E
S

I
F

U
L

L
N

E
I

E
E

E
B

K
D

E
D

T
M

I

S

T
P

Z
C

R
F

T
A

K
S

S
E

Y
C

U
H

T
I

V
L

T
L

R
H

G
B

L
P

L
E

O
R

Source: Eurostat 2021 

Over the last decade, ICT specialists in employment rose with an average annual growth rate 
of 4.6% (Figure 11). After a regular but slow increase between 2012 and 2019, the number of 
ICT  specialists  presented  its  highest  progression  rate  between  2019  and  2020  (7.3%)  and 
between 2020 and 2021 (6.1%)336.  

Figure  11:  Index  of  the  number  of  persons  employed  as  ICT  specialists  and  total 
employment in the EU 2012-2021 

155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

"ICT specialists"

"Total employment"

Source: Eurostat 2021 

The vast majority of ICT specialists in the EU are men (81%) confirming a trend that has been 
there for a decade337. Women’s underrepresentation occurs at all levels of the digital economy 
and  has  multifaceted  roots.  In  cybersecurity,  for  example,  women  represent  only  20%  of 

336 Eurostat (2022): Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu): ICT specialists in employment. 

337 The share of ICT employment that was accounted for by men stood at 81% in 2021, which was 2 percentage points lower 

than it had been in 2012.  

63 

 
 
                                                           
cybersecurity  graduates338.  Key  challenges  for  girls  and  women  in  the  digital  age  are  their 
visibility  and  a  lack  of  valued  role  models,  reinforced  by  their  underrepresentation  in  ICT-
related  studies,  gender  bias  and  stereotypes,  and  a  low  participation  of  women  in  digital 
entrepreneurship and innovation. Structural  barriers, such as working  conditions  and culture 
hinder girls and women to enter the predominantly male ICT-field339.  

Figure 12: Distribution of ICT specialists by sex  

19

81

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

10 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 26 26 28

90 86 85 85 84 83 83 81 81 81 81 80 80 80 79 79 79 79 78 77 77 77 76 76 74 74 72

Source: Eurostat 2021 

Male

Female

In 2021 about 9 out of 10 ICT specialists in Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia and Poland were 
men. While men accounted for about 8 out of 10 ICT specialists in the majority of the remaining 
EU Member States, Malta, Romania and Bulgaria were the only Member States where the share 
of men was lower than 75% (Figure 12). 

A closer analysis of the gender gap reveals that the share of female ICT specialists is slowly 
increasing  (Figure  13).  Since  2012,  the  most  striking  progressions  were  observed  in  Malta 
where the share of women in the total number of ICT specialists rose 15.2 percentage points, 
followed  by  Luxembourg  and  Portugal,  up  9.3  and  6.5  percentage  points  respectively.  By 
contrast, the relative share of men in the total number of ICT specialists rose the most in Greece, 
Bulgaria and Estonia, up by 4.1, 3.9 and 3.6 percentage points respectively340. 

338 ENISA (2022), Cybersecurity Higher Education Database (CyberHEAD) 

339 Women in Digital Declaration, . 

340 Eurostat (2022) : Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu): ICT specialists in employment. 

64 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 13: Women ICT specialists 

19,5%

19,0%

18,5%

18,0%

17,5%

17,0%

16,5%

16,0%

15,5%

15,0%

19,1%

18,5%

17,8%

17,0%

17,2%

17,2%

16,5%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

European Union - 27 countries (from 2020)

Source: Eurostat 2015-2021 

As already mentioned, despite the overall trend in the growth of employed ICT specialists, most 
enterprises  keep  reporting  difficulties  in  filling  the  growing  number  of  vacancies  for  ICT 
specialists341,342. There are also major differences between countries: they range from 78.0% in 
Slovenia to 32.8% in Spain (Figure 14). 

Figure 14: Enterprises that recruited ICT specialists, with or without difficulties 

120

100

80

37

22 23 23 29 30 31 32 32 32 33 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 41 41 41 41 46 49 54 54

60

40

20

0

63

78 77 77 71 70 69 69 68 68 67 62 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 59 59 59 59 55 51 47 46

67

33

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

E U 2 7 S L C Z D E L U N L M T B E H R A T E E L T S E D E F R P T I T H U E L L V F I

I E R O C Y S K P L B G E S

Hard to fill

No hard-to-fill vacancies

Source: Eurostat 2021 

341 Cedefop (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 

Union. 

342 Eurostat (2022): Database - Digital economy and society - Eurostat (europa.eu): Enterprises that recruited or tried to recruit 

ICT specialists by size class of enterprise [ISOC_SKE_ITRCRS] 

65 

 
 
                                                           
The trends observed regarding the increase of ICT specialists employed and the difficulty that 
companies  keep  having  in  recruiting  these  profiles  is  a  clear  sign  of  the  ongoing  digital 
transformation affecting the whole economy.    

In  2021  sliglthly  less  than  two  thirds  (64.5%)  of  employed  ICT  specialists  in  the  EU  had  a 
tertiary  level  of  education,  which  shows  the  importance  of  increasing  the  number  of  ICT 
graduates from upper-secondary and higher education343 - especially considering that in these 
disciplines entry requirements and dropout rates are high, and female participation is low. 

On the supply side, approximately 4.2 million students graduated from tertiary education in the 
EU in 2020. ICT makes up less than 5% of the total number of enrolled students and graduates 
(respectively  4.9%  and  3.9%)344,  even  though  it  is  most  commonly  associated  with 
technological progress and high employability345. The low number of ICT graduates and the 
growing number of ICT vacancies346 suggest that the gap between the demand and supply of 
ICT specialists may be widening. In vocational education and training, the field ’information 
and  communication  technologies’  had  nearly  495  000  students  enrolled  in  upper  secondary 
education in 2020347, and nearly 49 000 in post-secondary non-tertiary education348 [Note: 885k 
enrolled in tertiary in the same field, of whom 91k in short cycle tertiary VET349]. 

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. Equally companies need to invest more in education and 
training  and  consider  it  a  strategic  action  to  equip  or  enhance  employees’  digital  skills. 
However, in 2021, only 22.4% of enterprises provided ICT training for their staff 350 (up 3.3 
percentage points from 2012) and this happened in 69.5% of the cases among large enterprises 
and only in 20.9% of cases among small and medium enterprises351. Despite a slow upward 
trend in training investments observed in recent years, supported by labour market recovery, 

343 The share of ICT specialists in employment with a tertiary level of educational attainment rose by 9.4 percentage points 

between 2012 and 2021.  

344 For other STEM fields, engineering, manufacturing and construction-related studies makes up 114.8% of the total number 
of graduates and 15.8% of enrolled students; while natural science, mathematics and statistics 6,2% of graduates and 6.8% 
of enrolled students.  

345 Eurostat (2020): Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu): Tertiary education statistics.  

346 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 a European strategy for data. COM/2020/66 final.  

347 Eurostat (2020) : Database – Population and social conditions - Eurostat (europa.eu): Pupils enrolled in upper-secondary 

education by programme orientation, sex and age [EDUC_UOE_ENRS05] 

348 Eurostat (2020): Database – Population and social conditions - Eurostat (europa.eu): Pupils enrolled in post-secondary non-
tertiary education by programme orientation, sex, type of institution and intensity of participation [EDUC_UOE_ENRS07] 

349 Eurostat (2020) : Database – Population and social conditions - Eurostat (europa.eu): Students enrolled in tertiary education 

by education level, programme orientation, sex and field of education [EDUC_UOE_ENRT03] 

350 The percentage of companies investing in on-the-job training for their ICT professionals goes down to 10%.  

351  Eurostat  (2021):  Database  -  Digital  economy  and  society    -  Eurostat  (europa.eu):Enterprises  that  provided  training  to 

develop/upgrade ICT skills of their personnel by size class of enterprise [ISOC_SKE_ITTS] 

66 

 
 
                                                           
differences  across  enterprises  and  countries  persist352.  In  the  consultations  organised  in 
preparation of this initiative, representatives of the private sector highlighted the importance of 
valuing, recognising and fostering investments in upskilling and reskilling employees353. 

Being at the forefront of the technological revolution is crucial to ensure competitiveness and 
shape  the  conditions  for  its  development  and  use.  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 
mismatch,  but,  as  highlighted  by  consulted  stakeholders354,  additional  support  is  needed  to 
target specific learning needs and specific priority groups355.  

2.3 Further challenges to address  

Targeted investments and comprehensive reforms are needed to close the digital skills gap, 
achieve the EU targets on digital skills, and make sure that people of all ages and backgrounds 
can really seize the opportunities offered by the digital transformation. However any action on 
competence development requires a thorough and recognised assessment of the individual 
level of digital competence. Defining the starting point and understanding the related learning 
needs is crucial to identify what learning opportunities can be offered to specific target groups 
both during their educational journey and in a lifelong learning perspective.  

As described in section 2.1, there are still large differences between Member States regarding 
the level of digital skills of different segments of the population and the starting point varies 
largely from country to country. For instance the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)356 
shows that the level of convergence between Member States is increasing but the gap between 
the EU’s frontrunners and those with the lowest scores is still large. In terms of improvements, 
most Member States have made good progress in the last five years, however, efforts are still 
needed almost everywhere to meet the Digital Decade targets357.  

There is also variation within countries connected to the high impact that individuals’ socio-
economic  backgrounds  and  level  of  education  have  on  the  level  of  digital  skills.  The  gap 

352  Pouliakas  K.,  Wruuck  I.P.  (2022).  Corporate  training  and  skill  gaps.  Did  Covid-19  stem  EU  convergence  in  training 

investments? European Investment Bank – Working papers 2022/07.  

353 See Annex 2 for further details.  

354Closing  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.  

355 Cedefop (2020). Empowering adults through upskilling and reskilling pathways. Volume 1: adult population with potential 

for upskilling and reskilling. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union  

356 The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) is a composite index that summarises relevant indicators on Europe’s digital 
performance.  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). Its data 
collection is annual and allows tracking the evolution of Member States in digital competitiveness. More information: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi 

357  The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  —  Countries'  performance  in  digitisation.  Retrieved  from  https://digital-

strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/countries-digitisation-performance  

67 

 
 
 
                                                           
between rural areas and cities is still wide and virtually present in all Member States, somehow 
hindering economic developments and the uptake of digital technologies and online services358.  

The gender gap is also a complex challenge that requires targeted measures. The gender gap is 
particularly  high  in  some  of  the  fastest-growing  and  highest-paid  jobs  of  the  future,  like 
computer science and engineering. The digitalisation of the economy is providing an unique 
opportunity for economic growth and for a greater inclusion of women in the labour market. 
Boosting the number of women in  ICT is  a major opportunity for the EU. The sector needs 
highly skilled employees and while women make up the majority of graduates from tertiary 
education  they  are  underrepresented  amongst  ICT  graduates359.  However  addressing  the 
underlying  causes  of  gender  disparities  in  the  digital  and  STEM  fields  requires  targeted 
interventions early on, to raise awareness and interest360, provide role models and tackle gender 
stereotypes361. 

In addition, the main findings of a recent study show that, despite the widespread use of the 
European  Digital  Competence  Framework  for  Citizens362,  there  is  a  lack  of  a  standard 
definition used for the measurement of digital competences and also  a diversity of data 
collection methodologies and years of collection363, which poses methodological challenges 
and limitations to the existing knowledge base. This was further supported by Member States 
in the Structured Dialogue, which cited measurement and forecasting of digital skills gaps and 
needs as a challenging area for which support at EU level would be beneficial.  

According  to  the  same  study,  different  priority  groups  can  be  identified  depending  on 
individual characteristics leading to a higher probability of having low or no digital skills (Table 
2). However the variety of socio-economic characteristics of the priority groups identified by 
the study suggest that, in order to design effective skilling actions, focused research is required 
to better understand their needs, contexts and barriers to develop digital competences.  

358 Staff working document accompanying the long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas - COM(2021)166 Final 

359 EIGE (2018). Women and men in ICT: a chance for better work–life balance - Research note. Luxembourg: Publications 

Office of the EU, 2018 

360  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):.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,  33 (4) 4. 

361 European Parliament (2018). The underlying causes of the digital gender gap and possible solutions for enhanced digital 

inclusion of women and girls. 

362  Vuorikari  R.,  Kluzer  S.,  Punie  Y.  (2022).  DigComp  2.2:  The  Digital  Competence  Framework  for  Citizens  -  With  new 

examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

363 Centeno C., Karpinski Z., Urzi Brancati C. (2022).  Supporting policies addressing the digital skills gap. Identifying priority 

groups in the context of employment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table 2: Priority target groups for policy action 

Group 

Factor 

Characteristics 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Age  and  Education 
level 

Young 16-24 years old, with low-level formal education, and 
NEETs  (aged  16-35  not  in  employment,  education  or 
training) 

Age 

Individuals 55-64 years old 

Education level  

Individuals 25-64 years old with low-level formal education 

Individuals  25-64  years  old  with  medium-level  formal 
education 

Employment status 

Individuals unemployed 

Individuals inactive 

Nationality 

Nationals of non-EU countries 

Place of living 

Individuals living in rural areas 

Employment  status 
& occupation type 

Individuals  employed  in  semi-skilled  and  low  skilled 
occupations 

As highlighted by the stakeholders consulted in preparation of this initiative364, stronger efforts 
and  systematic  policy  actions  are  needed  to  improve  the  intelligence  capacity  at  EU  and 
Member States level and strengthen digital competence development at all levels of education 
and training.  

3. Digital skills in education and training  

As presented in section 2.1, Europe faces relatively low levels of digital skills and lower-than-
desired attainments, both in terms of at least basic digital skills and of advanced digital skills. 
The root cause of this phenomenon can be traced to the provision of digital skills at various 
education and training levels across the EU. Educational systems should take responsibility in 
being primary actors to address this gap. 

It has to be acknowledged that, in recent years, Member States have been putting forward policy 
reforms to evolve and adapt training curricula to the digital age. The inclusion of digital skills 
is now widespread, although with a great deal of variations from country to country and within 
countries. However, as the Structured Dialogue and Stakeholder Consultations show, additional 
efforts should be put forward to address the resisting skill gap across all population sectors.   

364 See Annex 2 for further information.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.1 The provision of digital skills from early age to adults 

To improve the educational offer we first need to look at the challenges each educational level 
face. Specific challenges require specific solution. The following paragraphs, therefore, present 
an  overview  of  the  provision  of  digital  skills  in  all  sectors  of  education  and  training.  The 
overview follows a logical structure starting from early childhood education and care, passing 
by formal (primary and secondary) education, vocational education, higher education, to finish 
with adult learning. 

3.1.1 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) 

Pre-school children are not detached from digital technologies. On the contrary, research shows 
that children are engaging with them at an increasingly younger age, even from the very early 
infancy (under the age of two)365. It is often the case that children approach digital devices out 
of  curiosity  and  modelling  the  behaviour  of  others,  and  this  leads  to  both  opportunities  and 
risks, especially when they are not guided and supervised. 

For most pre-schoolers, the first point of contact to engage with digital tools is at home. They 
learn quickly in a primarily domestic environment by observing and mirroring the behaviour 
of siblings, younger relatives and adults close to them. Their learning strategy is often based on 
trial  and  error,  which  can  potentially  lead  to  a  number  of  risks,  for  instance  exposure  to 
inappropriate content.  

At home, children are inclined to use digital devices such as mobile phones, tablets, smart TV 
and, less often, computers. They consume digital content such as videos and games (both offline 
and online) and use specific software, such as drawing tools366. The online presence (or digital 
footprint)  of  young  children  (going  from  under  the  age  of  two  up  until  schooling  time)  is 
mediated primarily through their parents and carers, who support them in accessing contents 
that suit their capabilities and interests. However, even very young children show adaptability 
and develop  strategies to  bypass  limitations, helped by the accessible design of most touch-
based  interfaces.  When  supported,  pre-schoolers  can  develop  awareness  on  the  risks  of 
technology and fluency in their use.  

Parents  and  carers  have  an  important  role  and  strong  influence  on  how  children  use 
technology and what digital skills they develop. The more parents are digitally literate – and 
thus are at ease in the digital environment as well as aware of its risks and opportunities – the 
more children develop sense of agency and risk awareness367. The socio-economic level of the 
family is related to the availability of digital devices, the level of digital skills of caretakers and, 
consequently, the opportunity children have to approach the digital world, and the perception 

365 Chaudron S., Di Gioia R., Gemo M. (2017). Young Children (0-8) and Digital Technology - A qualitative study across 

Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  

366 Jackie Marsh (2016). The digital literacy skills and competeces of children of pre-school age. Media Education, 7(2):. 178-

195. 

367  Chaudron S.,  Di  Gioia  R.,Gemo  M.  (2017),  Young  Children  (0-8)  and  Digital  Technology  -  A  qualitative  study  across 

Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

70 

 
 
 
                                                           
of it as a useful learning tool. Families from higher socio-economic strata are more likely to 
possess a variety of digital tools, and to make use of them in several occasions (leisure- and 
work-related)  thus  facilitating  a  variety  of  behaviours  for  infants  and  children  to  model. 
However, higher affordances linked to socio economic status lead to inequalities from a very 
young age, limiting opportunities for children from lower socio-economic families to receive 
guidance on the opportunities and – crucially – risks of the digital world. Digitally competent 
professionals  at  ECEC level  can  counter-balance this  trend by supporting children and their 
families.  

Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) can play an important role to guide young 
children as well as their families in developing the digital skills they need for their interactions 
with digital technologies and in ensuring equity of opportunities. This is often recognised by 
parents,  who  are  asking  for  assistance  in  developing  and  delivering  the  best  strategies  of 
mediation368, and expect pre-schools and schools to provide children with the digital skills they 
will need in the future. ECEC policies and provisions should therefore focus on two strands: 
supporting the family as a whole in a safe and meaningful use of technology and making sure 
nursery schools and professionals are equipped to tackle issues related to the early use of digital 
devices.  

In  this  context,  the  Structured  Dialogue369  confirms  an  emerging  trend  with  some  Member 
States promoting the development of digital skills at pre-school level, commonly using play-
based approaches. Learning through play is a powerful methodology and can be applied to 
the  domain  of  digital  education  in  the  early  infancy.  In  this  type  of  practices,  children  can 
explore, experiment, discover, and solve problems in imaginative and playful ways, while at 
the same time interiorising important concepts. Evidence suggests that learning through play 
happens when the activity is experienced as joyful, helps children find meaning in what they 
are doing or learning, involves active, engaged, minds-on thinking, as well as iterative thinking 
and has opportunities for social interaction. Learning through play with technology, including 
hybrid play (experiences that combine digital and physical), provides opportunities for young 
learners to acquire knowledge across a variety of contexts while developing a range of holistic 
skills, such as cognitive, creative, physical, social and emotional skills370. Equally, stakeholder 
consulted in preparation of this initiative highlighted the value of unplugged digital education 
activities which promote the development of digital skills without using digital devices. They 
can  play  an  important  role  to  translate  abstract  concepts  of  the  digital  world  into  tangible, 
concrete, sensorial inputs, helping children understand them. Although this is generally useful 
for all student levels, it is particularly effective when dealing with very young children.  

368  Scott,  F.L  (2021)  Family  mediation  of  preschool  children’s  digital  media  practices  at  home.  Learning,  Media  and 

Technology,. 47(2): 235–250. 

369 See Annex 3: Section 4.2.2.2, Digital skills initiatives in education settings 

370 UNICEF (2018). Learning through play. Strengthening learning through play in early childhood education programmes. 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.1.2 Primary and secondary education 

Although  national  approaches  might  change,  digital  skills  are  largely  addressed  in  formal 
education, and recognised as key throughout Europe.  

The vast majority of countries includes digital education strategies for primary, lower and 
upper secondary education371, which are evolving and, in general, expanding over time. This 
is due to the development of new technologies and to the increasing digitalisation level of our 
society,  the  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  challenges  and  the  need  to  adapt  the 
competences  developed  at  school  to  those  needed  in  higher  education  and  in  the  working 
environment.  The  implementation  of  strategies  to  develop  digital  skills  in  formal  education 
varies across Member States. Countries in  eastern and south-eastern Europe tend to  address 
digital education within a broader strategy. Western, central and northern European education 
systems show instead a specific digital education strategy372.  

When looking at the provision, three main educational approaches currently exist373. The cross-
curricular approach aims at having student develop digital skills in all/multiple subjects. A 
second approach is to introduce a separate subject devoted to the development of digital skills. 
For example, the inclusion of informatics (also known as computer science) in lower and upper 
secondary education is gradually emerging in educational systems around Europe374. Finally, a 
third  approach  consists  in  including  digital  skills  in  an  already  existing  subject,  like 
mathematics or science, language and social sciences, to avoid the creation of another subject 
in an already overcrowded curriculum.  

Stakeholder  consultations  organised  in  preparation  of  this  initiative375  highlight  that  each 
approach is valid, that they do not exclude each other, and that they can co-exist and help in 
supporting  learners’  digital  skills  development.  However,  their  implementation  carries  both 
advantages and disadvantages, and often depends on the level of education: while a combination 
of approaches is commonly adopted at primary level, disciplinary specialisation becomes more 
prominent at secondary level, but it is not always offered to all students equally. Each approach 
also has a different impact on learners’ digital skills and learning outcomes, depending on its 
implementation detail, and on teachers’ required competence level. 

In more details, a quarter of European countries combine two approaches or all of them376 
at primary level. The cross-curricular approach covering the most transversal digital skills (e.g. 
digital literacy and computational thinking) usually coexist with the presence  of a dedicated 

371 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice(2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice  Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

372 Ibid. 

373 Consistent with the Eurydice report (2019) on digital education, also the Structured Dialogue (Annex 3) analysis revealed 

considerable diversity of curricular approaches across MS. 

374 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2022). Informatics education at school in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

375 See Annex 2 for further details.  

376 Joint Research Centre (2022). Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education, JRC Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

72 

 
 
                                                           
subject for more specialised competences. This is facilitated by the fact that teachers in primary 
school  are  often  covering  several  subjects  at  once,  allowing  for  a  stronger  integration  of 
teaching strategies. At lower and upper secondary level, the trend is instead to favour a more 
specialised approach, and a separate subject like informatics becomes more common. 

However, a lack of a compulsory subject on digital skills in primary schools could represent an 
obstacle for students failing to  complete secondary education to acquire even a basic digital 
skillset.  This  could  prevent  them  from  accessing  better  reskilling,  upskilling  and  working 
opportunities throughout their career. 

Regardless of curricular choices, creating a specific subject or making time for elements of this 
subject transversally or within another subject is only a first step to ensuring that digital skills 
are  developed.  Further  challenges  arise  in  ensuring  assessment,  quality  teaching,  relevant 
resources, gender balanced uptake and representation. 

The cross-curricular approach  

Due to their nature, digital skills can be disseminated, developed and tested throughout several 
“traditional”  subjects.  This  approach  entails  the  involvement  and  coordination  of  several 
teachers at the same time. This could represent both an advantage and a disadvantage.  

On the one hand, students could benefit from being able to experience digital tools and develop 
digital thinking applied to different topics and in different situations. Teachers could also build 
upon  digital  activities  to  introduce  other  forms  of  cross-curricular  competences  (critical 
thinking, problem solving, etc.)377.  

On  the  other  hand,  if  teachers  fail  in  coordinating  the  time-allocation  reserved  for  digital 
competences and the related activities, this could result in repetitions, gaps and to a disorganised 
learning  pattern.  This  could  also  negatively  affect  the  learning  process  of  the  associated 
subjects. Moreover, this approach risks allowing just a superficial comprehension of the digital 
tools and subjects. Whereas the focus is on operational and applied skills (such as retrieving, 
analysing and visualising data, managing communication), students  might  lack time to fully 
understand  the  fundamental  mechanisms  at  the  base  of  digital  technologies,  their  working 
patterns, issues and opportunities.  

The involvement of multiple teachers in conveying digital competences to students means that 
the entire teaching staff has to be adequately skilled in digital technologies. This represents 
a challenge especially in those subjects that did not have traditional affiliation with the digital 
world,  and potentially for teachers approaching the end of their career. Even if the required 
level could change depending on the organisation of the cross-curricular digital activities, all 
teachers should be supported in developing their digital skillset and in effectively transmit it to 
students.  

377  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2022).  Informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe.  Eurydice  Report. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

73 

 
 
 
                                                           
Digital skills as part of a dedicated subject 

Addressing digital skills in a dedicated subject allows for both ensuring that a certain level of 
digital  skills  is  reached  by  all  students  and  favours  higher  specialisation  and  more 
advanced  digital  competences  than  in  the  cross-curricular  approach.  This  is  especially 
relevant  for those skills  that require dedicated learning  resources (IT equipment,  specialised 
software) and have specific teaching needs. 

Moreover, a dedicated subject allows better assessment of learners’ performance and of their 
achieved level of digital competence. Assessment can be calibrated to the curricular activities 
covered during lessons. 

On the down side, if digital skills are only taught in a separate subject with no integration to 
other  educational  activities  performed  at  school,  there  is  the  risk  that  these  competences 
remain isolated and do not show their potential application to other fields. 

With  this  approach,  teaching  staff  are  required  to  have  a  higher  degree  of  specialisation, 
particularly in secondary education. This could represent an obstacle for schools and teachers 
alike. Qualified teachers either require specialist knowledge in digital-related fields (computer 
science and other related disciplines) or to have participated in retraining schemes within the 
education  systemError!  Bookmark  not  defined..  In  any  case,  continuous  teacher  training  as  part  of 
continuing professional development schemes is necessary to ensure good-quality teaching and 
learning.  

Digital skills within another subject 

The  inclusion  of  digital  skills  and  subjects  into  another  pre-existing  subject,  such  as 
Mathematics  or  Science  and  Technology,  avoids  the  burden  to  create  another  subject  in  an 
already overcrowded curriculum. This allows leaving other subjects unaffected and it is best 
suitable when performed in conjunction with subjects that could immediately benefit from a 
higher  proficiency  in  digital  skills.  Stakeholder  consultation378  show  that  this  approach  is 
perceived as easier to implement than the previous approaches, because it is less disruptive of 
existing curricular arrangements.  

However, there is a risk of competition between the curriculum priorities and time allocation 
of the associated subject, especially when the teachers do not possess the appropriate skill level. 
When  facing  time  constraints,  teacher  might  prefer  to  dedicate  more  time  to  their  original 
subjects,  leaving  gaps  in  the  learning  process  of  pupils.  Associated  subjects  could  also  be 
negatively impacted by a reduction of time dedicated to them, when alternative solutions are 
not implemented to mitigate it. 

Digital competence assessment and quality teaching 

A fundamental step in educational strategies consists in the assessment phase. This serves to 
certify  the  level  of  competences  reached  by  students  and  to  collect  useful  data  to  fine-tune 

378 See Annex 2. 

74 

 
 
                                                           
education strategies, support teachers and students. Quality of teaching could also be assessed 
to evaluate gaps, training needs and additional support to teachers.  

Traditionally, summative assessment379 consists of grading, testing and promoting procedures 
to  verify  the  level  of  digital  skills  acquired  by  their  students,  and  it  usually  occurs  after  a 
learning module or theme. It is a useful indicator of the effectiveness of educational activities 
but does not necessarily help students throughout their learning process.  

Formative  assessment399  aims  at  evaluating  students  while  participating  in  the  learning 
process. Formative assessment is a method of collecting feedback from learners to adapt the 
teaching to meet student needs and has been considered in the last two decades as an essential 
component  of  classroom  work  as  its  development  can  raise  standards  of  achievement380.  It 
usually  entails  a  form  of  continuous  evaluation  throughout  learning  activities.  Effective 
formative assessment might require teachers to use a variety of tools: in some cases, formative 
assessment requires quick feedbacks on the students’ capabilities, for which automated tools 
may play an important role; in other cases, more reflective strategies may imply the use of open 
questions  or  self-assessment.  A  wide  use  of  tools  can  be  challenging  for  schools  and, 
importantly, for teachers, especially when they did not receive the necessary guidance.  

Another  way  to  assess  digital  competences,  usually  related  to  summative  assessment,  is 
represented by national standardised testing. These tools are often used to achieve a double 
goal: to certify the proficiency levels of pupils and students at the end of a particular stage of 
education  or  school  year  and  to  assess  the  quality  of  teaching  at  regional/national  level381. 
Although  this  is  a  widespread  practice  for  education  policy,  it  can  also  present  challenges. 
Results of tests can be used as access criteria to higher education, even though their design is 
often not tailored to this purpose. Schools can be unjustifiably affected by test results, especially 
in  difficult  social  areas,  whose  challenges  and  needs  could  not  be  taken  appropriately  into 
account.  If  assessment  strategies  are  only  based  on  standardised  testing,  they  might  distort 
perceptions on important skillsets for students, causing them to focus on passing the tests rather 
than to develop relevant capabilities382.   

The  outcome  of  the  Structured  Dialogue  confirms  that,  at  the  primary  and  secondary  level, 
assessment of digital skills  is  often neglected, sometimes only taking the form  of formative 
assessment.  Indeed,  only  half  of  European  countries  include  any  kind  of  assessment 
procedures for digital skills at primary or secondary school level383. Some countries never test 
digital competences, while others only assess them in secondary education. Despite the cross-

379 Siarova, H.; Sternadel, D.; Mašidlauskaitė, R., (2017). Assessment practices for 21st century learning: review of evidence, 

NESET II report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

380 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning. 

381 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice(2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice  Report.  Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

382 OECD (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation andAssessment. Paris: OECD 

Publishing. 

383 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2022). Informatics education at school in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

75 

 
 
                                                           
curricular nature of digital skills, testing is not homogeneous, and tends to involve preferentially 
students in certain educational sectors, such as STEM.  

Only three education systems (France, Malta and Austria) assess students’ digital competences 
through  specific  national  tests  related  to  individual  student  achievement  in  lower  secondary 
education.  In  the  Flemish  Community  of  Belgium  (lower  secondary  education),  the  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, France (primary education), Luxembourg and Finland digital competences 
are assessed through sample tests that aim at monitoring the quality of the education system 
rather than measuring the attainment levels of individual students384. 

Teachers are not always guided in how to correctly assess digital competences in their students. 
Only  few  educational  systems  developed  standard  approaches  and  guidelines  and  perform 
standardised  national  tests.  Student  digital  competences  are  evaluated  rarely  through 
specific national tests related to individual student achievement in lower secondary education. 
More often, digital competences are assessed through sample tests that aim at monitoring the 
quality  of  the  education  system  rather  than  measuring  the  attainment  levels  of  individual 
students.  

3.1.3 Vocational education and training 

Vocational education and training (VET) serves as a fundamental tool in both the skilling of 
young  professionals  and  in  reskilling  and  upskilling  of  adults.  As  such,  it  is  of  crucial 
importance in addressing the present and future challenges faced by our society in the skill area.  

Recent years saw a growing effort to promote the digital transformation of this sector. For 
instance,  a  CEDEFOP  study  found  that  between  2011  and  2018,  all  but  one  of  the  EU+ 
countries385 adopted and started implementing policies to promote digital competence in initial 
VET  (IVET)386,  commenced  in  lower  secondary  education.  The  2020  VET  Council 
Recommendation387 put the focus on two aspects: (i) providing training programmes offering 
digital skills to trainees, and (ii) foster the digitalisation of training activities. Many Member 
States388 are implementing these provisions through national plans for VET; therefore, future 
curricula  and  programmes  can  be  expected  to  have  stronger  elements  of  digital  education 
included. From a first analysis of the submitted national implementation plans of the Council 
Recommendation  on  VET  and  the  Osnabrück  Declaration389,  18  EU-27+  countries  cover 
reviewing and modernising VET standards, curricula, programmes and training courses in 

384 For additional details see: Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe - 2022 | Eurydice 

(europa.eu) 

385 EU27 plus Iceland, Norway, and the United Kingdom. 

386 CEDEFOP (2020). Key competences in initial vocational education and training: digital, multilingual and literacy. 

387  Council  Recommendation  of  24  November  2020  on  vocational  education  and  training  (VET)  for  sustainable 

competitiveness, social fairness and resilience - 2020/C 417/01. 

388  Austria,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 

Slovenia and Spain 

389 Osnabruck declaration 2020  

76 

 
 
 
                                                           
their countries to bring them closer to the skills needed on the labour market and in personal 
careers and development of individuals. 16 EU-27+ countries plan to integrate digital skills 
and competences in VET standards and curricula.390 

Students  from  IVET  show  levels  of  digital  skills  close  to  the  ones  of  students  in  general 
secondary education391. However, the nature of vocational education requires that the digital 
capabilities,  tools  and  competences  should  be  immediately  applicable  in  the  working 
environment  once  the  training  cycle  is  concluded.  This  means  that  advanced  and  more 
specialised  digital  competences  (such  as  CAD/CAM  programming,  robotics,  additive 
manufacturing, 3D printing, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity) should be developed by 
students during their VET attendance.  

However, basic digital skills should equally be part of the formative offer of VET. Reaching a 
basic  proficiency  is  a  fundamental  step  to  be  able  to  access  further  training,  reskilling  and 
upskilling opportunities. Provision of digital skills in IVET may contribute to close the gap of 
digital  skills  in  the  EU  workforce  by  matching  the  demand  of  the  labour  markets,  thus 
improving the employability of employees and promoting equality and social inclusion. The 
COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to digital ways of working and learning, leaving 
digitally  illiterate  workers  at  risk  of  being  excluded  from  the  job  market  and  facing 
difficulties in reskilling and upskilling.     

Similarly to general secondary education, digital skills could be developed by students in VET 
in  a  cross-curricular  way,  or  through  a  dedicated  subject392.  Indeed,  evidence  from  a 
Cedefop show that in IVET, digital competence is most commonly integrated in other subjects 
(35% of programmes) rather than as a stand-alone subject. Regardless of the approach chosen, 
data show that in some cases VET curricula over-emphasise programming/coding over more 
abstract digital competences, thus failing to address important digital skills that could be of use 
also for non-computationally specialised students393. 

Shortage  of  digitally  qualified  IVET  teachers,  as  well  as  lack  of  adequate  teaching 
material could also represent a risk for the pass-through of advanced and specialised digital 
skills, as recognised by experts.  

390 EU-27+ countries refer to the 25 countries that submitted NIPs (23 Member States plus NO and IS, BE submitted 2 NIPs, 
for BEfr and BEfl. 

391 CEDEFOP (2022). Evidence supporting the upcoming proposal for a Council Recommendation on improving the provision 

of digital skills in education and training. Draft working paper. 

392 See the previous section on Primary and Secondary Education for an overview of different approaches. 

393  Bocconi  S.,  Chioccariello  A.,  Kampylis  P.,  Dagienė  V.,  Wastiau  P.,  Engelhardt  K.,  Earp  J.,  Horvath  M.A.,  Jasutė  E., 
Malagoli  C.,  Masiulionytė-Dagienė  V.,  Stupurienė  G.  (2022).  Reviewing  Computational  Thinking  in  Compulsory 
Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.1.4 Higher education 

European higher education system must be one of the focuses of the policy action to increase 
the digital skills level of EU citizens. Specific targets394 of the European legislation on higher 
education  by  2030  aim  at  reaching  at  least  45%  of  25-34  year-olds  with  tertiary  education 
attainment.  Higher  education  learning  offer  has  to  be  both  general  and  sector  specific395. 
However,  universities  and  higher  education  institutions  might  face  significant  challenges  in 
developing  digital  skills  across  multiple  levels  and  disciplines,  in  offering  advanced  and 
specialised digital competences, and in implementing lifelong learning provisions. Realising 
these  goals  means  that  universities  should  adopt  a  holistic  and  comprehensive  (whole-
institution396) approach – making use of their whole educational and organisational structures 
–  in  adapting  their  offer  to  be  both  general  and  specialised397.  This  contributes  to 
create supportive learning environments where the institution as a whole is active on the (green 
and) digital transition. 

The higher education system should be part of a coherent and far-reaching educational path, 
aiming at a high degree of integration with the provision offered at lower educational levels. 
Digital skills should therefore be implemented at all levels and throughout all disciplines, even 
non-ICT ones, adopting when possible a multidisciplinary approach.  

Despite the transversal importance of digital skills for most professions, and although Higher 
Education Institutions are aware of the importance of digital skills for their students, a minority 
of institutions had developed in 2019 formal practices and curricula integrated in a transversal 
way  across  faculties.398  This  is  supported  by  similar  findings  from  an  EUA  (European 
University Association) survey on digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European Higher 
Education Institutions: prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, 90% of higher education institutions 
were  already  cognisant  of  the  importance  of  equipping  students  with  digital  skills  for  their 
future careers, i.e. by providing general digital literacy and study-specific digital skills in their 
educational offer. However, the survey also found that general digital skills education offer was 
often not integrated into study programmes and provided on a voluntary basis.399 Universities 
typically provide students with digital skills through dedicated programmes for specialists 
in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) – although results from the Structured 
Dialogue  show  that  this  trend  is  changing  and  Universities  are  committed  to  providing 
transversal  courses  on  general  digital  skills.  A  lack  of  digital  provisions  in  non-specialist 

394 Council Resolution on a strategic framework  for European cooperation in education and training towards the European 

Education Area and beyond (2021-2030), 2021/C 66/01 (2021), 

395 Proposal for a council recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability, COM(2022) 11 final 

396 Buckler, C.; Creech, H., (2014). Shaping the Future We Want. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-

2014): Final Report; Paris: UNESCO. 

397 For instance the proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability (COM(2022) 11 final) 
recognises that whole-institution approaches where sustainability is embedded in all processes and operations are not yet 
widespread across educational institutions, also due to insufficient funding and support.  

398 Bastos, S., De Oliveira, H., Silva, M., & Azevedo, L. (2019, November). Soft-digital skills in higher education curricula. 

In Proceedings of the European Conference on e-learning. 

399 Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European higher 

education institutions. Survey report. 

78 

 
 
                                                           
courses could lead to a limitation for students in other disciplines to acquire basic to advanced 
digital skills. This is even more significant noting that less than 5% of students enrol in ICT-
related programmes, and that this sector shows a low participation of women (see Figure 15). 
In  a  position  paper  received  in  preparation  of  this  initiative,  EUA  states  that  “In  higher 
education, digital skills are to be seen as part of general learning and teaching provision”400.  

Figure 15: Distribution of EU tertiary education students by broad field and sex 

Business, administration and law
Engineering, manufacturing and construction
Health and welfare
Arts and humanities
Social sciences, journalism and information
Education
Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics
Services
Information and Communication Technologies
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary
Unknown
Generic programmes and qualifications

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Males

Females

Source: Eurostat 

As confirmed by the Structured Dialogue401, Member States are putting effort to (i) increase the 
level of digital skills across a broad range of higher education courses and (ii) boost the 
number of students acquiring advanced digital skills. In particular, about one third of Member 
States referred to the development of courses supporting the provision of digital skills in non-
ICT programmes, while two-thirds referred to initiatives designed to increase the number of 
ICT  professionals,  including  women.  In  about  half  of  Member  States,  both  approaches  are 
implemented, demonstrating the importance of both basic and advanced digital skills in higher 
education.  

Higher Education institutions are adapting to the demand for short and tailored provision for 
ICT specialists. Half of respondents to EUA’s 2020 survey stated that their institutions provided 
short  courses  and  reported  a  growing  demand  for  these  to  operate  in  blended  mode  (65%) 
targeting  lifelong  learners  (55%).402  Compared  internationally,  Europe’s  higher  education 
institutions provide a high number of short courses to train ICT specialists in various fields.403  

400 EUA (2022). Digital skills – improving their provision. EUA’s feedback to the European Commission call for evidence,.  

401 See Annex 2: Section 4.2.2.2 Digital skills initiatives in education settings. 

402 Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European higher 

education institutions. Survey report. 

403  Righi,  R.,  Lopez  Cobo,  M.,  Papazoglou,  M.,  Samoili,  S.,  Cardona,  M.,  Vazquez-Prada  Baillet,  M.  and  De  Prato,  G., 
(2022)Academic Offer of Advanced Digital Skills in 2020-21. International Comparison, EUR 31043 EN, Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                           
Advanced  digital  skills  offered  as  part  of  the  ICT  curricula  in  Europe  include  areas  in  high 
demand such as artificial intelligence (AI), high-performance computing (HPC), cybersecurity 
(CS) and data science (DS). These technological domains are often taught independently on 
each other404, with the exception of AI and data science, for which significant overlaps exist in 
techniques and applications (data extraction and analysis, machine learning). This leads 1 in 8 
university courses to cover these domains in a common subject. 

Data  on  available  university  courses  in  the  EU  show  that  artificial  intelligence,  including 
robotics,  automation  and  machine  learning,  is  offered  relatively  widely  across  Europe405,  at 
bachelor’s and especially at master’s level. The exact distribution of contents is tailored to the 
specific  needs  of  the  curriculum.  For  example,  ICT  curricula  show  a  balanced  presence  of 
robotics and automation, machine learning, AI applications and ethics, while Engineering has 
a prevalent presence of robotics and automation. Several Commission policy initiatives aim at 
creating  a  favourable  environment  to  promote  AI  and  data  related  skills.  These  include 
traineeships  in  digital  areas  (Digital  Education  Action  Plan406),  specialised  education  and 
training  programmes  (Digital  Europe  Programme407),  PhD  programmes  and  AI  excellence 
centres  (Horizon  Europe408),  doctoral  and  postdoctoral  networks  in  AI  (Marie  Skłodowska-
Curie actions409). 

High-performance  computing  allows,  using  parallel  computing,  cloud  computing  and 
supercomputers, to manage large amounts of data and to solve complex computational tasks. It 
is of crucial importance for pure research (e.g. in physics, chemistry, medicine and engineering) 
but  has  also  widespread  applications  to  a  variety  of  business  areas.  The  EU  (and  Europe  in 
general) fall short of the US in terms of offer of advanced HPC skills in universities. 

Despite its social and economic importance, the academic offer of cybersecurity courses is 
less frequent in the EU than in other parts of the world (such as the US and the UK), and often 
to  a lower degree of specialisation410.  In  addition,  skills  mismatches  between education and 
training and the needs of the labour market, aggravated by the lack of a common language on 

404 Ibid. 

405 According to JRC research, the offer of AI and robotics courses in the EU is comparable to the one in the UK and US, 

especially at master’s level.  

Righi  R.,  Lopez  Cobo  M.,  Papazoglou  M.,  Samoili  S.,  Cardona  M.,  Vazquez-Prada  Baillet  M.,  De  Prato  G.  (2022). 
Academic Offer of Advanced Digital Skills in 2020-21. International Comparison, Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 

406 COM/2020/624 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 

407 Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe 

Programme and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240 

408 Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – 
the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and 
repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 

409 Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 of 10 May 2021 establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe – the 

Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, and repealing Decision 2013/743/EU 

410 For a list of available Cybersecurity academic courses in the EU, see the Cybersecurity higher education database developed 

by ENISA:  https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/education/cyberhead#/  

80 

 
 
                                                           
cybersecurity skills, complicates career pathways in cybersecurity.  Important policy initiatives 
such  as  the  NIS2  Directive411,  the  European  Cybersecurity  Act412  and  the  new  EU  Cyber 
Resilience Act413 will trigger a market need for cybersecurity specialists in sufficient number 
and with the right skillset. 

Data science, including  big data, statistical  modelling, data analytics  and machine learning, 
show many applications and are in high demand in the EU. Universities across the EU offer 
related  courses  to  a  similar  degree  when  compared  to  the  leading  countries  (US  and  UK). 
Moreover, as data science has significant overlaps with other ICT disciplines, it is often seen 
as a facilitator to introduce AI, HPC and cybersecurity concepts in non-ICT programmes. 

To  support  the  development  of  education  and  training  programmes  in  cutting-edge 
technologies, the European Commission is currently supporting excellence in higher education 
institutions  via  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  (DEP).  The  aim  is  to  make  European  higher 
education institutions world leaders in training digital specialists and to increase the capacity 
of the training offer for advanced technologies. This should also lead to the development of a 
dynamic  digital  ecosystems  where  academic  excellence,  research  and  innovative  industries 
work together to attract and retain the best talents worldwide. 

The  first  two  DEP  calls  for  masters414  and  short  term  training  courses415  in  key  digital 
technologies  awarded  21  new  consortia  gathering  230  partners  in  all,  including  businesses, 
universities, research and training centres. 

The  third  call  of  the  Digital  Europe  Programme416  provides  support  to  consortia  to 
design/deliver Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes and self-standing modules/courses in key 
digital  areas.  One  of  the  focus  areas  of  the  third  call  is  the  development/delivery  of 
interdisciplinary  programmes,  targeting  the  acquisition  of  advanced  digital  skills  in  specific 
sectors  (e.g.  agriculture,  energy,  finance,  health,  law,  media  and  culture,  manufacturing, 
sustainable  and  autonomous  mobility,  and  space).  The  content  of  the  programmes  will  help 
students to deploy and use technologies in an empowered way in their work in these specific 
sectors. Another focus area is the conversion programme(s) for students graduated from non-
ICT fields to access specialised Master’s programmes in the key digital areas. 

411 Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high 
common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, 
and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive)   

412 Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union 
Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing 
Regulation (EU),  OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 15–69 

413 COM(2022) 454 

414  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/digital-2021-

skills-01-specialised  

415  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/digital-2022-

training-02-short-courses  

416  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/digital-2022-

skills-03-specialised-edu  

81 

 
 
                                                           
The low participation of women in the ICT higher education sector was raised as a common 
challenge  and  concern  in  the  Structured  Dialogue417,  and  all  Member  States  mentioned 
examples  of  ongoing  initiatives  to  enhance  female  enrolment  and  career  development. 
However, with few exceptions, these initiatives do not take a systematic approach to gender 
equality. 

Available data show that Europe suffers from a lack of expertise in teaching advanced digital 
technologies and integrating these technologies across curricula and in specialised courses. A 
JRC analysis mapping provision in digital areas such as AI, cybersecurity or high performance 
computing  shows  that  in  2019-2020  the  UK  alone  was  offering  almost  as  many  specialised 
Master’s  programmes  in  AI  as  the  whole  EU27418.  Moreover,  especially  for  advanced  ICT 
specialists, the Structured Dialogue confirm existing differences with regards to the quality and 
content of training or recognition of skills. This has an impact on the certification of such skills 
and mutual recognition of qualifications within and between Member States.  

Finally, opportunities are arising for higher education institutions to provide lifelong learning. 
Small  courses  leading  to  micro-credentials  can  particularly  help  provide  flexible,  accessible 
learning opportunities for digital skills for a variety of learners, including adults419. 

3.1.5 Adult learning 

Skills are a key foundation to the European economy and society by preparing people to seize 
opportunities and drive the green and digital transition. Considering the existing skills shortages 
and the needs of the labour market in the light of the recovery420, upskilling and reskilling on 
digital  skills  play  a  central  role421.  The  60%  EU  headline  target422  can  help  boosting  adult 
participation  in  learning, including on digital  skills, which currently remains  low across EU 
countries423.  

Participation of the hard-to-reach groups in up- and reskilling (such as elderly people, people 
with disabilities, those living in deprived or remote/ and rural areas, migrants, or other minority 

417 See Annex 2: Section 4.2.2.2 Digital skills initiatives in education settings. 

418 Righi R., Lopez Cobo M., Papazoglou M., Samoili S., Cardona M., Vazquez-Prada Baillet M., De Prato G. (2022). Academic 
Offer of Advanced Digital Skills in 2020-21. International Comparison, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. 

419  Council  Recommendation  on  a  European  approach  to  micro-credentials  for  lifelong  learning  and  employability, 

COM/2021/770 final 

420 A recent report from the European Investment Bank shows that employers keep reporting the lack of staff with appropriate 
skills as one among the top obstacles to investment. For further information see European Investment Bank (2022). EIB 
Investment Report 2021/2022.  

421 CEDEFOP (2021). Digital skills: Challenges and opportunities.  

422 The target states that at least 60% of adults in the EU should have been participating in learning over the previous 12 months 

by 2030. 

423 EU-27: 37% in 2016 (the latest available data with the indicator a 12 month reference period). The 2016 Adult Education 

Survey shows that only a few countries reached 50% in that year (AT, DK, FI, HU, NL, SE). 

82 

 
 
 
                                                           
groups424) remain a concern for all Member States. For some, the onset of the pandemic also 
brought an additional challenge in upskilling older people of working age. Many Member States 
are implementing new initiatives addressing this need, including through action carried out in 
collaboration with social partners and, to a less extent, industry, but these initiatives are often 
not structural and comprehensive. To reach those hardest to reach it is key that different types 
of organisations join forces425. Beyond the digital inclusion dimension, raising awareness of 
new realities and skills demands in the world of work plays a key role in adult learning426. 

Concerns have been expressed about the negative short and long-term impact of the pandemic 
on  participation  in  adult  learning  and  inequalities  in  accessing  it427.  For  instance,  an  OECD 
report finds that, under certain  assumptions, the pandemic reduced workers’ participation  in 
non-formal learning by an average of 18 percent, while the corresponding decrease in informal 
learning  is  about  25  percent428.  These  results  are  consistent  with  recent  Eurostat  statistics, 
showing that the EU adult participation in formal and non-formal education and training in the 
last four weeks decreased from 10.8 percent in 2019 to 9.2 percent in 2020 to then go back to 
10.8%  in  2021429.  Additionally,  during  the  pandemic,  the  share  of  online  adult  learning  has 
significantly  increased  from  8%  in  2019  to  13%  in  2020,  compared  to  very  slow  progress 
before430. Results also indicate that the increase of online adult learning has been especially 
pronounced among women, individuals aged 55 to 64, and less educated adults431. Outcomes 
of the open public consultations of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 confirmed that 
the emergency situation caused by the pandemic forced and in some cases encouraged many 
individuals that had no previous experience in using distance and online learning to get at least 
some exposure to it. Furthermore, practically all respondents already using distance and online 
learning before the crisis continued to do so432. In a nutshell, evidence shows that in most EU 
countries the pandemic was associated with a higher proportion of adults taking online courses. 

424 The concept of hard-to-reach groups appeared quite frequently in the Structured Dialogue. Member States referred to it by 
thinking,  first,  at  those  being  geographically  hard  to  reach  and,  secondly,  at  those  being  hard  to  reach  socially.  It  is 
important to note however that some individuals may be hard to reach in both senses. 

425 Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling 

Pathways: New Opportunities for adults. 

426 CEDEFOP (2020). Challenging digital myths: first findings from Cedefop’s second European skills and jobs survey. Policy 

brief. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. 

427 European Commission (2020). Adult learning and COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities. ET 2020 Working Group on  

Adult Learning - Di Pietro G., Karpiński Z., Biagi F. (2021). Adult learning and the business cycle. Luxembourg: Publications 

Office of the European Union.  

428 OECD (2021). Adult learning and COVID-19: how much informal and non-formal learning are workers missing? 

429 Eurostat (2021): Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu): Adult learning statistics. Importantly, these data on participation 
use another methodology (4 weeks reference period) than the current 60% headline target (one year reference period). 
Additionally,  

430 Data on adult participation in online learning come from calculations based on Eurostat (2021): Database – Digital Economy 
and Society – Eurostat (europa.eu):  Survey on the use of ICT in households and by individuals [ISOC_I] in the years 
2017, 2019, 2020 and by considering only individuals aged between 25 and 64. For additional information about changes 
in participation in online adult learning in 2020 see: Di Pietro G. and Karpiński Z. (2021).  Covid-19 and online adult 
learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

431 Di Pietro G., Karpiński Z. (2021). Covid-19 and online adult learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 

Union. 

432 See Annex 2 for further details.   

83 

 
 
                                                           
However these are shares out of the relatively small adult population that does participate in 
learning. While the shift in adult learning towards online activities is likely to continue433, any 
further increase in the future depends very much on how many people will actually develop at 
least basic digital skills434. 

Over  the  past  two  years,  the  Commission  and  the  Council  put  forward  several  initiatives  to 
support Member States in further developing actions in the field of adult learning, including on 
digital skills, such as the Resolution on a new agenda for adult learning 435 and the two Council 
Recommendations on individual learning accounts436 and on the European approach to micro-
credentials437. The development of basic skills including digital competences for low-skilled 
adults  was  also  underpinned  by  the  Council  Recommendation  on  Upskilling  Pathways438. 
Progress towards the adult learning target are supported by different EU funds, including the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)439, but at 
its basis there is a strong need for comprehensive policies addressing the challenges of the 
EU  adult  learning  system  such  as  low  participation  rates,  difficulty  of  access,  inadequate 
funding or insufficient paid training leave policies440. 

When it comes to digital skills, in the majority of Member States, strategic policies targeting 
the  provision  of  digital  skills  for  adults  are  usually  formulated  and  assessed  by  the  same 
ministry that has institutional responsibility for the overall education and training system (i.e. 
Ministry of Education)441. This approach entails the possibility to integrate adults’ digital skills 
learning into the overall policy-making for education but has the risks of underestimating the 
importance  of  specific  measures  and  funding  that  might  be  needed  in  a  lifelong  learning 
perspective compared to primary, secondary and higher education.  

433 Eurostat statistics shows that interest in online education keeps growing in the EU. For further information see Eurostat 
(2022): News article – Eurostat (europa.eu):  Interest in online education grows in the EU - Lockee B.B. (2021). Online 
education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics,  4 (1)  

434 Boeren E., Roumell E.A., Roessger K.M. (2020). COVID-19 and the future of adult education: An editorial. Adult Education 

Quarterly, 70(3) 

435 Council Resolution on a new European agenda for adult learning 2021-2030 2021/C 504/02  

436 Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on individual learning accounts 2022/C 243/03 

437    Council  Recommendation  of  16  June  2022  on  a  European  approach  to  micro-credentials  for  lifelong  learning  and 

employability 2022/C 243/02 

438 Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults, 2016/C 484/01, 

OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 1–6 

439 Nearly all Recovery and Resilience Plans endorsed by the Commission and approved by the Council include measures on 
adult learning, but the importance allocated to it varies a lot. Common measures include upgrading policy frameworks, 
providing support for demand-based individual upskilling and use of public employment services to fund investments for 
employed and unemployed people.  

440 OECD (2021). Skills Outlook- Learning for Life. Chapter 4: Promoting interest and participation in adult learning. 

441 This is the most common approach in the EU Member States, for example, in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, 
Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia. Source: Beblavý M., Bačová B. (2022). Literature review on 
the provision of digital skills for adults. EENEE report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

84 

 
 
                                                           
A recent literature review on adults’ digital skills442, reveals that policies on the topic are usually 
articulated through generic strategic documents on digitalisation443, even though countries, 
also considering the impact of the Covid-19 crisis, are increasingly developing specific digital 
skills strategies for adults, for instance the ‘10 Year Adult Literacy, Numeracy and Digital 
Literacy Strategy’ of Ireland444. In some countries, however, adult learning is not a priority and 
remains  underfunded445.    Equally  a  comprehensive  and  functioning  system  for  monitoring 
participation and learning outcomes is often missing, which makes it hard to gather interest or 
develop effective targeted interventions446. 

Across  countries,  policies  pay  particular  attention  to  the  inclusion  of  vulnerable  groups  like 
senior citizens and NEETs (not Employed, in Education or Training) and to address transversal 
inequalities such as the gender divide. Individuals are most often targeted as both citizens and 
workers, with governments concerned about equipping them with skills needed for societal and 
economic  transformations.  Most  countries  pursue  a  mixed  approach  supporting  adults’ 
education  pathways  provided  by 
institutions,  employers,  multi-stakeholder 
partnerships  or,  very  often,  regional  open  learning  centres.  There  is  also  an  increase  in  the 
availability of support provided for individual learning through vouchers, individual learning 
accounts or similar approaches. Despite these promising examples, many initiatives are bottom 
up, demand-led and often not well coordinated447. 

training 

Analysing the provision of digital skills for adults in the EU and across Member States is not 
an easy endeavour. Literature on adults’ digital skills is rich but evidence mapping the courses 
and  programmes  available  and  analysing  their  effectiveness  is  limited,  often  focusing  on 
specific target groups or on more advanced digital skills448.  

A transversal analysis of the available evidence highlights that the provision is scattered among 
a variety of providers and uneven between countries and target groups. Even where there is a 
plethora  of  options  available  for  adults,  there  is  a  challenge  of  accessibility.  For  instance, 
access to training is easier for employees of large companies than for those in small or medium 
enterprises.  For  those  workers  who  have  no  or  loose  links  to  an  employer,  the  challenge  of 
accessing training is clearly greater. A similar disadvantage is visible for adults with low level 
of education and for those living in rural areas who both participate in training significantly less 
than people with higher levels of education and living in towns and cities. Some Member States 

442 Beblavý M., Bačová B. (2022). Literature review on the provision of digital skills for adults. EENEE report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

443 This is the approach taken, for example, in Digital Austria in 2050, Digital Bulgaria 2025, Germany’s Digital Strategy 2025, 
Dutch  Digitisation  Strategy  2.0,  Denmark's  Digital  Growth  Strategy  or  the  Strategy  of  the  Digital  Transformation  of 
Slovakia 2030.  

444 Adult Literacy, Numeracy and Digital Literacy Strategy for Ireland (solas.ie) 

445  Transversal  analysis  of  the  2020  Member  States  Reports  on  National  Developments  in  Adult  Learning  and  on  the 

implementation of the Skills for Life flagship initiative. 

446 Ibid.  

447 Beblavý M., Bačová B. (2022). Literature review on the provision of digital skills for adults. EENEE report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

448 Ibid. 

85 

 
 
                                                           
have  started  to  address  this  challenge  of  accessibility  through  the  creation  of  aggregators449 
and/or virtual providers450 that, however, have limited effectiveness, especially among those 
lacking  basic  digital  skills451.  Across  Member  States  there  are  also  regional  or  place-based 
networks of providers covering both basic and more advanced digital skills whose activities are 
rarely evaluated and assessed.  

As a consequence, multiple barriers still exists for those that would most need this provision 
(e.g. costs of training, time for the training, lack of certainty about its quality and recognition, 
insufficient tailoring of training offers to individual needs, etc.)452. Often low-skilled people or 
those living in disadvantaged regions are the least able to take advantage of skills development 
opportunities unless such programmes are targeted at their particular needs in terms of content, 
access, support and outreach453. 

To conclude, evidence on what is currently offered in terms of digital skills provision for adults 
and on the effectiveness of existing policies and interventions is limited. Further research at 
European  and  national  level  would  support  in  gathering  intelligence  and  identify  good 
practices that could be shared across Europe.  

More  in  general,  considering  adults’  level  of  digital  skills  and  their  general  participation  in 
lifelong  learning  activities,  integrated  financial  and  non-financial  support  is  needed  to 
incentivise more adults to participate in learning and further develop their digital skills. The 
relationship between digital skills and employment rates in the European Union is statistically 
significant454 and the correlation between the share of GDP invested in adult learning and the 
adult learning participation rate is strong455. Equally findings from recent surveys shows that 
better financial incentives or support are considered as a key instruments to encourage adult 
participation in training, including on digital skills456.  

Among the respondents to the 2016 EU Adult Education Survey and the 2019 OECD Survey 
of Adult Skills who have not attended any adult learning opportunity in the least twelve months, 
four out of five declared not to be interested (‘disengaged’ from learning in the terminology of 

449  Aggregators  are  programmes  and  projects  that  do  not  provide  their  own  trainings  but  serve  as  aggregators  of  content 

provided by others. 

450 Virtual providers, as opposed to aggregators, not only provide information and links to courses or providers but are directly 

involved in the provision. They are frequently publicly run and/or funded. 

451 Weakness of aggregators and virtual providers is that they are most likely to be successfully accessed by those who already 

possess some level of digital skills.  

452 European Commission (2022). The EMCO-EDUC Multilateral Surveillance 2022 - Thematic discussion on strengthening 

adult learning.  

453 Clancy S., Studená I., Vatrella S. (2020). The Upskilling Pathway. In Europe's Lifelong Learning Markets, Governance and 
Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 

454  Bejaković  P.,  Mrnjavac  Ž.  (2020).  The  importance  of  digital  literacy  on  the  labour  market. Employee  Relations:  The 
International Journal. 

455 European Commission (2020). Workforce skills and innovation diffusion: trends and policy implications. Annex 8. See also 

European Commission (2020). Adult Learning Statistical Synthesis Report. 

456Cedefop (2020). Perceptions on adult learning and continuing vocational education and training in Europe. Second opinion 

survey – Volume 1 (europa.eu).  

86 

 
 
                                                           
the OECD Skills Outlook 2021)457. A transversal analysis of the 2020 Member States Reports 
on  National  Developments  in  Adult  Learning  confirms  that  measures  increasing  the 
attractiveness, flexibility and recognition of the avaiable quality assured provision would 
boost  particiation,  especially  from  vulnerable  groups  or  lower  skilled  individuals.  Measures 
aimed at increasing individual awareness of personal skills needs and possible impact of the 
training on employability and connected factors would be equally beneficial458. From this point 
of  view  validation  and  certification  of  digital  skills  remains  a  priority  in  the  EU  and  across 
Member States. 

3.2 The role of informatics 

It  is  internationally  recognised  that  there  is  a  fast  emerging  trend  in  educational  systems  to 
include Informatics as part of national curricula and as part of the general education for all479. 
Informatics has progressively become an important  foundational  competence along with  the 
three  Rs:  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic/mathematics.  For  some  time,  most  European 
educational  systems  fell  behind  this  trend,  focusing  more  on  digital  literacy  and  with  the 
digitalisation  of  teaching459.  The  main  limitation  of  this  approach  is  that,  despite  providing 
pupils the means to use digital technologies, it does not fully equip them with the ability to 
create, control and develop digital contents.  

Informatics has many names and a slightly different interpretation depending on the country. 
In the United States  and in  the UK there is  a distinction between the concepts  of Computer 
Science,  the  “scientific”  part  of  the  discipline  including  concepts  such  as  computational 
structures, processes, algorithms, data structures and programming and the more technological 
side, called Information Technology. The European interpretation of informatics tends instead 
to comprise both ‘the science and technology of processing information’460. 

As  noted  by  the  Committee  on  European  Computing  Education  in  2017,  in  most  European 
countries informatics was at most optional and offered to a limited subset of students, some of 
whom could complete secondary education without ever being exposed to its basic principles. 
However, some countries, like Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia, have a long-standing tradition of 
teaching informatics in  school,  and there is  a growing consensus  on the importance to  offer 
students  a  sound  education  in  informatics461.  Most  European  countries  are  implementing  or 
developing  curricular  reforms  to  informatics  teaching,  often  as  part  of  the  recovery  and 

457 Eurostat Adult Education Survey and OECD (2021). Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for life. 

458  Transversal  analysis  of  the  2020  Member  States  Reports  on  National  Developments  in  Adult  Learning  and  on  the 

implementation of the Skills for Life flagship initiative. 

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

460 Académie des sciences (2013). L’enseignement de l’informatique en France. Paris 

461  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2022).  Informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe.  Luxembourg:  Publication 

Office of the European Union. 

87 

 
 
 
                                                           
resilience plans developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic462. 17 education system are 
in the process of implementing curricular reforms, and 11 others are planning the development 
of new digital strategies also addressing informatics. 

Key competences and pedagogical approach 

A  2022  Eurydice  report  on  informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe  identifies  ten  major 
competences specifically connected to informatics463. These can be divided in more operational 
competences  (data  and  information,  algorithms,  programming,  modelling  and  simulation), 
systemic  competences  (computing  systems,  networks  and  communication)  and  ethical  and 
anthropological  competences  (people-system  interface,  design  and  development,  awareness 
and empowerment and safety and security)464. 

Data  show  that  European  formal  education  systems  address  an  increasing  amount  of 
competences at different educational levels (either in mandatory or optional courses). With 
some  exceptions  like  Greece,  most  countries  introduce  informatics  in  primary  school  with 
algorithms,  programming  and  safety  and  security,  while  concepts  like  networks,  computing 
systems and human-machine interface are usually left for secondary education.  

Figure  16:  Coverage  of  informatics-related  areas  by  European  education  systems  in 
primary and general secondary education, 2020/2021 

Safety and security

Awareness and empowerment

Data and information

40

30

20

10

0

Algorithms

Programming

Modelling and simulation

Computing systems

Design and development

Networks

People-system Interface

Primary education

General lower secondary education

General upper secondary education

Source: Eurydice 

Similarly to what was presented for digital skills in general, informatics in school can be taught 
as a separate subject or integrated in another subject, usually related to science483. Informatics 

462 For more information on the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the main recovery instrument to mitigate the economic 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  see  https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-

impact  of 

effects  and  social 
euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en  

463  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2022).  Informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe.  Luxembourg:  Publication 

Office of the European Union. 

464 Informatics for All coalition (2022). Informatics reference framework for school 

88 

 
 
                                                           
plays an important role in other scientific subjects requiring data processing, such as physics, 
applied sciences and biology. On the one hand, teaching informatics as a separate subject 
allows to better define educational goals and it gives it a most prominent status, improving the 
synergy with other subjects. On the other hand, the main challenge is to find place for another 
subject in an already overcrowded timetable. When informatics is not a compulsory subject, 
moreover, there is the risk that it is perceived as a very technical and specialised topic and that 
stereotypical assumptions, such as the gender bias, are reinforced by this perspective.  

The other possibility is to integrate informatics into another subject, so to more easily find 
it a place in the timetable. This would also favour a better integration of informatics with real-
life case studies and examples. However, this might have negative repercussions on the content 
development  during the  school  year and possibly on teacher’s effectiveness  and career. The 
“traditional” subject to which it is paired could take prevalence over informatics. Due to the 
more challenging scheduling process, informatics teachers could face difficulties in organising 
their  teaching  activities.  Not  being  appointed  a  fully  curricular  subject,  they  could  also  be 
penalised in the progression of their career. 

Informatics in formal education 

Traditionally,  as  also  confirmed  by  the  Committee  on  European  Computing  Education465, 
informatics  in  schools  has  been  primarily  reserved  to  upper  secondary  level,  both  in  formal 
education and in vocational schools. Lately, a growing consensus started to emerge on teaching 
informatics in primary education, of course adapting the curricular activities to the learning 
capabilities of students of that age. Usually, this translates into putting a stronger emphasis on 
concrete and operational skills, leaving the more abstract concepts for later educational stages. 
Research  show466  that  using  a  “start  early”  approach  could  lead  to  positive  effects  on  the 
development of digital and beyond-digital (creative thinking, mathematical skills, reasoning) 
skills in young students. Starting early could also serve to reduce the gender bias by introducing 
the subject before the emergence of stereotypical assumptions on technical and scientific topics.  

Making informatics a  compulsory subject offer the possibility to  all students  to  experience 
informatics, potentially increasing their interest in the discipline. This is especially important 
to address gender and any other bias. The main challenge of this approach is represented by the 
required specialisation of teachers, as pointed out by other international  experiences467, who 
should  possess  an  adequate  skillset  even  in  lower  educational  stages.  This  poses  challenges 
especially related to the re-skilling and upskilling of the existing teaching population in primary 
education. 

Data  show468  that  in  Europe,  only  Greece  and  Lithuania  have  informatics  as  a  compulsory 
separate  subject  from  the  beginning  of  primary  education.  A  few  other  countries,  such  as 

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

466 Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-

analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology 

467 The Royal Society (2017). After the reboot: computing education in UK schools. 

468  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2022).  Informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe.  Luxembourg:  Publication 

Office of the European Union. 

89 

 
 
                                                           
Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary, have introduced compulsory informatics in 
the higher grades of primary school. Croatia and Slovenia were the only two countries in which 
it is optional at primary level. Seven other EU Member states include informatics in primary 
school,  integrating  it  in  another  subject.  Importantly,  16  education  system  do  not  offer 
informatics in primary school at all, but might include generic digital competences.  

The situation is different at secondary level. In lower secondary education, all but 4 countries 
included in the Eurydice study offered informatics in their curricula, either as a separate subject 
or  integrated  into  another  subject.  However,  most  Member  States  offer  a  combination  of 
optional and mandatory teaching depending on the level. Whereas in lower secondary education 
the vast majority of educational systems mandates at least some form of informatics education, 
in upper secondary education it is largely optional or compulsory for only a subset of students 
(almost always as a dedicated subject). 

Students progress during their learning process through various stages of development, which 
allow them to acquire competences of increasing sophistication. As for other subjects, this is 
true for informatics as well. For this reason, it is important to fully integrate the educational 
process  across  all  educational  stages,  from  primary  to  secondary  school,  up  until  higher 
education and adult learning, tailoring the educational strategies to the cognitive development 
stage reached by students. Informatics is both a science and a technique. Theory and practice 
are fundamentally  connected, and working on practical  application often  represents  the best 
way to get students interested in the underlying processes. 

Addressing the gender and representation gaps in informatics 

All learners in formal education should have the opportunity to develop advanced digital skills, 
irrespective of gender, ethnicity, social and economic level and disability. Special approaches, 
although still sporadic, are being taken to engage female students in developing more refined 
digital skills, with the aim to increase the share of women with advances studies and careers in 
ICT469, and to reduce the gender imbalance in these subjects. As presented in section 2.1, recent 
research show that girls in primary and secondary education outperform or perform similarly 
to boys on digital skills, but show lower levels of self-efficacy470, which prevents them from 
pursuing ICT studies in tertiary education471. This self-efficacy gender gap is also supported by 
results  by  the  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  education,  which  showed  that  male  students, 
compared to  female students,  feel  slightly more  confident  in  most digital  competence areas, 
including problem solving, information and data literacy and safety.472  

469 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2022). Informatics education at school in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

470 The ‘self-efficacy’ gender gap is the difference between girls’ and boys’ confidence and belief in their abilities. See: West 
M., Kraut R., Ei Chew H. (2019). I’d blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education. UNESCO.  

471 Gebhardt E., Thomson S., Ainley J., Hillman K. (2019). What Have We Learned About Gender Differences in ICT?. In: 

Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy. IEA Research for Education, vol 8. Springer, Cham.  

472 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. 

90 

 
 
                                                           
The  long-standing  issue  of  a  gender  gap  in  STEM  disciplines  has  its  origins  in  the  lower 
presence  of  women  in  related  academic  degrees.  The  Informatics  Europe  Higher  Education 
Data Portal473 reports statistics from a sample of 18 European countries (15 EU Member States 
plus  Switzerland,  Turkey  and  the  UK),  showing  that  the  percentage  of  female  students 
enrolled in the first year of informatics bachelor degree programmes was only 18.4% in the 
2019–2020 academic year. Although scarce and only available for the US, data on secondary 
education  female  students’  participation  in  (optional)  informatics  courses  paint  a  similar 
picture.  

Educational systems, especially at primary and secondary level, might contribute significantly 
to address this issue. Stereotypical assumptions on the profile of informatics students (socially 
awkward and technology-focused males) have an impact on the social perception of specialised 
ICT students and workers, potentially steering away female perspective students. This is why 
the  first  contact  of  (female)  students  with  informatics  should  happen as  soon  as  possible, 
before prejudicial assumptions are interiorised and push underrepresented groups away. This is 
confirmed by a wide array of research474. 

EU Member States are introducing provisions to increase female participation in STEM and 
informatics in their education strategies. The approaches could be different, with some countries 
(e.g.  Belgium)  developing  gender-based  programmes  focused  on  girls,  while  others  (e.g. 
Estonia and Austria) opting for a more ‘universal’ approach. 

Similar  efforts  should  also  be  made  to  identify  territorially475  and  socioeconomically 
disadvantaged groups (as for instance those living in rural areas, outermost regions and other 
remote areas, disadvantaged or marginalised groups such as Roma third-country nationals with 
limited  knowledge  of  the  host  country,  those  having  a  low  level  of  education,  or  not  in 
education, employment or training), customise the provision accordingly, and set up supporting 
measures facilitating their equal participation.  

Research476 show that a lack of qualified teachers can represent an obstacle to equal access for 
students to advanced digital education. Teachers should be adequately prepared to deal with 
groups of students with  diverse ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds and genders.  In this 
respect, addressing the gender gap in digital skills between male and female teachers deserves 
special  attention:  the  2nd  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  education477,  for  instance,  showed  that 
male teachers  report much higher self-stated  confidence  levels  compared to  female teachers 

473 Informatics in European in Higher Education  

474  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2022).  Informatics  education  at  school  in  Europe.  Luxembourg:  Publication 

Office of the European Union. 

475 The Rural in Digital Scoreboard, developed under the EU Rural Action Plan, can be an useful instrument to find information 

in rural areas including on digital skills. 

476  Cateté  V.,  Alvarez  L.,  Isvik  A.,  Milliken  A.,  Hill  M.,  and  Barnes  T.  (2020).  Aligning  Theory  and  Practice  in  Teacher 
Professional  Development  for  Computer  Science.  Proceedings  of  the  20th  Koli  Calling  International  Conference  on 
Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '20). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.. 

477 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. 

91 

 
 
                                                           
across  all  five  digital  competence  areas  (i.e.  digital  content  creation,  problem  solving, 
information and data literacy, communication and collaboration and safety). 

Teachers in Informatics 

Good  quality  teaching  means  that  teachers  need  to  be  equipped  both  with  far-reaching 
knowledge  on  the  subject  and  with  appropriate  pedagogical  skills.  Since  informatics  is  a 
relatively  new  subject  in  schools,  it  is  likely  that  the  current  teaching  workforce  never 
studied  it  during  their  school  and  academic  years.  This  means  that  re-training  educators  in 
informatics could be more complex to manage than with other disciplines.  

Participants to the Stakeholder Consultations for the preparation of this initiative agreed that 
the availability of teachers with adequate preparation and qualification to teach informatics is a 
key element hindering the development of high-quality and inclusive pedagogical practices on 
informatics. They highlighted that the challenge is two-fold as there is a need to simultaneously 
focus on training new teachers and reskilling/upskilling existing teachers in a sustainable 
way. They called for additional efforts to better prepare generalist teachers on the matter (e.g. 
having digital skills is not enough to teach informatics), attract specialist informatics teachers, 
establish a culture of ongoing professional development, share teaching materials and resources 
that also need to be translated and localised. 

Teacher  retention  and  attracting  new  specialists  into  teaching  informatics  were  also 
mentioned as key element to look at. The main challenge is represented by the fact that ICT 
graduates are in high demand in the job market, and there is a great deal of competition for 
schools. Salaries and careers opportunities in industry are generally more attractive than in the 
academia and (even more) in schools478. Participants to the stakeholder consultation confirmed 
the  teaching  staff  shortage  in  this  area479  and  suggested  to  experiment  hybrid  solutions  and 
consider developing flexible learning pathways to train and recruit informatics graduates (some 
of  whom  might  wish  to  teach  part-time).  In  primary  education,  teachers  tend  to  have  a 
generalist training and to teach more than one subject. In almost all EU education systems in 
which  informatics  is  included  as  a  specific  subject,  generalist  teachers  can  teach  it.  Only  in 
Greece, Slovenia and partially in Bulgaria, specialist informatics teachers are required also in 
primary  school.  Moreover,  to  address  teacher  shortages,  in  some  education  system  (e.g. 
Estonia) schools can recruit IT specialists without teaching qualification on a temporary basis. 
Specialist  teachers  go  through  dedicated  training  provided  through  initial  teacher  education 
(ITE)  or  retraining  programmes.  Usually,  such  training  courses  also  include  elements  of 
pedagogy and psychology. 

In lower secondary education, two thirds of education systems allow informatics teachers with 
specialisation other than informatics (usually mathematics, physics and other sciences). Only 
Hungary  and  Slovakia  allow  generalist  teachers  when  no  specialists  are  available,  usually 

478 Informatics in European in Higher Education 

479 The same is confirmed also by sector’s associations. For example, a 2022 study of the German Stifterverband mentions that 
Germany has a specialised informatics teaching workforce of 10000 people, but that it would need another 20000 to reach 
the  same  teaching  level  as  its  leading  regions  of  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania  and  Saxony.  Source: 
https://www.stifterverband.org/sites/default/files/informatikunterricht_lueckenhaft_und_unterbesetzt.pdf  

92 

 
 
                                                           
requesting additional training certifications. In all education systems in Europe480, specialist 
teachers  go  through  dedicated  training  provided  through  initial  teacher  education  (ITE), 
retraining  programmes  for  teachers  or  alternative  pathways.  Amongst  the  latter,  the  most 
common  are  professional-oriented  programmes  designed  to  supply  candidates  with  non-
teaching  academic  degree  in  informatics  with  the  necessary  skills  to  obtain  a  teaching 
qualification.  Retraining  programmes  for  teachers  are  part  of  continuing  professional 
development (CPD), allowing teachers to extend their qualifications to also include informatics. 

In higher secondary education, owning to the growing complexity of the curricula, half of 
education  systems  in  Europe  require  informatics  specialists,  while  the  other  half  allow 
specialists in other disciplines (usually mathematics, sciences, engineering and economics) to 
deliver informatics curricula. Similarly to lower secondary education, qualifications to teach 
informatics in higher secondary schools exist in most EU Member State, either through ITE 
programmes, retraining of teachers or alternative training programmes.  

For all educational levels, a fundamental need is the availability of quality teaching materials 
for informatics courses, focusing both on the content as well as on the pedagogical support to 
teachers  and  students.  Data  show481  that  in  many  Member  States,  countries  are  directly 
responsible for developing their teaching material, sometimes in collaboration with universities 
and private companies. 

3.3 Structural challenges and emerging needs 

The analysis in the previous sections focused on the specific issues of the different education 
levels.  However important  it is  to look  at  characteristics in  each level,  it  is  also  essential to 
maintain an overall vision of the whole educational path. From the analysis of the Structured 
Dialogue, transversal issues and lines of actions can be drawn: 

  Progression of digital skills across educational levels. To be effective, digital skills 
should be offered in an integrated, coherent and progressive educational path going from 
early infancy to the adult life. Starting with more basic digital concepts at an early age, 
the level of sophistication and details of digital education should grow consistently with 
the development of cognitive capacities in students. Notwithstanding school autonomy 
and  the  different  challenges  that  educational  levels  face,  this  requires  clear  policy 
guidance  and  an  overall  education  strategy  supporting  coordination  amongst  pre-
schools,  schools,  VET  providers  and  universities.  Shared  criteria  for  assessment  and 
certification of digital skills would support this process. Most Member States prepared 
educational  strategies  for  digital  skills,  but  only  few  considered  a  holistic  approach 
throughout  the  various  stages  of  education  and  training.  The  Structured  Dialogue 
confirmed  challenges  especially  in  the  implementation  phase.  Member  States 
acknowledged  the  importance  to  build  stronger  links  between  levels  of  the  formal 

480 With the exception of the German-speaking Community of Belgium. 

481 Informatics in European in Higher Education 

93 

 
 
 
                                                           
education system and between formal and non-formal education systems with respect 
to  digital  skills  development.  They  also  highlighted  that  educational  systems  must 
ensure that curricular reforms and advancements in digital skills do not lag behind in 
compulsory schooling in comparison with VET and higher education.  

  Teachers’  training.  One  of  the  core  aspects  when  it  comes  to  providing  quality 
education is to ensure that teachers possess all the skills they need to perform their job 
at  best.  In  case  of  technical  subjects,  this  might  require  specialist  training  and 
certifications. Across all educational levels, recruiting and properly preparing teaching 
staff482 in informatics, ICT or other digital areas is a challenging effort, confirmed by 
stakeholders in the consultations organised in preparation of this initiative. The main 
reasons  can  be  traced  to  the  low  availability  of  specialists  in  these  fields  and  to  the 
attractiveness of teaching when compared to a career in business, which usually offers 
better salaries and career development. At the same time, training and re-training of the 
existing teaching workforce is not enough to satisfy the needs, as confirmed by Member 
States in the Structured Dialogue. The offer of up-skilling and re-skilling initiatives for 
teachers is often not compulsory, and digital skills are seldom included in initial teacher 
training.  

  Monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment.  While  most  EU  Member  States  have 
developed strategies for developing digital skills, few undertake regular monitoring and 
evaluation  to  assess  their  impact,  review  these  strategies  and  put  in  place  effective 
measures. To do so effectively, robust assessment tool of digital skills in students are 
needed. Organising unbiased, effective and on-point evaluation of any skills, and digital 
skills in particular, can be challenging for educational systems, schools and teachers. Its 
organisation requires clear strategic indication and guidance, and a proper analysis of 
the  results.  The  Structured  Dialogue  suggests  EU  support  would  be  beneficial  in 
bridging this gap. 

482 The need to have adequately trained staff is not  restricted to teachers only, but it can also include ICT coordinators and 

managing figures like headmasters. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

This Annex presents the procedural information concerning the preparation of the two proposals 
for Council Recommendations on the enabling factors for digital education and training and on 
improving  the  provision  of  digital  skills  in  education  and  training.  The  two  initiatives  are 
distinct but complementary, and therefore accompanied by a single supporting Staff Working 
Document. 

Leading Directorate-General: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
(DG EAC) 

Associated Directorates-General:  

  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology  (DG 
CNECT)  associated for PLAN/2021/11208: Proposal for Council Recommendation 
on the enabling factors for digital education and training  

  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (DG  EMPL)   
associated for PLAN/2021/11209: Proposal for Council Recommendation on improving 
the provision of digital skills in education and training 

The Staff Working Document has been written in close cooperation with the Unit T1 (Digital 
Economy) of the Joint Research Centre, which provided the thematic analysis of the Calls for 
Evidence,  national  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  and  discussions  from  the  Structured 
Dialogue on digital education and skills, which is presented in Annex 3. 

Work Programme/Decide references: The two proposals for Council Recommendations were 
announced  in  the  Communication  ‘Digital  Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027:  Resetting 
education  and  training  for  the  digital  age’  (COM/2020/624  final),  under  actions  1  and  10, 
respectively.  They  were  subsequently  included  in  the  Communication  ‘Making  Europe 
Stronger Together’ presenting the Commission  Work Programme  for 2022 (COM/2021/645 
final),  as  non-legislative  initiatives  under  the  policy  objective  ‘A  Europe  Fit  for  the  Digital 
Age’.  The  Decide  Planning  references  are  PLAN/2021/11208  (proposal  for  Council 
Recommendation  on 
training)  and 
PLAN/2021/11209  (proposal  for  Council  Recommendation  on  improving  the  provision  of 
digital skills in education and training). 

the  enabling  factors  for  digital  education  and 

Organisation and timing: The preparation of the initiatives started in September 2021 with 
the validation of the Decide Planning entries.  

The preparation of the initiatives was formally accompanied by the Interservice Steering Group 
on digital education and skills, chaired by SG, and included representatives of the following 
DGs: EAC, CNECT, EMPL, AGRI, COMP, DIGIT, ECFIN, GROW, HOME, INTPA, JRC, 
JUST, LS, NEAR, REFORM, REGIO, RTD, SANTE, SG-RECOVER. 

Three inter-service meetings took place chaired by SG: 

  The  first  one,  on  17  December  2021,  had  the  objective  to  present  and  discuss  the 
objectives  and  process  of  the  Structured  Dialogue  with  Member  States  on  digital 
education  and  skills,  which  would  constitute  one  of  the  sources  of  evidence  for  the 
initiatives. SG and the three core DGs (EAC, EMPL, CNECT) presented the planning 
and  expected  deliverables  of  the  process,  including  the  two  proposals  for  Council 
Recommendations.  4  DGs  (INTPA,  AGRI,  REGIO  and  DIGIT)  took  the  floor  to 

95 

 
 
provide  support  and  feedback  on  the  outlined  plans.  In  addition,  EAC  provided  an 
update on the progress of the implementation of the Digital Education Action Plan. 

  The second inter-service meeting took place on 7 April 2022 with the objective to update 
services  about  the  progress  in  implementing  the  Structured  Dialogue  and  collect 
feedback on the Calls for Evidence  for the proposals for Council Recommendations. 
Following the meeting, DGs were invited to send written comments on the Calls for 
Evidence by 13 April 2022. Comments were received from four DGs (AGRI, ECFIN, 
JRC, REFORM). 

  The third inter-service meeting took place on 9 November 2022 with the objective to 
discuss the draft outlines of the two proposals for Council Recommendations, as well 
as  provide  an  update  on  the  progress  and  the  next  steps  of  the  Structured  Dialogue. 
Following  a  presentation  by  EAC,  14  DGs  took  the  floor.  They  provided  positive 
feedback  on  the  outlines  and  some  additional  suggestions  regarding  the  content  and 
wording of the text. Following the meeting, DGs were invited to send written comments 
on  the  outlines  by  16  November  2022.  Contributions  were  received  from  16  DGs 
(AGRI, CNECT, COMP, DIGIT, ECFIN, EMPL, HOME, INTPA, JRC, JUST, NEAR, 
REFORM, REGIO, RTD, SG-RECOVER, SG).  

The  final  drafts  of  the  proposals  for  Council  Recommendations  and  their  supporting  Staff 
Working  Document  were  scrutinised  in  linked  inter-service  consultations,  which  took  place 
from 20 February until 17 March 2023.  

Positive  opinion  on  the  Staff  Working  Document  was  given  by  all  services,  with  written 
comments from 4 DGs (CNECT, ECFIN, ESTAT, SG).  

Positive  opinion  on  the  Council  Recommendation  on  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital 
education and training was given by all services, with written comments from 17 DGs (AGRI, 
CNECT, COMM, DEFIS, DGT-EDIT, DIGIT, ECFIN, EEAS, EMPL, FISMA, INTPA, JRC, 
JUST, REFORM, RTD, SG, SJ) 

Positive opinion on the Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills 
in  education  and  training  was  given  by  all  services,  with  written  comments  from  18  DGs 
(AGRI, CNECT, COMM, DEFIS, DGT-EDIT, DIGIT, EEAS, EMPL, ENER, FISMA, HOME, 
INTPA, JRC, JUST, REFORM, RTD, SG, SJ).  

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 Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. 

  Targeted studies by European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE), 
Eurydice, the Joint Research Centre, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development (OECD). 

  Data from DESI, EURYDICE, EUROSTAT, ICILS, PIAAC, PISA, TALIS.  
  Results  of  the  open  public  consultation  run  in  preparation  of  the  Digital  Education 

Action Plan 2021-2027. 

  Feedback  received  in  response  to  the  Calls  for  Evidence  for  the  two  proposals  for 

Council Recommendations.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
  Results of 13 targeted stakeholder consultation events held in 2021-2022 and involving 

a wide range of stakeholders. 

  An analysis of the findings from the bilateral deep-dive meetings with all 27 Member 
States organised as part of the Structured Dialogue on digital education and skills.  

  An analysis of Member States’ national Recovery and Resilience Plans.  

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

97 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT  

This  synopsis  report describes all stakeholder consultations conducted in preparation of two 
Commission  proposals  for  a  Council  Recommendation,  one  on  the  enabling  factors  for 
successful digital education and training and one on improving the provision of digital skills in 
education and training. The activities carried out allowed the collection of stakeholders’ views 
on:  

  The COVID-19 crisis and its implications for digital education and skills; 
  Key  challenges  in  the  development  of  high-performing  digital  education  ecosystems 
and the enhancement of digital skills and competences for the digital transformation; 

  Areas to be addressed in the two proposals for a Council Recommendation. 

In addition, the evidence base benefits from in-depth discussions with policy makers in all 27 
Member States in the context of the Structured Dialogue on digital education and skills, which 
are reported in Annex 3. 

1.  Consultation activities, context and consultation methodology 

The stakeholder consultations were conducted in three ways: 

  Open  Public  Consultation  on  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027  (June  - 

September 2020); 

  Targeted stakeholder consultations (October 2021 - December 2022);  
  Calls for Evidence for the two initiatives (August - September 2022). 

1.1. Open Public Consultation on the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 

The Open Public Consultation (OPC), conducted in 2020 in preparation of the Digital Education 
Action Plan 2021-2027, had the objective of better understanding lessons from the COVID-19 
pandemic and gathering views on how to best support education and training systems in the 
digital  transformation.  Given  its  objectives,  its  wide-ranging  questions,  and  its  recent 
deployment, the feedback received in the OPC remains relevant for the current initiatives. 

The OPC was available  in  all EU languages and open to  all citizens and organisations. The 
2,716  replies,  which  included  136  input  papers,  came  from  60  countries,  with  a  good 
representation of the various sectors and levels of education. The collected data was analysed 
with  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods,  including  the  DORIS  tool483.  A  summary  report 
providing a factual description of the OPC results was prepared by the Joint Research Centre 
(JRC),  the  European  Commission’s  science  and  knowledge  service,  in  cooperation  with  the 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC)484. 

483  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. 

484 Summary report  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1.2. Targeted stakeholder consultations 

The targeted stakeholder consultations included events dedicated to one of the two proposals 
for  a  Council  Recommendation  and  events  with  a  combined  focus.  The  target  groups  for 
consultation  were  identified  on  the  basis  of  a  stakeholder  mapping  that  took  into  account 
geographical  and  sectorial  coverage.  In  addition,  both  proposals  were  discussed  in  detail  in 
dedicated  meetings  of  the  European  Education  Area  Working  Group  on  Digital  Education: 
Learning  Teaching  and  Assessment  (DELTA),  whose  members  include  representatives  of 
Ministries of Education from EU Member States, EFTA countries, EU candidate countries and 
education organisations.  

In view of achieving wide participation and engagement, as well as complying with COVID-
19  restrictions,  video  conferences,  online  workshops  and  panel  discussions  were  the  main 
channel used for consultation. The collected data was analysed using qualitative methods. Table 
1 provides an overview of the stakeholder groups and the respective format and focus of each 
targeted consultation. 

Table 2 - Overview of the targeted consultation activities 

N. 

Consultation 

Topic 

Date 

Stakeholders 

Member 
States 

CR 

Activity 

Online  dedicated  high-
level  panel  discussion  at 
the  European  Education 
Summit 

the 

Online  plenary  meeting 
DELTA 
with 
Working  Group  (Digital 
Learning, 
Education: 
Teaching 
and 
Assessment) 

Online  dedicated  high-
level  panel  discussion  at 
the  Digital  Education 
Stakeholder Forum 

Online  dedicated  panel 
discussion  at  the  Digital 
Education 
Stakeholder 
Forum 

Hybrid 
workshop 

participatory 

Online  plenary  meeting 
with 
DELTA 
Working Group 

the 

Online 
workshop 

participatory 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Strategies 
digital 
transformation 

for  a  successful 
education 

9 
December 
2021 

Policymakers, 
practitioners  and  young 
people 

All MS 

Enabling 
factors 

Enabling  Factors 
the 
Structured  Dialogue  on  digital 
education and skills  

and 

26  January 
2022 

DELTA Working Group  

All MS 

Enabling 
factors 

enablers 

Key 
education in Europe 

for 

digital 

22  March 
2022 

Policymakers, 
practitioners  and  young 
people 

NA 

Enabling 
factors 

Skills 

Digital 
and 
Competences:  Achieving  the 
EU's goals together 

22  March 
2022 

Policymakers, 
practitioners  and  young 
people 

NA 

Digital 
skills 

Improving 
the  Provision  of 
Digital  Skills  in  Europe:  The 
Place  of  Informatics  in  School 
Education 

April 

6 
2022 

Experts  and  professors 
on  informatics  coming 
from  different  Member 
States  

Virtually 
all MS 

Digital 
skills 

Improving 
digital skills and competences 

the  provision  of 

10  May 
2022 

DELTA Working Group   All MS 

Improving 
Digital  Skills 
the Role of the Civil Society 

the  Provision  of 
in  Europe: 

13  May 
2022 

NA 

The  Community 
of 
Practice  of  the  Digital 
Competence  Framework 
(DigComp) 

Digital 
skills 

Digital 
skills 

99 

 
 
 
 
Digital 
skills 

Enabling 
factors  & 
digital 
skills 

Enabling 
factors 

Enabling 
factors  & 
digital 
skills 

Enabling 
factors 

8 

9 

Online  Peer  Learning 
Activity  (PLA)  with  the 
DELTA Working Group 

Online 
workshop 

participatory 

10  Online 

dedicated 
the 
at 
of 

workshop 
European  Week 
Regions and Cities 

Improving 
digital skills and competences 

the  provision  of 

28-29 June  DELTA Working Group   All MS 

the 

Improving 
Digital 
Education and Skills in Europe: 
the Role of the Private Sector 

1 July 2022   Members 

of  Digital 
Europe and Giga Europe, 
and  other  major 
IT 
providers  

Regional  and  local  perspective 
on digital education and skills 

12  October 
2022 

Policy  makers  from  all 
levels  of  government, 
private 
companies, 
practitioners 

NA 

All MS 

11  Online 

participatory 

workshop 

12  Online  Peer  Learning 
Activity  (PLA)  with  the 
DELTA Working Group 

13  Hybrid  dedicated  panel 
the 

discussion 
Education Summit 2022 

at 

Stakeholder  Consultation  for 
CR  Proposals  on  1)  Enabling 
factors for digital education and 
2)  Improving  the  provision  of 
digital  skills  in  education  and 
training 

Enabling  factors  for  digital 
education 

Empowered in the Digital Age: 
Effective  Provision  of  21st 
Century  Digital  Skills 
in 
Education and Training 

21  October 
2022 

NA 

the 
Stakeholders  from 
formal,  non-formal  and 
informal  education  and 
training 
community, 
social partners.  

DELTA Working Group   All MS 

26-27 
October 
2022 

1 
December 
2022 

Policymakers, 
practitioners  and  young 
people 

All MS 

Digital 
skills 

In  addition  to  the  13  targeted  consultations  listed  above,  the  proposal  for  a  Council 
Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training was a 
discussion item in the agenda of different meetings organised by the Directorate-General for 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
(DG  EMPL)  and  Directorate-General 
Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT), including: 

Inclusion 

  Expert Group of EU Associations of VET providers485 (22 March 2022)  
  Working Group on Adult Learning486 (31 March 2022)  
  Advisory  Committee  on  Vocational  Training  (ACVT)487/Directors  General  for 
Vocational Training (DGVT)/European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and 
Training (EQAVET)488 members (26 April and 8 December 2022). 

  The Digital Assembly (21-22 June 2022). 

485 The expert group includes European Associations of VET Providers. 

486 Members include representatives from Member States’ public authorities, Ministries of Education from third and candidate 

countries, trade unions and other organisations. 

487 Members include trade unions, business associations and other organisations, Member States’ public authorities, as well as 

other public entities of third and candidate countries. 

488 The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) supports the 
implementation  of  the 2020  recommendation  on  Vocational  Education  and  Training  for  sustainable  competitiveness, 
social fairness, and resilience. It includes National Quality Assurance Reference Points (NRPs) that bring together relevant 
stakeholders  at  the  national  and  regional  level.  Together  with  national  representatives  from  ministries  and  other 
responsible bodies, the NRPs are at the core of the European EQAVET network. 

100 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
1.3. Calls for Evidence 

The Calls for Evidence (CfE), one for each Council Recommendation, were open from 1 August 
to 16 September 2022. They outlined the political context, the problems the initiatives aim to 
tackle, their objectives and the need for EU action. The CfEs were available in all EU languages 
and  resulted  in  88  submissions  on  the  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital  education 
(including 42 input papers) and 95 submissions on improving the provision of digital skills in 
education and training (including 48 input papers). Both quantitative and qualitative methods 
were  used  to  analyse  the  feedback.  The  analysis,  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  the  JRC, 
included  the  following  steps:  topic  identification,  tagging,  consistency  review,  descriptive 
statistical analysis, and qualitative content analysis. 

2.  Summary of the consultation results 

2.1. Enabling factors for successful digital education and training 

2.1.1.  Open Public Consultation on the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 

The COVID-19 crisis created a sense of urgency with regards to digital education, with many 
stakeholders considering it as a ‘turning point’ for how technology is used in education and 
training. The OPC results revealed socioeconomic inequalities and insufficient infrastructure 
as  the  most  prominent  challenges  for  digital  education  in  Europe.  Infrastructure  and 
connectivity  were  specifically  mentioned  as  essential  elements  in  the  provision  of  digital 
education.  The  majority  of  respondents  identified  disparities  in  infrastructure  and  the 
availability  of  digital  tools  as  the  key  challenges  faced  during  the  COVID-19  crisis.  Issues 
related to connectivity and digital equipment were particularly relevant for educators, education 
and training staff, and representatives of education and training institutions. 

One fifth of educators who responded to the public consultation (2020) reported that during the 
pandemic they had insufficient digital skills and competences. The need to equip educators and 
teachers  with  digital  competences  was  recognised  as  the  most  important  element  in  the 
provision of digital education, while teacher training and guidance prevailed as one of the most 
pressing challenges for digital education and also as an area where EU support is needed. In 
parallel, supporting education and training institutions to develop digital education strategies 
ranked third in terms of areas where the EU could bring added value, while the lack of planning 
and vision for integrating digital technologies was also classified as a significant challenge in 
Europe.  

Finally,  the  provision  of  high-quality  online  learning  resources,  including  platforms  and 
content, was mentioned as another area where the EU could add value. The OPC results showed 
that for the majority of the respondents digital content is most useful when it is interactive and 
user-friendly. Overall, in view both of the crisis and the longer-term challenges of the digital 
transformation,  stakeholders  called  for  a  more  strategic  and  consistent  approach  on  digital 
education.  

2.1.2.  Targeted stakeholder consultations  

The following section presents  an overview of the targeted stakeholder  consultations on the 
enabling factors for successful digital education and training in four areas, namely 1) impact-

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
focused  investment,  2)  whole-of-government  approach  and  involvement  of  stakeholders,  3) 
support to  education and training institutions and staff, and 4) monitoring and evaluation  of 
digital  education  and  training  policies  -  which  correspond  to  the  main  topics  discussed  by 
stakeholders. 

Impact-focused investment 

Ensuring  access  to  digital  devices  and  developing  capacity  for  their  use  were  identified  as 
fundamental areas for investments in digital education. As mentioned in the high-level panel of 
the Digital Education Stakeholder Forum, equal  provision of digital equipment in schools is 
considered one of the most important elements for achieving equity and inclusion. Along the 
same line, it was highlighted in the high-level panel of the 2021 European Education Summit 
that  connectivity  should  be  treated  as  a  public  good  and  a  call  was  made  for  a  European 
approach that leaves no one behind.  

The issues of inclusion and accessibility were also raised by some representatives of the WG 
DELTA, indicating that targeted evidence-based investments should be applied to vulnerable 
groups. Regarding assistive technologies, the group noted that there is a need for guidelines on 
their benefits, types and costs that could be used by practitioners. Additionally, reference was 
made by most of the consulted groups to the need for  appropriate digital content and tools. 
Representatives  of  the  formal  education  sector  noted  that  digital  education  tools  should  be 
adaptive and flexible, and stressed the need for reliable digital education technology providers 
that are  required to  secure data protection and privacy. The  consulted representatives of the 
private sector recognised the importance of promoting privacy and security in their products. 
Closely  related  to  that,  some  panellists  of  the  2021  European  Education  Summit  called  for 
special attention to be given to ensuring digital wellbeing. 

Some  of  the  representatives  of  the  WG  DELTA  raised  the  issue  of  sustainability  and 
maintenance of the digital equipment and, by extension, the need to upgrade digital content to 
adapt to new technologies. Representatives of the private sector expressed similar views and 
further  highlighted  the  importance  of  digitalisation  in  education  being  planned  and 
implemented with a long-term perspective. Representatives of both the private and the formal 
education sector emphasised the importance of continuity of reforms and investments in digital 
education,  with  the  latter  group  emphasising  that  investments  should  take  teachers’  and 
learners’ needs into consideration. 

Some  of  the  consulted  groups  provided  suggestions  on  procurement  processes  for  digital 
education. In the EU Week of Regions and Cities workshop, the importance of empowering 
municipalities in managing investments in digital education and skills was emphasised, with 
representatives of Local and Regional Authorities suggesting that small-scale actions at local 
level  could  be  more  effective  in  responding  to  rapid  technological  advances.  Streamlining 
funding  opportunities  and  making  efficient  use  of  EU  funding  were  seen  as  essential  by  the 
representatives of the private sector. Lastly, the representatives of the WG DELTA suggested 
that public-private partnerships  would be beneficial in  the area of connectivity, while some 
also called for more public initiatives that could compete with private technological solutions. 

Whole-of-government approach and involvement of stakeholders 

The need for an inclusive digital education and training ecosystem that ensures cooperation at 
different levels received wide recognition across all groups of stakeholders. More specifically, 
consulted  groups  shared  the  view  that  the  involvement  of  all  stakeholders  is  of  paramount 
importance  as  achieving  high  quality  digital  education  and  training  should  be  a  common 

102 

 
 
endeavour  across different  bodies of the government, the private sector, civil  society, social 
partners,  etc.  The  WG  DELTA  representatives  particularly  highlighted  that  the  cooperation 
with  stakeholders  needs  to  be  continuous,  from  the  decision-making  processes  to  the 
implementation of digital education policies. In a similar vein, the representatives of the formal 
education sector suggested the establishment of structured dialogues at national level that would 
ensure the involvement of the different governmental bodies and other stakeholders and would 
reflect the wide range of needs and priorities.  

Both the representatives of the WG DELTA and the formal education sector expressed some 
reservations  about  cooperation  with  the  private  sector.  The  former  pointed  out  the  need  to 
prevent  the  risk  of  commercialising  education  and  the  latter  raised  the  issue  of  ensuring 
transparency and data protection in the use of specific platforms. Representatives of the private 
sector  called  for  greater  dialogue  and  cooperation,  while  expressing  concerns  about  how 
excessive  centralisation  of  decision-making  at  national  level  can  lead  to  difficulties  in 
innovation and scaling-up projects. 

Concerning the implementation of digital education policies, the significance of strengthening 
local and regional leadership as well as ensuring a proper coordination of the various EU policy 
programmes and support mechanisms was underlined in the high-level panel discussion of the 
2021 European Education Summit. Both representatives of the private sector and the formal 
education sector called for a holistic approach to digital education, with the latter noting that it 
is  important  to  have clear objectives  at  both  national and European level,  as well as a clear 
vision for digital education ensuring quality and inclusion in education in general - a view that 
was supported by the representatives of the WG DELTA. 

Support to educational and training institutions and staff 

The need to provide opportunities for teachers to develop their digital skills was recognised as 
particularly  important  throughout  all  consultations,  and  in  most  cases  highlighted  as  a  key 
priority. Representatives of the formal education sector emphasised the importance of offering 
support  to  educators  in  both  Initial  Teacher  Education  (ITE)  and  Continuous  Professional 
Development (CPD) to enable them to purposefully and efficiently use digital technologies in 
their teaching practices. In this regard, they underlined the value of peer exchange and research 
on embedding digital skills in teacher education programmes.  

The  consulted  groups  suggested  that,  in  addition  to  developing  a  training  offer,  authorities 
should find ways to incentivise teachers to undertake training on digital pedagogy and to use 
digital  technologies  in  their  daily  practice.  The  lack  of  dedicated  time  for  professional 
development was reported as a discouraging factor. The creation of communities of practice 
was identified as an effective way to provide support to teachers.  

Representatives of the WG DELTA pointed out the need for further efforts and measures to 
support education and training institutions, including the provision of ICT coordinators and 
digital education mentors to schools. Furthermore, many members advocated for the use of self-
assessment  tools489  (e.g.  SELFIE)  as  a  supporting  measure  to  facilitate  schools’  digital 
transition, and highlighted the need to develop a whole-school approach to digital education, 
for example through the development of digital strategies. The representatives of the formal 
education sector called for support to school leadership (e.g. headmasters) to promote digital 
education and proposed the development of guidelines on digital pedagogy.  

489 Considering the limitations of self-assessment in the quality of evidence that it provides, the representatives of the WG 

DELTA suggested a combination of self-assessment with other types of monitoring/assessment.  

103 

 
 
                                                           
Monitoring and evaluation of digital education and training policies 

Systematic monitoring of the impact of policies and investments in digital education and training 
was viewed as a pressing area by the representatives of the WG DELTA, who reported that it 
was crucial to move beyond measuring outputs and instead focus on outcomes (i.e. impact of 
investments). They called for research in this area and argued for an evidence-based approach 
that  applies  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  methodologies.  Aligned  with  this  view,  trade 
unions in the meeting with the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training mentioned the need 
to clearly define the desired impact of investments and the indicators to be measure it.  

Considering  the  insufficiency  of  available  evidence  that  would  support  the  development  of 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems in digital education policy, the WG DELTA 
representatives stressed the need to conduct more research in the area of effective monitoring 
and  develop  appropriate  indicators.  The  need  for  clear  indicators  was  also  expressed  by 
representatives  of  the  formal  education  sector,  with  some  voicing  concerns  on  the  use  of 
indicator-based  evaluation  in  every  aspect  of  digital  education  (i.e.  alternative  forms  of 
assessment,  including  qualitative  evaluations,  should  be  considered  depending  on  the 
information needed). 

Finally,  the  need  to  encourage  the  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  the  evaluation  of  digital 
education policies was emphasised by the representatives of the formal education sector and 
the  panellists  of  the  Digital  Education  Stakeholder  Forum,  underlining  the  importance  of 
involving learners in the impact-assessment process to enable them to evaluate the quality of 
the education provided. 

2.1.3.  Call for Evidence490 

The chart below shows the most frequent topics that emerged from the submissions to the CfE 
on the enabling factors for successful digital education and training. 

Figure 1 - Frequency of topics covered in the feedback to the CfE on the enabling factors 
(%) 

Equity, equality and wellbeing

Infrastructure, connectivy and equipment

Networking, collaboration and capacity building

Professional development, teachers and educators

Digital pedagogies

Monitoring and evaluation; impact assessment

Public-private partnerships

7

5,8

23,8

20,9

18

12,8

11,6

Equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing  was  particularly  emphasised  by  non-profit  and  non-
governmental organisations. Emphasis was placed on accessibility, while concerns were also 
expressed about the inclusion of disadvantaged students. A small amount of comments reflected 
the  need  to  adopt  rights-based  or  value-driven  approaches  that  reflect  diversity.  The  digital 

490 This section of Annex 2 has been written by using the analysis carried out by the JRC, in collaboration with the Directorate-

General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.  

104 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
wellbeing of students was another topic of concern, with many contributions revolving around 
the  importance  of  raising  young  people’s  awareness  and  minimising  the  potential  harmful 
effects of technology (e.g. cyber-addiction).   

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment is another area that received wide recognition. In 
particular, business associations and private companies as well as individuals placed a relatively 
high emphasis  on  this topic, calling for further investments  and improvements in  the digital 
infrastructure of education and training systems. Another emerging theme under this topic was 
concerns  related  to  digital  sovereignty,  with  contributions  highlighting  the  importance  of 
putting education needs ahead of industry needs. Submissions also highlighted issues of data 
protection and data privacy, where the concepts of “privacy by design” and “security by design” 
were advocated. These concepts tended to co-occur with interoperability concerns.  

Regarding  networking,  collaboration  and  capacity  building,  an  area  that  was  mainly 
emphasised by public authorities and academic/research institutions, contributions advocated 
for  the  need  to  foster  an  effective  collaboration  among  Member  States.  In  addition,  a  small 
number of submissions commented on the need to promote more public-private partnerships 
and suggested ways on  how these  could  enhance the digital  education ecosystem. Concerns 
were expressed in  a few instances about  overreliance on digital  platforms and tools that are 
privately rather than publicly financed.  

Various submissions called for more efforts to recognise and support the central role of teachers 
and educators in the (digital) education ecosystem; a view that was strongly supported by trade 
unions. There were calls for more investment in teacher professional development and a few 
submissions  suggested  the  need  to  encourage  participation  in  teacher  training,  as  well  as 
recognition of it. A small number of contributions also noted the importance of including digital 
pedagogies  as  a  core  element  of  ITE.  Lastly,  some  submissions  reflected  the  view  that 
professional development in digital pedagogies should be viewed through the broader lens of 
CPD more generally. 

When it comes to digital pedagogies, submissions advocated for the use of digital tools only if 
they  add  value  to  teaching  and  learning  practices.  While  some  were  enthusiastic  about  the 
potential  of  digital  technologies  to  increase  students’  motivation,  others  expressed  concern 
about the harmful effects of digital technologies and questioned the feasibility of a common EU 
approach on digital pedagogy. 

Little  contribution  was  provided  on  monitoring,  with  a  few  submissions  indicating  that 
monitoring could be more effective if integration and coherence within the digital education 
ecosystem  are  ensured,  and  some  emphasising  the  need  to  monitor  both  effectiveness  and 
inclusion aspects of digital education. 

EU-level support was suggested in relation to interoperability, data privacy and data protection. 
Other  themes  emerging  in  this  context  included  the  suggestion  to  build  on  already  existing 
research at EU-level, the development of an EU-wide repository of digital pedagogical content 
and a platform for digital education content, as well as encouragement for EU-level engagement 
with private players.  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training 

2.2.1.  Open Public Consultation on the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 

The  OPC  results  highlighted  the  need  to  enhance  digital  competences  for  the  digital 
transformation, both in everyday life as well as for participation in the labour market. A large 
majority of respondents, both in personal and organisational capacity, shared the view that the 
pandemic and consequent switch to online learning and working increased the importance of 
digital skills and competences. 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  self-assessed  their  skills  or  those  of  their  staff  as  sufficient  to 
implement digital learning/working or support their children in this area (around 84% in both). 
Still,  the  need  of  digital  skills  during  the  crisis  was  seen  as  unmet  by  around  a  fifth  of  the 
respondents. Two thirds of the respondents reported that they had improved their skills in their 
personal capacity during the crisis and many took specific steps to do so. Additionally, more 
than a half planned to improve their digital skills and competences in the future. 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 and that the digital skills of the 
staff had improved during the crisis. A large part of the respondents from this group also shared 
that their organisation planned to improve the skills of the staff in the future. 

Concerning the  different types  of  digital skills  and competences, skills  related to  digital  and 
media literacy and data privacy were considered among the most important skills for living and 
working in the 21st century. In contrast, understanding new and emerging technologies was not 
considered a pressing aspect by the respondents.  

There was also a call from stakeholders (umbrella organisations, formal education and private 
sector)  to  focus  at  European  level  on  high-quality  computing,  informatics  and  technology 
education  as  a  way  to  promote  better  understanding  of  the  digital  world.  Higher  education 
institutions  and  research  centres  on  informatics  as  well  as  organisations  representing  IT 
professionals also asked for integrating the subject across curricula at all education levels and 
identifying a respective framework of high-quality informatics. 

2.2.2.  Targeted Stakeholder Consultations 

The  following  section  presents  an  overview  of  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultations  on 
improving  the  provision  of  digital  skills  in  education  and  training  in  four  areas,  namely  1) 
Curricular approaches to teaching and learning digital skills, 2) Assessment and certification, 
3) Specialist teachers  and teacher training,  and 4) Cross-sectorial  cooperation and funding  - 
which correspond to the main topics discussed by stakeholders. 

Curricular approaches to teaching and learning digital skills 

The importance of digital skills was echoed in all stakeholder consultations, in particular as a 
key element for a successful digital and green transition in society and the economy. In the 2022 
Education  Summit  panel,  a  specific  point  was  made  on  the  importance  of  intergenerational 
learning and encouraging different generations to learn from and with each other. The panel 
also stressed the importance of distinguishing between digital skills and digital habits and the 
need to focus on developing these good habits instead of only skills.  

Stakeholders  across  all  consultations  agreed  that  the  provision  of  digital  skills  needs  to  be 
strengthen by adopting a holistic and lifelong learning approach. Member States underlined 

106 

 
 
 
 
the importance of digital skills for personal and professional development and VET providers 
and trade unions added that adults should embrace this perspective and continue learning basic 
digital skills as well as critical thinking and other key competences.  

The WG DELTA stressed the importance of starting from an early age which could reduce 
gender  gaps,  stereotypes  and  technophobia.  However,  representatives  from  the  formal 
education sector underlined that different pedagogical approaches are needed for different age 
groups,  especially  when  it  comes  to  very  early  age.  In  addition,  representatives  of  the  WG 
DELTA noted that digital skills should follow a gradual progression from basic to advanced 
digital  skills,  but  that  the  focus  should  always  be  on  making  students  digitally  competent 
citizens. Stakeholders agreed on the need to ensure a good basis to everyone but also promote 
a deeper understating and independent use of digital technologies. They called on the need to 
keep working and strengthen the cross-curricular or transversal approach, but also stressed the 
need to build and share expertise on how to teach and assess digital skills as a specific subject 
across the different levels of education.   

Across  stakeholders  there  is  a  growing  consensus  on  the  role  that  informatics  can  play  in 
promoting a deeper understanding and more conscious and active use of technology. However, 
there was no consensus among stakeholders on the best approach to integrate informatics into 
existing curricula. The WG DELTA noted that the options for a dedicated subject or integration 
of informatics transversally across existing courses have both pros and cons. They mentioned 
that a cross-curricular approach could help to develop student’s skills in a comprehensive way, 
but  could  potentially  dilute  the  focus  and  importance  of  digital  skills,  making  it  difficult  to 
adequately cover all necessary aspects. With regards to the introduction of informatics, or more 
generally digital skills, as a separate subject (compulsory or elective), they stressed that this 
comes  with  its  own  challenges.  In  their  view,  national  curricula  are  already  overstretched, 
making it challenging to introduce a new subject without reducing or taking out other subjects. 
In  addition,  the  content  of  a  separate  subject  would  need  to  be  relevant  and  supported  by 
specialised teachers. In the discussion, they recognised that at the primary level, a combination 
of approaches is commonly adopted, while at the secondary level, disciplinary specialisation 
becomes more prominent, but is not always offered to all students equally.  

In the panel of the Education Summit and Digital Education Stakeholder Forum the concept of 
digital idols and role models was introduced as key to motivate the new generation. Panellists 
argued that children can only aspire to what they know exist and that schools should therefore 
promote these role models in ICT. Stakeholders of the formal education sector suggested that 
curricula could be further strengthened by engaging different stakeholders, for instance external 
experts that can support bridging the gap in specific competences. Experts from the informatics 
community argued that curricula should include a compulsory number of hours in informatics 
for all students to strengthen the value of the discipline.   

Inclusivity is another topic upon which stakeholders from multiple sectors shared their views. 
Experts  of  the  informatics  sector  underlined  the  need  for  a  coherent  narrative  to  promote  a 
common  understanding  on  the  role  of  informatics  and  better  communicate  its  value. 
Stakeholders  from  the  informatics  community,  the  WG  DELTA  and,  more  generally,  the 
education and training sector also underlined that there are many terms used in the area of digital 
skills  and informatics without clear distinction,  sometimes carrying negative connotation.  A 
suggestion  was  that  a  common  European  reference  framework  could  help  in  developing 
common language and meaningful pedagogical practices. Stakeholders from multiple sectors 
argued that the narrative should consider the gender dimension (a curriculum that is equally 

107 

 
 
attractive to  boys  and  girls) as well as work towards addressing other inequalities (age  gap, 
rural/urban divide, marginalised groups).  

To clearly map the digital skills gaps, stakeholders from the private sector stated that there is a 
need for more specialised surveys that focus solely on digital skills instead of integrating the 
topic into larger cross-national surveys (e.g. PISA). Boosting digital skills of different segments 
of the population means identifying different areas that require targeted interventions.  

Assessment and certification 

Stakeholders across all consultations named improving assessment and certification of digital 
skills as a significant factor in the provision of digital skills.  

The  life-long  learning  perspective  is  especially  relevant  in  digital  skills  as  the  continuous 
technical development makes it necessary to keep skills up to date. For the recognition of skills, 
multiple stakeholders called for micro-credential and non-formal education to be part of official 
accreditation. Furthermore, representatives from the private sector argued that assessment and 
certification should also be improved in VET education. 

The DigComp community of practice highlighted the importance of certification and noted that 
cooperation between the third sector and the formal education and training sector can help to 
formalise skills and competences and help deploy targeted measures to specific learning needs. 
The WG DELTA noted  that  exchange of good practices regarding digital  skills  assessment 
should be encouraged. To ensure the well-being of students, there was also a call for diversity 
in the forms of assessment.  

Private  sector  stakeholders  noted  that  in  companies  people  are  usually  seen  as  a  cost  and 
stressed the need for fostering a change in this regard e.g. by showing the value of investing in 
upskilling employees and its return of investment. 

Specialist teachers and teacher training 

The  importance  of  specialist  teachers  and  teacher  training  was  a  reoccurring  topic  in  all 
stakeholder consultations, especially when discussing the value of informatics for digital skills 
development. Experts from the informatics community highlighted that availability of teachers 
that are trained on informatics is a key element hindering the development of high quality and 
inclusive pedagogical practices. They noted that the challenge is two-fold as there needs to be 
simultaneous focus on training new teachers while also reskill/upskill existing teachers. This 
was also recognised by the WG DELTA whose members underlined that Member States face 
both a difficulty in finding general teachers with the necessary expertise as well as a lack of 
specialist teachers. They noted that not  only the  recruitment  is  challenging, but  also  teacher 
retention as the competences needed to teach informatics are highly sought after in the private 
sector, which offers better salary and career opportunities. A possible solution that was offered 
was the development of flexible learning pathways to train and recruit informatics graduates. 

Representatives  of  the  private  sector  suggested  that  the  sector  could  contribute  to  effective 
teacher training by providing input into forecasting future skills needs, as well as contributing 
to the teaching of advanced digital skills.  

Cross-sectorial cooperation and funding 

Together  with  a  holistic and lifelong  learning  approach  to  the  development  of  digital  skills, 
stakeholders  also  expressed  the  need  to  increase  cooperation  between  different  sectors  and 

108 

 
 
stakeholders. In particular, the need for more cooperation with the formal education sector was 
seen as a beneficial future development by both the private sector and the third sector.  

Stakeholders mentioned that the private sector has a vested interest in investing in the training 
of  the  population  as  they  have  a  need  for  skilled  workers.  They  also  noted  that  private 
companies  can  support  in  tailoring  the  provision  of  digital  skills  to  the  needs  of  the  labour 
market and make it more effective. The third sector can help in expanding the target groups and 
engaging those that are hard to reach both geographically and socially.  

Across all consulted groups, stakeholders mentioned the importance of dedicating more funding 
to the provision of digital skills, with particular focus on projects that are based on strong cross-
sectorial cooperation. Experts from the informatics community noted that more funding should 
be directed towards future research on effective and impactful curricula, pedagogical practices 
and  materials  on  informatics.  They  also  noted  that  the  EU  should  provide  and  fund 
opportunities to experiment and evaluate existing initiatives in the view of sharing them across 
Member  States.  The  WG  DELTA  advocated  for  more  funding  for  schools  to  help  with  the 
aforementioned teacher recruitment issue. 

2.2.3.  Call for Evidence491 

The chart below shows the most frequent topics that emerged from the submissions to the CfE 
on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training.  

Figure 2 - Frequency of topics covered in the feedback to the CfE on the enabling factors 
(%) 

Digital skills initiatives in formal education, including…

22,5

Digital skills initiatives outside formal education

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing

Digital skills gaps

Policies, frameworks, monitoring, evaluation and impact

Networking, collaboration and  capacity building

Cybersecurity and data skills

Public-private partnerships

Digital skills certification/accreditation/assessment

14,7

12,9

11,8

9,4

8,3

8

6,2

6,2

On  the  topic  of  digital  skills  in  formal  education,  mentioned  mostly  by  academic/research 
institutions and trade unions, submissions emphasised a holistic and learner-centred approach 
to digital skills. Provision of digital skills should be age-appropriate and adapted to individual 
needs. Digital skills of teachers need to be continuously updated, recognised and supported by 
peer learning. Concerning curricular content and reforms, contributions recognised that digital 

491 This section of Annex 2 has been written by using the analysis carried out by the JRC, in collaboration with the Directorate-

General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.  

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
skills  teaching  and  learning  should  be  a  core  part  of  the  curricula  from  an  early  age  (lower 
primary),  alongside  other  core  skill  development.  They  also  highlighted  the  importance  of 
teaching  and  learning  informatics  from  primary  school  level  and  the  need  to  modernise 
curricula across sectors, while aligning them between sectors and Member States. Specifically 
for  higher  education,  there  were  calls  to  promote  cutting-edge  digital  skills  provision  and 
research, as well as multi- and inter-disciplinarity. 

The topic digital skills outside of formal education was mostly emphasised by trade unions. 
Submissions on this topic highlighted the need to adapt digital skills training to the needs of 
individuals, professions, sectors and specific groups. Content should include more modularity 
and  flexibility.  There  were  also  calls  for  an  increase  in  training  offer  and  awareness-raising 
among enterprises and SMEs, and calls to leverage existing EU funding and collaborations to 
support  the  existing  provision.  Further  suggestions  were  made  to  foster  synergies  between 
formal and non-formal education. 

The  topic  of  equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing  was  mostly  mentioned  by  non-profit  or  non-
governmental organisations and individual citizens. Submissions that prioritised a single group 
most  commonly  referred  to  women,  followed  by  disadvantaged/vulnerable  groups  and 
individuals with disabilities. Some submissions argued that the digital divide is part of a broader 
social  and  systemic  problem,  while  others  suggested  that  exchange  on  best  practices  for 
achieving digital inclusion across Member States should be encouraged. A concern was raised 
that the 80% digital skills target for adults could exacerbate the existing digital divide. It was 
suggested that sub-targets for specific groups should be included and monitored. 

Submissions to the topic of digital skills gaps, which was mostly emphasised by professional 
associations,  commented  that  a  range  of  interventions  is  needed  to  address  the  digital  skills 
gaps, that there is a need to boost digital skills in the workforce, and that both digital and soft 
skills should be fostered. Submissions mostly underlined the importance of a holistic approach 
and  inclusivity.  Moreover,  contributions  highlighted  the  potential  in  partnerships  between 
education and the private sector to  focus recruitment on a ‘hire-and-train’ approach for ICT 
specialists.  Submissions  mentioned  the  shortage  of  ICT  specialists,  noting  that  closing  the 
gender gap in ICT professions would help. According to stakeholders, there is also a need to 
upskill and reskill employees in specific sectors (e.g. healthcare, social care). 

On the less frequent topics, submissions emphasised the need for monitoring and evaluation. 
Some of the submissions referred to data and evidence gaps, including with regards to skills 
forecasting,  monitoring  training  offer  and  teacher  training  effectiveness.  In  addition, 
submissions  underlined  the  need  for  coordination  across  actors  in  a  range  of  ways. 
Strengthening  cooperation  would  help  to  achieve  a  coherent  and  systemic  approach  to  the 
provision of digital skills inside and outside of formal education settings. Submissions were 
generally  positive  toward  public-private  partnerships  and  highlighted  the  importance  of 
cybersecurity, data literacy and data management skills and their embedding in overall digital 
skills  development.  They  also  expressed  a  positive  view  on 
the  benefits  of 
certification/accreditation  and  assessment  and  advocated  for  a  unified  approach  across 
Member States.  

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Conclusion 

3.1.Enabling factors for successful digital education and training 

The provision of digital infrastructure, connectivity and equipment was considered as essential 
across  the  different  consultations.  The  OPC  results  showed  that  insufficient  infrastructure 
continues to be one of the most considerable challenges for digital education in Europe, while 
calls for further investments ensuring access to digital devices for all and enhancing the digital 
education  ecosystem  in  general  were  also  present  throughout  the  targeted  stakeholder 
consultations and the submissions to the CfE.  

The  need  for  support  and  training  for  teachers  was  another  particularly  important  topic 
highlighted  in  all  consultations,  including  incentivising  teachers  to  take  up  training 
opportunities.  

Collaboration  was  equally  seen  as  an  important  aspect,  encouraging  the  exchange  of  good 
practices among Member States. Particular reference to the involvement of all stakeholders and 
cooperation at different government levels was made in the targeted stakeholder consultations.  

The  need  for  monitoring  digital  education  policies  was  strongly  supported  in  the  targeted 
stakeholder consultations, particularly underlining the importance of monitoring impact, rather 
than outputs.  

3.2.Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training 

All consulted stakeholders stressed the importance for people of all ages to be digitally skilled. 
There was an equally strong consensus on the need to strengthen the provision of digital skills 
to make it more effective and to connect to the learning needs of different target groups. The 
OPC results, the targeted stakeholder consultations, and the CfE submissions show that this is 
something stakeholders recognised in both personal and professional capacity as well as during 
and after the COVID crisis.  

Across the different consultations, stakeholders acknowledged the need for curricular reforms 
and the role that informatics can play either as a separate subject or as part of a cross-curricular 
approach. Both targeted stakeholder consultations and CfE submissions recognised that digital 
skills teaching and learning should be a core part of the curricula from an early age and that 
attention should be put on the learning progression.  

All different consultations also expressed the need to build and share expertise on how to teach 
and assess digital skills as a specific subject across the different levels of education. The need 
for  equity,  inclusivity  and  working  towards  closing  the  different  digital  skills  gaps,  was 
reflected  in  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultations  and  the  CfE  submissions,  while  being  of 
lower priority in the OPC.  

Stakeholders acknowledged the unavailability of specialised and digitally competent teachers 
as the problem that stifles further developments and emphasised the importance of continuous 
teacher training. They also acknowledged the value of increased cooperation between sectors 
and the importance of certification/accreditation and assessment.  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: THEMATIC ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  

Annex  3  of  the  Staff  Working  Document  is  constituted  by  the  following  JRC  report  with  a 
thematic  analysis  of  the  Member  States’  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans,  meetings  of  the 
Structured Dialogue on digital education and skills, and submissions to the Calls for Evidence 
for the two Council Recommendations. 

112 

 
 
 
 
Annex 3 

Thematic analysis in support of the Staff 
Working Document for Council 
Recommendations:  

Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training, and  

Digital education – enabling factors for success  

Submitted February, 2023  

Cosgrove, J., Tsotsou, I., Cachia, R., 
Centeno, C., Sala, A., Punie, Y. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It 
aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this publication do 
not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on 
the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other 
Commission  services,  users  should  contact  the  referenced  source.  The  designations  employed  and  the  presentation  of 
material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning 
the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or 
boundaries. 

Contact information 
Name: Carlos Torrecilla Salinas 
Email: Carlos.TORRECILLA-SALINAS@ec.europa.eu@ec.europa.eu 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

Seville: European Commission, 2023 

© European Union, 2023  

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse 
of  this  document  is  authorised  under  the  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  (CC  BY  4.0)  licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated.  

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents  

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 119 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 

Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 

1 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 

1.1 

1.2 

Purpose of the report ................................................................................................................................................................ 131 

Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................................................. 132 

2 

Aims, Method and Caveats ........................................................................................................................................................................ 133 

2.1 

2.2 

Aims...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 133 

2.2.1  Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 133 

2.2.2 

Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) national plans .......................................................................................... 133 

2.2.3 

Structured Dialogue process and documentation ................................................................................................... 134 

2.2.4 

Submissions to the Calls for Evidence ........................................................................................................................... 135 

2.2.5 

Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 137 

2.2.6 

Emerging topics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 138 

Tables 2.3 to 2.6 list the topics that emerged under the three sets of analysis. .................................................. 138 

These topics are elaborated on in more detail in Sections 3 and 4. .............................................................................. 138 

Table 2.6. Topics emerging from the analysis of the submissions to the Calls for Evidence ........................ 140 

2.3 

Caveats............................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 

3 

Enabling factors for successful digital education ....................................................................................................................... 142 

3.1 

Enabling factors in RRF national plans .......................................................................................................................... 142 

3.1.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 142 

3.1.2 

Themes emerging from the RRF analysis .................................................................................................................... 144 

3.1.3 

Summary of RRF national report findings ................................................................................................................... 146 

3.2 

Enabling factors in the Structured Dialogue............................................................................................................... 148 

3.2.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 148 

3.2.2 

Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis ................................................................................ 150 

3.2.3 

Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue ............................................................................................ 159 

3.3 

Enabling factors in the submissions to the Call for Evidence ......................................................................... 163 

3.3.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 163 

3.3.2 

Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis ....................................................................................... 165 

3.3.3 

Summary of Call for Evidence findings ......................................................................................................................... 167 

4 

Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training ................................................................................... 168 

4.1 

Provision of digital skills in RRF national plans ........................................................................................................ 168 

4.1.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 168 

4.1.2 

Themes emerging from the RRF analysis .................................................................................................................... 170 

4.1.3 

Summary of findings from the RRF analysis ............................................................................................................. 173 

4.2 

Provision of digital skills in the Structured Dialogue ............................................................................................ 175 

115 

 
 
 
4.2.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 175 

4.2.2 

Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis ................................................................................ 176 

4.2.3 

Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue ............................................................................................ 185 

4.3 

Submissions to the Call for Evidence on digital skills provision .................................................................... 188 

4.3.1 

Topic analysis overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 188 

4.3.2 

Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis ....................................................................................... 190 

4.3.3 

Summary of findings from the submissions to the Call for Evidence ....................................................... 194 

5 

Conclusions and implications ................................................................................................................................................................... 195 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

Comparisons across the three sources of information........................................................................................ 195 

EU-level actions in relation to enabling factors ....................................................................................................... 195 

EU-level actions in relation to digital skills provision ........................................................................................... 196 

Conclusions and implications ............................................................................................................................................... 196 

5.4.1 

Transversal ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 196 

5.4.2 

Enabling factors for digital education ecosystems ................................................................................................ 197 

5.4.3  Digital skills provision ............................................................................................................................................................... 197 

List of acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................. 198 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The overall objective of the analyses is to provide input to the Staff Working Document (SWD) accompanying 
the  Council  Recommendation  proposals  on  the  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital  education  (‘enabling 
factors’) and on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training (‘digital skills’).  The report 
describes emerging themes specific to the upcoming proposals for Council Recommendations from Member 
States’ Recovery and Resilience National Plans; the European Commission’s Structured Dialogue meetings with 
Member States; and submissions and position papers received in response to the Call for Evidence concerning 
the two Council Recommendation proposals. 

The aims of the analysis are to provide a cross-country synthesis of the current and emerging themes and 
trends on enabling factors for successful digital education, and on the provision of digital skills in education 
and  training;  identify  and  describe  key  challenges,  barriers  and  concerns  in  each  of  these  two  areas;  and 
propose a set of policy implications. 

Two  groups  of  enabling  factors  emerged  from  the  analysis.  These  are  (1)  foundational  enabling  factors 
(infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment;  digital  content,  tools  and  platforms;  networking/collaborative 
supports/activities;  and  Initial  Teacher  Education  (ITE)  and  Continuing  Professional  Development  (CPD)  for 
digital  pedagogy); and  (2)  enabling  factors  that  provide  direction,  structure  and value  for  successful  digital 
education  (equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing;  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment;  research  and  data;  and 
opportunity and innovation). 

Similarly, two groups of digital skills provision topics emerged from the analysis. These are (1) direct-impact 
initiatives and actions (digital skills initiatives in education settings; digital skills initiatives outside of education 
settings; ITE and CPD for digital skills; and equity, inclusion and wellbeing-related digital skills initiatives); and 
(2)  indirect-impact  initiatives  and  actions  (monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment;  research  and  data;  and 
opportunity or innovation). 

Findings  indicate  a  high  degree  of  consistency  between  the  key  themes  emerging  from  the  Recovery  and 
Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  national  plans  and  Structured  Dialogue.  The  submissions  to  the  Call  for  Evidence 
featured some aspects of digital skills (e.g. cybersecurity skills, digital skills certification) to a somewhat greater 
degree than the other sources of information,  most likely due to differing perspectives of the stakeholders 
involved.  

Two major priorities of current efforts include investments in infrastructure, connectivity and equipment; and 
initiatives to boost digital skills outside of formal education settings. The Structured Dialogue allowed for the 
identification of challenges that are being experienced across a  majority of Member States. These included 
whole-of-government  implementation  of  digital  education  and  skills  strategies;  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
assessment; ICT specialists shortages; matching digital skills supply and demand; the assessment of digital 
skills; curricular reform; teacher supply; tackling the digital divide; and increasing the share of females in ICT-
related education and occupations.  

The concluding section summarises the priorities as described by Member State authorities with respect to both 
enabling factors for digital education and the provision of digital skills, and provides a set of 10 implications 
arising from the findings. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements  

We would like to acknowledge the collaboration and support of our colleagues in  DG  EAC (Georgi Dimitrov, 
Anusca Ferrari, Ivana Juraga, Veronica Mobilio, Dimitra Rapti, and Ivana Vrhovski), as well as to our colleagues 
in DG EMPL and DG CNECT for their preparations for and co-ordination of the Structured Dialogue meetings; 
and for facilitating attendance of JRC staff at these meetings. Thanks also to our colleagues in SG, DG RECOVER 
and ECFIN for their review of the draft report. Our thanks to César Herrero, Nikoleta Giannoutsou and Anastasia 
Economou at the JRC for their contributions to the work; and to Gabrielle Lafitte for administrative support. Our 
thanks also to Carlos Torrecilla Salinas (Head of Unit T1 [Digital Economy]) and to Michael Lutz (Deputy Head 
of Unit T1) for supporting this work. We thank the individuals who contributed to the Call for Submissions on 
enabling factors and digital skills provision. Most of all, our thanks to the officials in the individual Member 
States for their hard work, engagement and insights. 

Authors 

Cosgrove, J., Tsotsou, I., Cachia, R., Centeno, C., Sala, A., Punie, Y. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

Policy context 

The overall objective of the analyses presented in this report is to provide input to the Staff Working Document 
(SWD)  accompanying  the  Council  Recommendation  proposals  on  the  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital 
education and on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training. 

The scope of this report is to describe emerging themes specifically for the upcoming proposals for Council 
Recommendations from: 

  Member States’ (MS) Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) National Plans; 
  Structured Dialogue meetings with MS; and  
  Submissions and position papers received in response to the Call for Evidence (CfE) in respect of the 

two Council Recommendation proposals. 

The aims of the analysis are to: 

1.  Provide a cross-country synthesis of the current and emerging themes and trends on enabling factors 

for successful digital education, and on the provision of digital skills in education and training; 
Identify and describe key challenges, barriers and concerns in each of these two areas; 

2. 
3.  Propose a set of policy implications for consideration in the SWD accompanying the two upcoming 

Council Recommendation proposals. 

Methods 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this analysis: 

  Enabling  factors  concern  ecosystems  required  for  the  development  of  high-quality  and inclusive 
digital  education.  They  focus  on  formal  education  and  training,  and  cover:  approaches  taken  by 
governments; investments in connectivity, infrastructure and equipment; provision of digital solutions, 
content  and  support;  measures  addressing  teaching  staff,  educators,  and  institution  leaders;  the 
involvement of social partners and other stakeholders in policy; and the monitoring and evaluation of 
digital education policies.  

  Digital skills are concerned with the provision of digital skills in education and training. They include 
reforms for digital skills (both general and specialist or sector-specific) and reskilling and upskilling 
initiatives in both formal and non-formal education. 

Sources used in the analysis 

The  Resilience  and  Recovery  Facility  (RRF)  is  a  temporary  recovery  instrument  to  support  MS  in 
implementing reforms and investments that are in line with the EU’s priorities and that address the challenges 
identified  in  country-specific  recommendations  under  the  European  Semester  framework  of  economic  and 
social policy coordination492. The European Commission’s (EC) Recovery and Resilience Facility website hosts 
the national RRF plans for each MS. The sections of these plans that relate to digital education and skills have 
been included in the present analyses.  

The Structured Dialogue (SD) is a process of exchange regarding digital education and skills between the EC 
and MS which ran during 2022. The objective of the dialogue is to support MS in the digital transformation of 
their education and training systems in an integrated, coherent and more ambitious approach493.  

492 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-

facility_en and https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-
scoreboard/index.html?lang=en  

493 The dialogue was conceived and implemented in a transversal whole-of-government approach, co-ordinated 
in the EC by Secretariat-General (SG) and implemented in close cooperation by Directorate Generals (DGs) 
Education and Culture (EAC), Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT), and 

119 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The discussions in the dialogue were structured according to five pillars: 

 
 
 
 
 

Pillar 1: Impact-focused investment 
Pillar 2: The place of digital competence in education and training systems 
Pillar 3: Governance of digital education, training and skills policies  
Pillar 4: The role of industry, social partners and other stakeholders 
Pillar 5: Contents of digital competence frameworks – advanced digital skills in the labour force. 

The Structured Dialogue documentation used in the analysis comprised: 

 
 
 

presentations prepared by each Member State 
notes and minutes of discussions during the Structured Dialogue meetings 
publicly available information and evidence on the state of play regarding digital education and skills 
at the national level from a range of sources.  

The EC launched two Calls for Evidence (CfE) (corresponding to each of the Council Recommendation areas) 
which ran from August 1 to September 16, 2022.494 Submissions were received from 21 of 27 MS (18 MS 
submitted on enabling factors, and 19 submitted on  digital skills). In all, 88 submissions  were received for 
enabling factors (with 42 of these accompanied by a paper) and 95 submissions were received on digital skills 
(48 of these with papers). 

Steps in the analysis 

The following steps were applied to the analysis: topic identification; tagging; consistency review; descriptive 
statistical analysis; and qualitative content analysis.  

Main topics emerging 

Main topics emerging were: 

  Enabling factors: digital content, tools and platforms; equity, inclusion and wellbeing; governance, 
engagement and partnerships; initial and continuing professional development in digital pedagogies; 
monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment;  networking  and  collaborative  supports  and  activities; 
opportunity and innovation; and research and data. 

  Digital  skills:  equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing;  initial  and  continuing  professional  development  in 
digital skills; initiatives to boost digital skills outside of formal education settings; initiatives to boost 
digital skills in formal education settings (including curriculum reforms); monitoring, evaluation and 
assessment; opportunity and innovation; and research and data. 

In addition, the Structured Dialogue provides information on the main challenges faced among MS and what 
EU-level supports may help with these. 

Main findings: Enabling factors for digital education ecosystems 

Two groups of enabling factors emerged from the analysis. These are  

 

 

foundational enabling factors – infrastructure, connectivity and equipment; digital content, tools 
and  platforms;  networking/collaborative  supports/activities;  and  Initial  Teacher  Education  (ITE)  and 
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for digital pedagogy; and  
enabling factors that provide direction, structure and value for successful digital education – 
equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing;  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment;  research  and  data;  and 
opportunity and innovation. 

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), with support from the Recovery and Resilience Task 
Force (SG RECOVER) and the DG for Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN). 

494  Available 

here 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13207-Digital-
education-enabling-factors-for-success_en  and  here  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13208-Digital-skills-improving-their-provision_en. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Findings from RRF national plans with respect to enabling factors 

A major focus of enabling factors within RRF national plans was on investment in infrastructure, connectivity 
and equipment. This topic featured in plans of 23 MS, most commonly in formal education settings but also 
referring  to  high-speed  broadband  connectivity  projects  and  to  a  lesser  extent,  cybersecurity  and  cloud 
infrastructure.  

Investments relating to digital platforms, content and solutions also featured strongly (in plans of 18 MS) and 
were mainly targeted to formal education settings but also included investments in business and public sectors. 
Emerging themes, particularly in Vocational Education and Training (VET) and Higher Education, were flexible, 
personalised and self-directed learning, and solutions to  support blended and hybrid teaching and learning. 
These investments and reforms are accompanied by education and skills training offers. 

Networking or collaborative supports or activities were identified in the RRF national plans of seven MS. These 
were again mainly targeted at formal education (e.g. new IT support structures; centres of excellence; multi-
stakeholder partnership structures), while a small number referred to the establishment of innovation hubs or 
competence centres in the public services and business sectors. 

Reforms or investments which referred to ITE and CPD for digital pedagogy featured in nine MS. Two-thirds of 
investments were targeted at primary and secondary education. The remaining one-third was evenly divided 
across VET and Higher Education settings.  

Reforms and investments which explicitly featured monitoring, evaluation and assessment of enabling factors 
were identified in just five MS and referred to measures to monitor digital education strategies, operating at 
various levels of the system (e.g. national or institutional levels). Similarly, reforms and investments featuring 
innovation  were  identified  in  just  seven  MS  (which  tended  to  be  among  those  with  robust  existing  digital 
education ecosystems) and related to investments in Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) ecosystems 
or the deployment of emerging and advanced digital technologies in settings both inside and outside of formal 
education. Research on enabling factors was identified in reforms or investments in six MS. These were mainly 
targeted at Higher Education and national research communities.  

Three key observations can be made: 

 

 

 

There is very little emphasis on monitoring, evaluation or impact assessment. While it may be the case 
that monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment are built into existing MS policy implementation, 
the RRF national plans did not routinely build in references to these activities to assess the efficiency 
and effectiveness of major investments and reforms.  
Some  RRF  national  plans  made  explicit  provision  for enabling  factors  relating  to  disadvantaged  or 
vulnerable groups, but the monitoring of investments and reforms in this regard is less clear.  
References  to  investments  in  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment  are  more  frequent  than 
references to other foundational enabling factors, i.e. digital content, platforms and tools; and CPD 
and ITE in digital pedagogies. Of course, it may be the case that investments in these latter areas are 
funded by other national or European sources, and a positive outcome of the SD is that it provides 
more information on these various elements of enabling factors.  

Findings from the Structured Dialogue with respect to enabling factors 

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment are being prioritised across a large majority of MS. Emerging trends, 
building on the learnings of the pandemic were that: large-scale investment in devices is taking place; there is 
ongoing, substantial investment in improving connectivity; and specific measures targeted at disadvantaged 
learners  in  formal  education  settings  commonly  include  the  provision  of  free  devices.  There  are  variations 
within  MS  in  levels  of  connectivity/coverage.  Two  main  challenges  emerged  with  respect  to  infrastructure, 
connectivity and equipment: a majority of MS do not yet have systems to track the use of digital equipment in 
education settings; and a few MS expressed concerns about the maintenance of connectivity, equipment and 
devices  (in  terms  of  lack  of  human  resources  to  provide  technical  support  and  maintenance  to  schools, 
refurbishment/recycling, and in obtaining Finance Ministry support for investment in connectivity for schools). 

MS  are  making  significant  efforts  to  support  their  digital  education  ecosystems  through  a  range  of  digital 
content, tools and platforms, many building on work that began with the onset of the pandemic. An emerging 
121 

 
 
 
 
 
trend is the development of integrated platforms that provide educators and students with a single entry point. 
Three key concerns were raised in the SD discussions: challenges for schools and other educational institutions 
to meet General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) obligations; complex interoperability and legacy platform 
system challenges; and matching the pace of technological change with updated teaching and learning content 
and tools. 

Almost all MS described implementing multiple networking and collaborative initiatives to support an enabling 
ecosystem for digital education. An emerging trend is a dedicated digital education support role for schools, 
includes both technical support and maintenance as well as digital pedagogy and strategic planning elements.  

Many MS are in the process of implementing CPD on a large scale, building on the learnings from the pandemic, 
and  frequently  combining  both  digital  skills  training  for  educators  with  enhancing  their  digital  pedagogical 
competences. Some gaps are apparent: while participation in CPD is monitored in a majority of MS, there was 
much less focus on its impact. CPD programmes for education leaders were mentioned in some SD discussions 
but  were  less  widespread  than  CPD  for  teachers,  and  the  focus  on  CPD  generally  was  at  the  primary  and 
secondary  levels  rather  than  VET  and  Higher  Education.  Further,  in  some  SD  discussions,  it  was  felt  that 
solutions were needed to address low or varied teacher motivation to engage in CPD and to strengthen digital 
leadership in school management. Where ITE was discussed, most indicated that  ITE included a  mandatory 
component on digital pedagogies. Challenges in relation to ITE and CPD were discussed in 17 SD meetings, 
frequently in relation to the broader issue of teacher supply. Some MS commented on a perceived mismatch 
between the training offer and the needs of educators. This could be exacerbated by the fact that many MS do 
not currently have a fully-developed system to assess or monitor teachers’ skills and skills needs (although 
several  MS  reported  positively  on  the  EC’s  self-assessment  tools  for  schools  and  educators,  SELFIE  and 
SELFIEforTEACHERS). It was noted that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), the primary source of ITE courses, 
are relatively autonomous. 

Just  over  half  of  MS  (14)  expressed  concerns  about  the  digital  divide  (in  particular  in  reaching  vulnerable 
groups), recognising it as an issue with multiple causes and manifestations. MS authorities expressed a need 
for more support in effectively designing targeted investments to foster equity and equality in digital education, 
as well as in monitoring the impact and effectiveness of such efforts.  

While  all  MS  expressed  an  awareness  of  the  importance  of  monitoring,  evaluating  and  assessing  enabling 
factors, MS are at different stages of doing so: monitoring systems are well-developed in only a small number 
of MS, while many have a fragmented or ad-hoc approach to monitoring. It was common for MS to describe 
challenges in achieving an integrated and systematic approach to monitoring the digital education ecosystem.  

A clear emerging trend is the adoption by a large number of MS of whole-of-government approaches to digital 
education and digital skills policy development and implementation. However, a majority of MS found these 
co-ordination efforts challenging across government departments, across levels of government (e.g. national-
regional), and with different stakeholders, particularly at the implementation and monitoring phases. Many MS 
have  multiple  national  strategy  and  policy  documents  relating  to  digital  education,  which  could  be  both  a 
symptom and a cause of challenges in implementing whole-of-government approaches. 

Another emerging trend was the recent increase in EdTech activities, and many MS officials recognised the 
potential of working with the EdTech industry to further improve or enhance digital educational infrastructure, 
tools  and  content.  Concern  or  uncertainty  was  expressed  in  some  SD  meetings  in  relation  to  managing 
regulatory  and  data  privacy  aspects  of  the  EdTech  industry  and/or the  influence  that  EdTech  may  have  on 
education systems. 

Key  areas  for  which  advice  or support  from  the  EU  is needed  were:  research  and  gathering  of  evidence  in 
relation to enabling factors; funding supports for infrastructure and connectivity; and technical and operational 
advice  or  support  concerning  data  privacy,  interoperability  of  digital  education  platforms,  and  updating  of 
(digital) pedagogical content and tools.  

MS also sought more opportunities to exchange best practices with one another in a range of areas including 
reaching remote and vulnerable groups; engaging educators in CPD; digital content and solutions for digital 
pedagogies; the use of digital education tools and frameworks such as SELFIE and DigComp; models for the 
provision of technical support to schools; and sharing of solutions to technical challenges (e.g. interoperability). 
122 

 
 
 
 
The  SD  discussions  included  calls  for  the  European  Commission  (EC)  to  strengthen  its  co-ordination  and 
regulatory activities in a range areas, including awareness-raising and use of common language/terminology 
and standards in digital education; further alignment and connections of various initiatives within and across 
EU institutions; stimulation of partnerships between EdTech and public sector organisations; regulation of the 
EdTech industry; regulations and support concerning interoperability; monitoring Higher Education digitalisation 
strategies;  data  privacy  policy  consolidation;  and alignment  in  the  use  of  the  European  Digital  Competence 
framework (DigComp). MS representatives also sought ways to improve networking between EU countries on 
enabling factors themes and priorities. 

Findings from the submissions to the Call for Evidence with respect to enabling factors 

There was significant emphasis on equity, inclusion and wellbeing in the submissions, many of which advocated 
a rights-based or value-driven approach that reflects diversity. There was also an emphasis on accessibility, 
and concerns were expressed about the digital wellbeing of students. 

Infrastructure  and  connectivity  were  widely  recognised  as  important, with  calls for  both  improvements and 
further investments in this area. There was also some commentary on data protection, where the notions of 
privacy  by  design  and  security  by  design  were  advocated,  and  these  concepts  tended  to  coincide  with 
interoperability concerns. 

EU-level support was sought in relation to interoperability, data privacy and data protection, educational data 
standardisation,  and  engagement  with  private  actors  in  the  digital  education  system.  There  were  also 
suggestions that the EU could support recognition of non-formal learning, along with suggestions for EU-wide 
platforms and digital repositories. 

Regarding collaboration and partnerships, the submissions indicated broad support for the fostering of public-
private partnerships, and collaboration between education and industry was broadly endorsed. However, some 
concern was expressed about the influence of ‘tech giants’ in the education system. 

Regarding  the  professional  development  of  teachers  and  educators,  the  centrality  of  teachers’  roles  was 
emphasised, and thus the importance of supporting teachers in their work. A few submissions recommended 
incentivising CPD and making it feasible for teachers to attend, e.g. during work hours. In commenting on digital 
pedagogies, the submissions took a holistic and learner-centred perspective, advocating the use of digital tools 
only if they add value, and not substituting or reducing existing resources with digital.  

The submissions also suggested that monitoring could be more effective within an integrated and coherent 
digital  education  ecosystem,  with  some  emphasising  the  need  to  monitor  both  effectiveness  and  inclusion 
aspects of digital education. 

Main findings: Digital skills provision 

Two groups of digital skills provision topics emerged from the analysis: 

  direct-impact  initiatives  and  actions  (digital  skills  initiatives  in  education  settings;  digital  skills 
initiatives  outside  of  education  settings;  ITE  and  CPD  for  digital  skills;  and  equity,  inclusion  and 
wellbeing-related digital skills initiatives); and  
indirect-impact initiatives and actions (monitoring, evaluation and assessment; research and data; 
and opportunity or innovation). 

 

Findings from RRF national plans with respect to digital skills 

Digital skills provision outside formal education was the topic with the highest frequency of investments and 
reforms (across 21 MS). A majority of reforms in this respect were targeted at the labour market, and one-
quarter  or  so  consisted  of  descriptions  of  the  development  or  implementation  of  broad  national  plans  or 
strategies. About a quarter of the investments which featured in this topic were broad in nature, describing the 
provision of digital skills training within an overall lifelong learning approach, tending to offer a mixture of 
basic and more advanced or specific digital skills training, and often mentioning digital inclusion among their 
aims. Around one-third of the investments were targeted at the labour market, where two trends emerged: 
reskilling and upskilling for workers in vulnerable or evolving occupational sectors; and forward-focused skills 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
provision on emerging technologies and/or green and digital skills combined. A further quarter were targeted 
at business (particularly small and medium-sized enterprises - SMEs) and industry, and all consisted of specific 
or  advanced  digital  skills  training.  The  remaining  10%  of  investments  which  featured  digital  skills  training 
outside of formal education were targeted at government employees.  

With respect to digital skills provision in formal education settings, reforms were identified in 18 MS and were 
reasonably evenly divided across primary and secondary education; VET; Higher Education; and reforms that 
cut across both formal and non-formal education settings. Curricular reforms at primary and secondary levels 
were identified in nine MS. A little over half of investments were targeted at Higher Education, covering a range 
of actions. In about half of the investments in Higher Education, collaboration with industry and/or international 
actors was a prominent feature. Roughly one in three investments was targeted at primary and/or secondary 
education, and just two of these investments made explicit reference to curricular reforms.  

Reforms which featured equity, inclusion and wellbeing were identified in 10 MS. A common feature was the 
enhancement  of  existing  programmes.  About  two-fifths  of  the  investments  featuring  this topic  sit  within  a 
broader social and digital inclusion agenda, where the focus was on the provision of basic digital skills training 
to specific groups. The remaining three-fifths of investments are located within broader active labour market 
skilling activities and a majority of these combine provision of basic, advanced and/or sector-specific digital 
skills training targeted at individuals not in employment, education or training.  

Reforms and investments that featured ITE and CPD for digital skills were identified in just six MS. Half of the 
reforms were targeted at primary and secondary levels of the education system and refer both to digital skills 
and  digital  pedagogical  skills training,  while  the  other  half  made  reference  to  digital  skills development  of 
educators in Higher Education and VET. A majority of the investments featuring this topic were targeted at 
primary and secondary education and related to CPD (rather than ITE) for digital skills development to support 
curricular reform or investments in infrastructure and platforms. The remainder of the investments featuring 
this topic were targeted at Higher Education. 

Reforms and investments featuring monitoring, evaluation and assessment were identified in seven MS and 
covered a range of themes including the establishment of quality standards and/or monitoring arrangements 
in VET systems; enhancements to skills mismatch monitoring; digital skills accreditation; and evaluations of 
proposed digital skills initiatives.  

Investments  featuring  opportunity  and  innovation  were  identified  in  nine  MS,  which  tended  to  have  strong 
existing digital education and skills ecosystems. Investments and reforms featuring research and data were 
identified in the RRF national reports of seven MS and these MS again tended to be among those with robust 
digital education and skills ecosystems.  

Four key observations are that: 

  As with the analysis of enabling factors there was not extensive reference to monitoring, evaluation 
or assessment activities. Again, the monitoring of planned investments, particularly with respect to 
digital and social inclusion, may merit attention.  
There is little emphasis on reforms or investments in digital skills assessment, either inside or outside 
of the formal education system.  

 

  Some  MS  are  implementing  broad  reform  programmes  that  cover  both  formal  and  non-formal 

education, while others tend to treat formal and non-formal education separately.  

  A comparison of reforms and investments targeted at compulsory education with Higher Education, 
VET, and non-formal education contexts suggests that the pace of curricular reform implementation 
at primary and secondary education levels is lagging behind implementation of digital skills provision 
initiatives at other levels of the system. 

Findings from the Structured Dialogue with respect to digital skills 

Consistent with the RRF analysis, digital skills initiatives outside of formal education settings was the most 
frequently referenced topic in the SD discussions. The focus was on delivering training to the desired group(s) 
rather  than  on  monitoring  the  outcomes  and  impacts of  these  initiatives.  In  a  majority  of  MS,  digital  skills 
training offerings were perceived to be insufficient to meet current needs, both for general training and for ICT 
specialists, with some tension between investing in advanced digital skills and digital skills for all. A majority 
of MS expressed concerns about the shortage of ICT specialists. Some MS reported that engaging adults in 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
digital skills training was challenging. Upskilling and reskilling of SME employees was seen to be more of a 
challenge in MS where large percentages of the workforce were employed in SMEs.  

Recent  and  current  curricular  reforms  were  referenced  by  about  two-thirds  of  MS.  There  is  considerable 
variation across MS in the positioning of digital skills in national curricula and, overall, a low emphasis on the 
assessment of learners’ digital skills. There is an emerging trend to teach digital competence both transversally 
and as a separate subject. There is also an emergence of teaching and learning informatics at upper primary 
and/or lower secondary levels, commonly as a separate, core subject.  

In  Higher  Education,  there  is  more  of  a  focus  on  the  development  of  programmes  to  teach  specialist  and 
advanced digital skills than on general digital skills, although about half of MS reported implementing combined 
skills programmes (generalist-specialist). A strong emerging theme in the VET sector is a focus on aligning and 
reforming VET curricula to labour market demand, with digital skills playing a major role in these efforts. To 
tackle the ICT skills shortage, MS are implementing a variety of initiatives in Higher Education and VET, including 
more  course  places,  and/or  shorter  or  more  flexible  courses,  many  of  these  supported  by  microcredentials 
development. Many MS sought solutions to the labour market ‘pull’ on ICT students and identified competition 
between these courses and those for ICT teachers. Some MS are implementing ICT profession visa schemes 
and/or schemes to attract students from overseas as part of their efforts to tackle ICT specialist shortages. 

Several MS reported difficulties in achieving sustained engagement of teachers and educators in CPD (which 
is  exacerbated  by  teacher  shortages  in  several  MS);  implementing  and  assessing  learning  targets  in  a 
transversal approach; and various challenges associated with curricular reform. The widespread concerns about 
the insufficient number of ICT graduates was viewed in some of the SD meetings as an opportunity to further 
prioritise bringing more women into the profession. 

A clear trend in the provision of CPD and ITE in digital skills is the widespread use of online training at a large 
scale, building on the experiences of the pandemic. The general trend in ITE is towards the inclusion of digital 
skills as a core part of preparatory courses. The link between the digital skills acquired during ITE and how to 
sustain this with CPD was absent from SD discussions, and the discussions did not provide much information 
on the expected impacts of teacher professional development. In MS where CPD was optional, there were more 
challenges in engaging the teaching profession, and the training offer tended to be more fragmented.  

One of the two dominant themes in equity and inclusion aspects of digital skills provision was women in ICT. 
Various initiatives were described, but these tended not to be accompanied by information on their impact, and 
systematic  and  comprehensive  programmes  were  not  widespread.  The  second  theme  was  digital  inclusion, 
which covered a range of targeted skilling, reskilling and upskilling initiatives. However, it was not commonplace 
for  MS  to  refer  specifically  to  individuals  with  disabilities  or  special  educational  needs.  A  key  challenge  in 
equitable provision of digital skills raised during the SD discussions is the level of human resources required to 
engage meaningfully at local levels with the target communities. 

Monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision was, consistent with enabling factors, viewed as generally 
challenging. Several trends in this area emerged from the SD discussions: skills accreditation in VET; developing 
the use of microcredentials in Higher Education and VET; and interest in digital skills certification. Challenges 
in  this  area,  in  addition  to  those  already  identified  under  enabling  factors,  related  to  scaling  up  successful 
initiatives;  complexity  in  developing  microcredentials  and  digital  skills  certifications;  measurement  and 
monitoring of teachers’ digital skills; accurate  digital skills forecasting; and general complexities associated 
with impact assessment. 

Research and data in relation to digital skills provision were concentrated in the employment sector, where a 
range of data sources and methodologies were being implemented for forecasting. The key challenge in this 
area was the timely availability of appropriate data for digital skills forecasting. Regarding innovation, many 
MS referenced digital innovation hubs, and several are implementing initiatives to promote AI skills or other 
emerging  and  advanced  technologies,  often  through  the  creation  of  new  partnerships  (for  example  across 
education institutions and between education and industry sectors). 

Suggestions for support at the EU level were provided by 21 MS. A majority sought further opportunities to 
exchange  learning  and  good  practices  in  a  range  of  areas,  including  engaging  with  hard-to-reach  groups; 

125 

 
 
 
 
increasing  the  share  of  women  in  ICT;  developing  data-driven  policies;  responding  to  rapidly  evolving  skills 
needs; and guidance on the development of public-private partnerships. 

MS also sought further opportunities for exchange with the EC and/or efforts on the part of the EC to support 
the co-ordination of activities of MS in a range of areas. These included the co-ordination of efforts to address 
digital skills gaps; support for multi-country projects on digital skills provision; evaluation of digitalisation and 
digital skills provision initiatives;  clarity in the relationships between the various EU-level digital skills bodies, 
initiatives, and funding instruments; technical and operational support for the adoption and monitoring of digital 
skills microcredentials; support for awareness-raising on digital skills, in particular among employer groups; 
support for the implementation of impact assessment; and strategies to tackle the gender gap in ICT.  

To  support  their  efforts,  MS  also  requested  support  at  the  EU  level  for  the  development  of  (objective, 
psychometrically sound) digital assessment tools for general and specific populations; tools for the monitoring 
and evaluation of digital skills provision, and also provided suggestions for further development of digital skills 
frameworks.  MS  called  for  further  research  and  analysis  in  two  areas,  specifically:  supply  and  demand 
forecasting of digital skills, and digital skills provision mapping across formal and non-formal education and 
training systems. 

Findings from the submissions to the Call for Evidence with respect to digital skills 

A unifying theme of strengthening co-operation and co-ordination was evident across the submissions, with 
the objective of a coherent and systematic approach to the provision of digital skills across formal and non-
formal education settings. 

The main themes that emerged with respect to digital skills education and training outside of formal education 
were the  recognition of a need to adapt  digital skills training offer content to the needs of individuals and 
specific groups; the importance of digital skills provision alongside other core skills including problem-solving 
and  soft  skills;  calls  for  more  of  a  focus  on  the  needs  of  SMEs;  calls  to  leverage  existing  EU  funding  and 
collaboration structures to support provision; and various suggestions to foster links between formal and non-
formal education settings. 

The  submissions  emphasised  a  holistic  and  learner-centred  approach  to  digital  skills  in  formal  education 
settings. The central role of the teacher in fostering digital skills of learners was acknowledged, and concerns 
were expressed about the need to create an appropriate and sustainable system for supporting the continued 
upskilling  of  teachers  in  this  regard.  Some  submissions  called  for  teacher  digital  skills upskilling  in  specific 
areas including AI and data analytics. 

Commonly held views on curricular content and reform were that digital skills teaching and learning should be 
a core part of curricula from an early age; there is a need to modernise primary and secondary curricula; and 
that  more  collaboration  is  needed  between  HEIs  and  industry  actors  to  support  curricular  reform;  many 
submissions also recognised the importance of teaching and learning informatics from an early age. Consistent 
with commentary on digital skills provision outside of formal education settings, the commentary on provision 
within formal education expressed the view that digital skills occur alongside, and should be reinforced by, the 
acquisition of other core skills.  

Commentary  on  equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing  tended  to  reference  or  prioritise  digital  skills  provision  for 
specific groups. It was suggested that 2030 targets for specific groups should be developed and monitored. 

Where views about public-private partnerships were expressed in the submissions, these were unanimously 
positive, and the main focus of this commentary was on the potential benefits of collaboration and partnership 
between  the  education  sector  and  industry  to  meet  skills  provision  needs.  Similarly,  positive  views  were 
expressed with respect to both digital skills certification and the use of microcredentials.  

Submissions  which  mentioned  frameworks  (mainly  DigComp)  were  favourable  towards  them  and  it  was 
suggested to refine and revise the definition of basic skills as well as to develop specific digital skills profiles. 

Regarding  digital  skills  gaps,  it  was  suggested  that  there  is  a  need  to  foster  digital  skills  in  emerging  and 
advanced technologies as well as in specialist areas; it was noted that ICT specialist skills can be taught and 
learned on the job, and as a result, recruitment practices should be broadened to include ‘hire-and-train’; and 
that there is potential in partnerships between education and industry to achieve these aims.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
Key conclusions 

Transversal 

 

 

It is recommended that the  EC continues to support the  gathering and  sharing of information and 
evidence on initiatives to tackle the digital divide, and that consideration is given to setting training 
participation, outcome and impact targets with respect to digital skills for specific priority groups at 
EU level. 
It is recommended that the EC supports the gathering of evidence to understand the barriers to female 
education and employment in ICT fields of study and occupations as well as to support the sharing of 
good, evidence-based practices to increase the share of girls and women in ICT-related education and 
employment.   

Enabling factors for digital education ecosystems 

 

 

 

 

It is recommended that the  EC supports the identification and  sharing of good  practices of  MS on 
whole-of-government approaches across a diversity of contexts. 
It is recommended that the EC supports research on enabling factors for digital education and works 
with MS to address some challenges and data gaps in relation to the monitoring and evaluation of 
enabling  factors  for  digital  education,  including  information  gaps  on  education  system  digital 
infrastructure and device usage.  
It is recommended to reinforce the importance of CPD for both teachers and school leaders in the 
relevant  EU  Working  Groups,  and to  consider  studies on:  (i)  the  emerging  challenges  and needs of 
teachers and school leaders and how these might be addressed, and on (ii) a review and identification 
of strategies to tackle the shortage in teacher supply. It is further recommended that the EC supports 
MS  to  identify  ways  in  which  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  may  be  incorporated  into  CPD 
ecosystems. 
It is recommended that the EC supports MS exchanges concerning their experiences with respect to 
the digital co-ordinator role for schools in order to ensure that strategic and pedagogical support needs 
for digital education, as well as technical maintenance and support needs, are met. One possible way 
to support this could be through the establishment of a network or Community of Practice of digital 
education co-ordinators on the Digital Education Hub. 

Digital skills provision 

 

 

 

 

It is recommended that the EC works with MS to address some challenges and data gaps in relation 
to the monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision, in particular in relation to: data on training 
offer, on the outcomes and impacts of training, and for short and longer-term digital skills supply and 
demand forecasting. 
It is recommended that the EC supports research on the availability of digital initiatives for groups 
with disabilities and with special educational needs in order to identify any needs for specific digital 
skills actions.  
It is recommended that the EC supports MS exchanges on curricular reform and assessment issues, 
particularly with respect to transversal, separate-subject and mixed approaches, views on informatics 
as a separate subject, and the role of assessment in these various scenarios. It would also be important 
to gain a better understanding at the EU level of the needs and priorities of MS with respect to the 
assessment of digital skills in formal and non-formal education settings. Further collaboration with 
international organisations involved in the implementation of large-scale international assessments 
(such as ICILS, PIAAC and PISA) may be helpful in this regard. 
It is recommended that the EC further explore with MS the potential of public-private partnerships for 
addressing the most acute digital skills needs, and consider regulatory and data privacy aspects of 
these partnerships. 

Caveats in interpreting the analyses 

 

 

In  general,  the  analysis  is  a  thematic  cross-country  synthesis,  and  should  not  be  considered  as 
providing a comprehensive factual overview of the situation across MS.  
The  RRF  analysis  indicates  areas  of  planned  reforms  and  investments  up  until  2026;  future 
implementation  might  not  always  be  in  line  with  current  information.  Furthermore,  the  analysis  is 
based on the national recovery and resilience plans as published by the national authorities. In case 
127 

 
 
 
 
of  discrepancies,  the  analysis  is  made  without  prejudice  to  the  final  version  of  reforms  and 
investments to be financed under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, as adopted by the Council in 
Council Implementing Decisions. Analysis focuses on the content of proposed reforms and investments 
rather  than  on  the  magnitude  of  financial  investments.  The  thematic  analysis  is  done  using  a 
methodology separate from the ‘official’ ones (climate and digital tagging; pillar tagging). Results are 
not  published  at  MS  level,  only  in  aggregate.  RRF  national  plans  vary  in  that  some  grouped  many 
actions under a single sub-component, while others took a more granular approach. MS taking a more 
granular approach will have contributed relatively more to the overall picture than MS taking a less 
granular approach.  
The structured dialogue meetings with MS were guided by the five pillars as well as areas in which 
MS and the EC shared interest and concern, and areas for which the Commission would have liked to 
learn more about. Therefore, the overall frequencies of topic instances should not be interpreted solely 
as the relative level of priority given to them.  

 

Quick guide 

Section  1  provides the  context, value  and  purpose  of  the  report;  Section  2  describes  aims,  methods  and 
caveats;  Sections  3  and  4  present  findings  relating,  respectively, to  enabling  factors  and  the  provision  of 
digital skills in education. Each opens with the results of the RRF analysis, followed by the results from the SD 
analysis,  then  the  topics  and  themes  emerging  from  the  CfE  submissions;  finally,  Section  5  provides 
conclusions and policy implications. 

128 

 
 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

Digital education and skills, and enabling factors that support this ecosystem, are the subject of a considerable 
body of existing research and evidence. The Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027, adopted in September 
2020495, sets out a common vision of high-quality, inclusive and accessible digital education in Europe, and 
aims to support the adaptation of the education and training systems of Member States (MS) to the digital 
age.  

The two strategic priorities of the Action Plan (fostering the development of a high-performing digital education 
ecosystem, and enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation) have been put sharply 
in focus with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Action Plan was endorsed in the Conclusions on digital 
education  in  Europe’s  knowledge  societies,  where  MS  invited  the  European  Commission  (EC)  to  launch  a 
strategic reflection process on the enabling factors of successful digital education. In her  2021 State of the 
Union  address,  EC  President  von  de  Leyen  called  for  leaders’  attention  and  a  structured  dialogue  on  these 
themes.  

Following President von der  Leyen’s call, the EC launched the SD process with MS on  digital education and 
skills. This dialogue aimed to increase the political visibility and commitments on digital education and skills, 
so that Europe may deliver on the ambitious targets set out for 2030. The outcomes of the Dialogue were also 
intended  to  feed  into  future  actions  at  EU  level  on  digital  education  and  skills,  including  proposals for two 
Council Recommendations – on enabling factors for digital education, and on improving the provision of digital 
skills in education and training. 

The  two  proposed  Council  Recommendations  respectively  address the  two  strategic  priorities of  the  Digital 
Education Action Plan, putting forward two complementary but distinctive lines: 

  The Council Recommendation on enabling factors for digital education will aim to ensure that 
European education and training systems are resilient and future-proof, by building political 
consensus on the preconditions and enablers of successful and effective digital education 
ecosystems, common to all sectors of education and training. 

  The Council Recommendation on the provision of digital skills is centred on the steps and 
instructional methods for promoting the development of digital skills from early on and at 
all stages of education and training (primary, secondary and tertiary including VET and adult 
learning). It has a specific focus on the role of informatics in expanding the digital skills base. 
It also aims at raising the technical capacity of MS to achieve the Digital Compass targets 
on basic and advanced digital skills.  

1.1 

Purpose of the report 

The overall objective of the analyses presented in this report is to provide input for the Staff Working Document 
(SWD)  accompanying  the  Council  Recommendation  proposals  on  the  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital 
education and on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training. 

The  EC  publishes a  range  of  evidence  and indicators in  relation  to  digital education  and skills.  These  are  a 
combination of regular (e.g. annual) reports based on Europe-wide data collection programmes and periodic, 
themed research publications. They include: 

 

 

 

 

The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) of Eurostat 

The Digital component of the Resilience Dashboard 

The annual Education and Training Monitor (ETM) 

The Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe of Eurydice   

  Comparative reviews of digital education by Eurydice, notably reports on digital education (2019) and 

informatics education (2019) 

495 The Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 builds on the previous  Digital Education Action Plan (2018-

2020).  

129 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Work on skills shortages and skills mismatches by CEDEFOP such as its analysis of the European Skills 

and Jobs Survey (ESJS) (2022) 

 

 

Secondary analysis and insight from large-scale comparative surveys and assessments, such as the 
International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) and the Programme for International 
Student Assessment (PISA), and 

Research publications of the JRC on a variety of topics, including supporting policies to address the 
digital skills gap (2022) impact of COVID-19 on education (2020); evidence on innovative assessment 
(2019), and key principles for and features of effective digital education policies496. 

The results of the present thematic analyses do not describe or ‘profile’ individual MS, but rather present a 
cross-country  synthesis.  They  are  intended  to  add  to  the  evidence  base,  as  they  reflect  current  views  and 
emerging trends among MS policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders. This will allow for the identification 
of  prominent  and  pressing  themes  which  may  be  prioritised  in  current  and  forthcoming  policies,  actions, 
investments and reforms. 

The  scope  of  this  report  is  to  describe  emerging  themes  specific  for  the  upcoming  proposals  for  Council 
Recommendations from: 

  Member States’ Recovery and Resilience National Plans; 

 

 

Structured Dialogue meetings with Member States; and  

Submissions and position papers received in response to the Call for Evidence (CfE) in respect of the 
two Council Recommendation proposals. 

1.2 

Structure of the report 

This Section 1 provides a brief overview of the context, added value, and purpose of the report. 

Section 2 describes the aims and methods used in the analyses, including caveats that should be borne in 
mind when interpreting the findings. 

Section  3  and  Section  4  present  findings  relating,  respectively,  to  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital 
education and to improving the provision of digital skills in education and training. Each of these sections opens 
with the results of the RRF analysis, followed by the results from the SD analysis, then the topics and themes 
emerging from the CfE submissions. 

Section  5  draws  the  main  themes  of  the  analysis together to  provide  conclusions  and policy  implications, 
organised  into  three  sections:  enabling  factors  for  successful  digital  education;  improving  the  provision  of 
digital skills in education and training; and transversal or cross-cutting themes. 

496  The  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2020)209  (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)  provides 
background on some main sources of existing evidence in these areas. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2  Aims, Method and Caveats 

This section describes the aims of the study as well as the methods used, including descriptions of the Recovery 
and Resilience Facility (RRF) national plans, Structured Dialogue (SD) processes, and submissions to the Calls 
for Evidence (CfE). Definitions of the two Council Recommendation areas, as applied in the analysis, are also 
given. Then, the approach to the analysis is described. Finally, we outline some caveats or limitations which 
should be borne in mind when interpreting the results of the analyses. 

2.1  Aims 

The aims of the analysis are to: 

1.  Provide a cross-country synthesis of the current and emerging themes and trends on enabling factors 

for successful digital education, and on the provision of digital skills in education and training  

2. 

Identify and describe key challenges, barriers and concerns in each of these two areas 

3.  Propose a set of policy implications for consideration in the SWD accompanying the two upcoming 

Council Recommendation proposals. 

2.2  Methods 

This section first describes what themes are covered under the two Council Recommendation areas within this 
thematic analysis. Then, the ‘input’ to the analysis, namely the documentation and processes associated with 
the RRF national reports, SD meeting documentation, and submissions to the CfE are described.  

2.2.1  Definitions  

The basis for these definitions lies in the EU Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027, where the two high-
level priorities are: 

  Priority 1: Fostering the development of a high-performing digital education ecosystem 

  Priority 2: Enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation. 

For convenience we use the terms ‘enabling factors’ and ‘digital skills’ in this report to refer to the two Council 
Recommendation areas. 

For the purposes of this analysis: 

  Enabling  factors  concern  ecosystems  required  for  the  development  of  high-quality  and inclusive 
digital education. They focus on formal education and training, and cover the approaches taken by 
governments,  investments  in  connectivity,  equipment,  provision  of  digital  solutions,  content  and 
support, measures addressing teaching staff, educators, institution leaders, the involvement of social 
partners  and  other  stakeholders  in  policy,  and  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  digital  education 
policies.  

  Digital skills are concerned with the provision of digital skills in education and training. They include 
reforms for digital skills (both general and specialist or sector-specific) and reskilling and upskilling 
initiatives in both formal and non-formal education. 

In Sections 3 and 4 (on enabling factors and digital skills, respectively), the above definitions are expanded on 
further through the descriptions of the specific topics which emerged. 

2.2.2  Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) national plans 

The RRF is a temporary recovery instrument to support MS in implementing reforms and investments that are 
in line with the EU’s priorities and that address the challenges identified in country-specific recommendations 

131 

 
 
 
 
under  the  European  Semester framework  of  economic  and  social  policy  coordination497.  It  supports  climate 
neutrality (2050) targets and enables digital transition.  

The EC’s Recovery and Resilience Facility website hosts the national RRF plans for each MS. The sections of 
these  plans  that  relate  to  digital  education  and  skills  were  included  in  the  analyses  for  this  report.  Where 
needed, the JRC used the EC’s eTranslation facility498 to create English-language versions of the national RRF 
plans. 

The thematic analysis of the RRF plans presented here has some important differences with respect to ‘official’ 
Commission treatment such as digital and climate tagging and pillar tagging. This is further explained under 
section 2.2.7 (Caveats).  

2.2.3  Structured Dialogue process and documentation 

The SD is a process of exchange on digital education and skills between the Commission and the MS which ran 
during 2022.  

The dialogue was conceived and implemented in a transversal whole-government approach, co-ordinated in 
the EC by the Secretariat-General (SG) and implemented in close cooperation by the Directorate Generals (DGs) 
Education and Culture (EAC), Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT), and Employment, 
Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), with support from the Recovery and Resilience Task Force (SG RECOVER) 
and the DG for Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN).  

The objective of the  dialogue is to support MS in the  digital transformation of their education and training 
systems in an integrated, coherent and more ambitious approach. This includes increasing the political visibility 
and commitments on digital education and skills, so that Europe is able to deliver on its 2030 targets in this 
area, as defined in the European Education Area, Digital Education Action Plan, Skills Agenda and the Digital 
Decade. Its purpose was to share experiences and lessons learned, successes, good practices, and challenges.  

Interaction with all 27 MS took place through individual bilateral meetings, meetings of a high-level group of 
national coordinators for digital education and skills, and discussions in relevant Council formations.  

The discussions in the dialogue were structured according to five themes or pillars: 

 
 
 
 
 

Pillar 1: Impact-focused investment 
Pillar 2: The place of digital competence in education and training systems 
Pillar 3: Governance of digital education, training and skills policies  
Pillar 4: The role of industry, social partners and other stakeholders 
Pillar 5: Contents of digital competence frameworks – advanced digital skills in the labour force. 

In addition to the proposals for two Council Recommendations, the outcomes of the dialogue will feed into the 
national plans under the 2030 Policy Programme Path to the Digital Decade. 

The Structured Dialogue documentation used in the analysis comprised: 

 

 

 

presentations prepared by each Member State 

notes and minutes of discussions during the Structured Dialogue meetings 

publicly available information and evidence on the state of play on digital education and skills at the 
national level, from a range of sources including the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 499, the 
Digital  component  of  the  Resilience  Dashboard500,  Eurydice’s  comparative  review  of  digital 

497 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-

facility_en and https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-
scoreboard/index.html?lang=en  

498 https://ec.europa.eu/info/resources-partners/machine-translation-public-administrations-etranslation_en  

499 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi  

500 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/strategic-planning/strategic-foresight/2020-strategic-foresight-

report/resilience-dashboards_en  

132 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
education501  as  well  as  data  from  large-scale  international  assessments  (the  Programme  for 
International  Student  Assessment  [PISA],  Teaching  and  Learning  International  Survey  [TALIS], 
International Computer and Information Literacy Study [ICILS]) and the 2nd ICT survey of schools: ICT 
in education (ESSIE2).  

2.2.4  Submissions to the Calls for Evidence  

The EC launched two Calls for Evidence (corresponding to each of the Council Recommendation areas) which 
ran from August 1 to September 16, 2022.502  

Table 2.1 shows the number of  submissions by stakeholder type, while Table 2.2 shows the  distribution of 
submissions by country. The high number of submissions overall reflects the high degree of interest in and 
concern about the topics: 88 submissions were received for enabling factors (with 42 of these accompanied 
by a paper) and 95 submissions were received on digital skills (48 of these with papers). 

In both cases, the largest group making submissions (around one-third) were stakeholders in the non-profit or 
non-government 
institutions,  businesses/companies,  and  business 
associations were also well represented, with roughly one in 10 submissions. Public authorities and trade unions 
were  just  slightly  less  common,  while  15%  of  enabling  factors  submissions,  and  19%  of  digital  skills 
submissions, were from individual citizens, a large majority of whom were EU citizens. 

(third)  sector.  Academic/research 

Submissions were received from organisations and individuals in 21 of 27 MS (18 MS submitted on enabling 
factors, and 19 submitted on digital skills). The high number of submissions received from Belgium is reflective 
of the fact that many pan-European organisations are based in Belgium. 

Table 2.1. Summary of submissions to the Calls for Evidence by Stakeholder Type 

Submission type 

Organisation 

Academic/research 
institution 

   Business/company 

   Business association 

Non-profit or non-
government organisation 

   Public authority 

   Trade union 

   Other 

Individual 

Total 

Council Recommendation Area: all 
submissions 

Council Recommendation Area: 
papers 

Enabling factors 

Digital skills 

Enabling factors 

Digital skills 

N 

12 

7 

11 

28 

7 

4 

6 

13 

88 

% 

13.6 

8.0 

12.5 

31.8 

8.0 

4.5 

6.8 

14.8 

100.0 

N 

8 

10 

11 

30 

6 

2 

10 

18 

95 

% 

8.4 

10.5 

11.6 

31.6 

6.3 

2.1 

10.5 

18.9 

N 

5 

3 

9 

14 

2 

4 

3 

2 

% 

11.9 

7.1 

21.4 

33.3 

4.8 

9.5 

7.1 

4.8 

N 

5 

7 

9 

13 

4 

1 

0 

9 

% 

10.4 

14.6 

18.8 

27.1 

8.3 

2.1 

0.0 

18.8 

100.0 

42 

100.0 

48 

100.0 

501 https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/topics/digital-education  

502  Available 

in 

all  EU 

say/initiatives/13207-Digital-education-enabling-factors-for-success_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13208-Digital-skills-improving-
their-provision_en. 

languages  here  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
here 

and 

133 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
                                                           
Table 2.2. Summary of submissions to the Calls for Evidence by Country 

Submission source 

Country: EU 

   Austria 

Belgium/pan-
European/international* 

   Bulgaria 

   Croatia 

   Czech Republic 

   Denmark 

   Finland 

   France 

   Germany 

   Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

   Lithuania 

   Malta 

   Netherlands 

   Portugal 

   Romania 

   Slovakia 

   Slovenia 

   Spain 

   Sweden 

Country: Non-EU 

   Norway 

   Switzerland 

   Turkey 

   Uganda 

   United Kingdom 

   United States of America 

   Country not mentioned 

Council Recommendation Area: all 
submissions 

Council Recommendation Area: 
papers 

Enabling factors 

Digital skills 

Enabling factors 

Digital skills 

N 

3 

% 

3.4 

N 

0 

% 

0.0 

N 

2 

% 

4.8 

29 

33.0 

26 

27.4 

19 

45.2 

N 

0 

19 

1 

1 

4 

2 

5 

4 

8 

3 

2 

3 

0 

1 

7 

0 

1 

2 

0 

7 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1.1 

1.1 

4.5 

2.3 

5.7 

4.5 

9.1 

3.4 

2.3 

3.4 

0.0 

1.1 

8.0 

0.0 

1.1 

2.3 

0.0 

8.0 

1.1 

1.1 

0.0 

2.3 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

1 

0 

3 

2 

5 

3 

1.1 

0.0 

3.2 

2.1 

5.3 

3.2 

11 

11.6 

5 

5 

6 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

5 

1 

6 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

5.3 

5.3 

6.3 

1.1 

1.1 

5.3 

1.1 

1.1 

5.3 

1.1 

6.3 

1.1 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

1.1 

2.1 

1.1 

1.1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

5 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2.4 

0.0 

2.4 

2.4 

4.8 

4.8 

11.9 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

2.4 

2.4 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

4.8 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

6 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

% 

0.0 

39.6 

2.1 

0.0 

2.1 

4.2 

2.1 

4.2 

12.5 

2.1 

4.2 

6.3 

2.1 

2.1 

4.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.2 

2.1 

0.0 

2.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.1 

2.1 

Total 

88 

100.0 

95 

100.0 

42 

100.0 

48 

100.0 

*All of the submissions classified as Belgium (other than those received from individuals) refer to pan-European or international 
organisations. 

134 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
2.2.5  Analysis  

The following steps were applied to the analysis: topic identification; tagging; consistency review; descriptive 
statistical analysis; and qualitative content analysis. Each is described in more detail below. 

1. 

Identification of topics within the text studied. During the pilot phase the JRC team refined the set of 
topics that were proposed by DG EAC by allowing topics to emerge iteratively in the text analysis.  

2.  Throughout the analysis of the SD and submissions to the CfE, we refer to topic instance as the unit 
of analysis. In the RRF national report analysis, the relevant sections of national reports (i.e. all sections 
covering  digital  education  and  skills)  were  extracted  and  organised  by  RRF  component  and  sub-
component. Thus, for the RRF analysis we firstly identified  sub-component as the unit of analysis 
(classifying this according to investment/reform and by digital skills provision/enabling factor). Then 
we identified the  topic or topics covered by each sub-component to bring a unity to the analysis 
across the three sources of information.  

For the RRF and SD analysis, we report both the number of topic instances and the number of 
MS  in  which  a  particular  topic  was  referenced,  in  addition  to  the  overall  frequency  of  topic 
instances. This provides information, respectively, on (i)  how widespread across  MS the topic is; (ii) 
how prominent the topic is across the EU as a whole. Care was taken to ensure that topic instances 
were not duplicated within MS. For example, if the structured dialogue meeting notes referred to the 
same initiative multiple times, the initiative was treated once in the input file for that MS.  

3.  For  each  topic  identified  within  the  analyses  of  the  three  sources  of  information,  a  further 

classification was made as follows: 

  Group  (target  group  for  the  topic  identified,  tagged  as  primary,  secondary,  VET,  Higher 
Education,  Adult  education,  Disadvantaged  group(s),  Special  education,  Women/girls, 
Employers/employees, Jobseekers, Population, and Other) 

  Geographic  level  (whether  the  topic  is  targeted  at  an  international, national, regional  or 

mixed level of implementation) 

  Public/private (whether the topic consists of publicly, privately, or mixed management and 

funding structures), and 

  Sector (whether the topic is targeted at the education sector, the employment sector, or a 

mixture of these). 

An engagement/partnership indictor was applied to SD data, where the topic showed evidence 
of collaboration, engagement or partnership, which could take multiple forms: across Government 
departments, levels of Government, Government and social partners, public and private entities, 
schools, communities, and/or individual teachers/educators. Specifically, each topic was classified 
in accordance with whether it explicitly or necessarily involved partnership or engagement. The 
classification of partnership was reserved for cases in which co-creation or joint decision-making 
was  an  explicit  or  necessary  feature,  while  engagement  was  applied  to  cases  where 
communication or collaboration across groups or actors was a prominent feature. 

4.  Once  the  initial  classification  was  made  by  the  first  analyst,  a  second  analyst  reviewed  all 
classifications to ensure consistency, with discussion and agreement on revisions and the ongoing 
maintenance of a query log to support this work. 

5.  The input files for each MS were merged and descriptive statistics were computed on the topics 

and classifications. 

6.  As a final step, the content of commentary within each topic was subjected to a content analysis to 

identify emerging themes. 

135 

 
 
 
 
2.2.6  Emerging topics 

Tables 2.3 to 2.6 list the topics that emerged under the three sets of analysis.  

These topics are elaborated on in more detail in Sections 3 and 4. 

Table 2.3 shows the topics that emerged from the thematic analysis of the sections of the RRF national reports 
that deal with digital education and skills reforms and investments. In all, 12 topics emerged (9 associated 
with enabling factors and 8 associated with digital skills provision, with 5 of these common to both Council 
Recommendation areas). 

Table 2.3. Topics emerging from the analysis of relevant components/sections of RRF national plans 

RRF topic 

Digital content, tools and platforms 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Infrastructure, connectivity, equipment 
Initiatives to  boost  digital  skills in  education  settings,  including 
curriculum reforms 
Initiatives to boost digital skills outside formal education 

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

ITE and CPD, digital skills 

Legislative or governance reform 

Monitoring, evaluation and assessment 

Networking/collaborative supports/activities 

Opportunity and innovation 

Research and data 

Enabling 
factors 
x 

Digital 
provision 

skills 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

*ITE: initial teacher education; CPD: continuing professional development 

As  noted  earlier,  the  initial  unit  of  analysis  for  the  RRF  documentation  was  sub-component,  classified  as 
investment  or  reform,  and  then  with  one  or  more  topics  identified  within  each  sub-component.  Table  2.4 
provides information on the distribution of RRF sub-components across these dimensions. 

In  total  across  the  27  MS,  we  identified  321  relevant  sub-components.  There  are  relatively  more  sub-
components classified as digital skills provision (59%) compared to enabling factors for digital education (41%). 
On average across all sub-components, just over two topics (2.10) were assigned to each sub-component. At 
the topic level, 41.5% related to enabling factors, and 58.5% to digital skills.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4. Distribution of RRF national report sub-components on digital skills and digital education 
by investment, reform and topic instance 

Total sub-components 

Total topics 

Aspect of RRF 
Enabling 
factors 

Investments 

Reforms 
Digital skills 

Investments 

Reforms 
Total 

N 

132 

90 

42 
189 

111 

78 
321 

% 

41.1 

28.0 

13.1 
58.9 

34.6 

24.3 
100.0 

N 

279 

190 

89 
394 

224 

170 
673 

% 

41.5 

28.2 

13.2 
58.5 

33.3 

25.3 
100.0 

Average  topics 
per 
sub-
component 

2.11 

2.11 

2.12 
2.08 

2.02 

2.18 
2.10 

Table 2.5 lists the topics identified in the analysis of the SD documentation. Similar to the RRF topics, there is 
an overlap in topics emerging across the two Council Recommendation areas: a total of 11 topics emerged; 
four of these appeared across both Council Recommendation areas. 

Table 2.5. Topics emerging from the thematic analysis of Structured Dialogue documentation 

Structured Dialogue topic 

Digital content, tools and platforms 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Infrastructure, connectivity, equipment 
Initiatives to boost digital skills outside of formal education 
settings 
Initiatives to boost digital skills in formal education settings, 
including curriculum reforms 
ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy* 

ITE and CPD - digital skills/competence 

Monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment  (for  digital  skills 
provision, this includes digital skills certification/accreditation) 

Networking/collaborative supports/activities 

Opportunity and innovation 

Research and data 

Enabling 
factors 
x 

Digital 
provision 

skills 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

*ITE: initial teacher education; CPD: continuing professional development. 

Table 2.6 shows the topics emerging from the CfE for each Council Recommendation area. In total, 13 topics 
emerged. Four of these emerged across both enabling factors and digital skills provision. 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.6. Topics emerging from the analysis of the submissions to the Calls for Evidence 

CfE Submission Topic 

Cybersecurity and data skills 

Digital pedagogies 

Digital skills certification/accreditation/assessment 

Digital skills gaps 
Digital  skills  provision  in  formal  education,  including 
curricular content and reform 

Digital skills initiatives outside formal education 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Infrastructure, connectivity, and equipment  
Monitoring and evaluation; impact assessment (including 
policies and frameworks for digital skills) 

Networking, collaboration and capacity building  

Professional development, teachers and educators  

Digital skills policies and frameworks 

Public-private partnerships 

Enabling 
factors 

skills 

Digital 
provision 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Looking across Tables 2.4-2.6, one can see considerable commonality, as well as topics that are specific to 
each source. For example, the RRF analysis includes legislative or governance reforms as a separate topic; while 
this area is covered in a transversal way within a sub-analysis of governance, engagement and partnership; 
and the CfE submissions (only) include cybersecurity and data protection and skills. These differences reflect 
the different purposes and perspectives of the three sources of information used in the analysis. Section 5 
attempts to bring the results together into a set of higher-order themes that highlight: (i) themes emerging 
across all sources (reflecting common priorities or concerns), and (ii) themes which emerged more strongly (or 
solely) in just one or two of the sources (reflective of specific perspectives). 

2.3 

Caveats 

Caveats and limitations to the analyses are both general (across all three sources of information) and specific 
to a source: 

General caveats 

 

 

 

 

The analysis is primarily thematic, designed to give an indication of the areas of focus and common 
challenges  that  are  relevant  for  EU  policies  and  should  be  interpreted  in  combination  with  other 
complementary sources of evidence. Results should not be considered as providing a comprehensive 
factual overview of the situation across MS. 
The analysis is focused on a cross-country synthesis of emerging themes rather than an attempt to 
describe individual MS. Given this approach, it is important to be mindful of the variation in national 
and regional contexts. In particular, MS vary in the organisation and governance of their education and 
training systems, and in the overall level of digital maturity of these systems. 
The  cross-country  synthesis  approach  means  that  the  analysis  does  not  examine  the  instances  of 
actions or initiatives within individual MS. Subsequent analysis of this data could attempt to identify 
particular  combinations  of  approaches  within  MS  that  are  associated  with  comprehensive  digital 
education ecosystems and high levels of success in the provision of digital skills. 
The content of the sources used in the analysis varies in level of detail. In some cases, much detail on 
initiatives was provided; in others, less detail was available. Where feasible, the input material has 
been supplemented with web-based research of national strategies or initiatives. It is important to 
highlight  that  the  analysis  is  not  intended  to  be  comprehensive  and  may  not  include  some 
initiatives/strategies that were not mentioned in the materials that were analysed.  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The  content  of  the  material  analysed  combines  both  existing  and  planned  initiatives  and  actions; 
results should therefore be interpreted as providing information on the existing and emerging picture. 

RRF caveats 

 

The RRF analysis indicates areas of planned reforms and investments up until 2026 and as such, we 
cannot be sure that future implementation will be in line with current information.   

 

 

 

  Analysis is based on the national recovery and resilience plans as published by the national authorities. 
In case of discrepancies, the analysis is made without prejudice to the final version of reforms and 
investments to be financed under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, as adopted by the Council in 
Council Implementing Decisions.  
The treatment of the RRF national plans uses a methodology separate from the ‘official’ ones (climate 
and digital tagging; pillar tagging). Results are not published at MS level, only in aggregate. 
The RRF analysis in this report focuses on the content of the proposed reforms and investments of 
MS rather than on the magnitude of the financial investments. 
RRF national reports vary considerably in terms of their structure. Specifically, some MS grouped many 
initiatives or actions under a single sub-component, while others took a more granular approach. The 
number of records ranges per MS, from 1 to 34, such that MS taking a more granular approach will 
have contributed relatively more to the overall picture than MS taking a less granular approach. We 
have not attempted to address this through the use of weights or other adjustments. 
The  assignment  of  more  than  one  topic  to  a  given  sub-component  results  in  some  overlap  in  the 
themes under each of the topics. To address this, a summary of key findings is provided at the end of 
the RRF analysis. 
RRF national reports should not be regarded as a fully comprehensive picture of emerging and planned 
investments, since MS also invest national funds in a variety of ways; however, given the size of the 
funds  covered  under  the  RRF,  they  can  nonetheless  be  considered  as  broadly  indicative  of  where 
emerging investment and reform priorities lie. 

 

 

Structured Dialogue caveats  

 

The content of the discussions in SD meetings with MS was guided by the five pillars as well as areas 
in which MS and the EC shared interest and concern, and areas for which the EC would have liked to 
learn more about; for example, adult education as it relates to digital skills was a topic often explored 
in the meetings due to a lack of available comprehensive information on this field. This means that 
the overall frequencies of topic instances should not be interpreted as the relative level of priority 
given to them. For this purpose, it is advisable to focus instead on the number of MS in which each 
topic (and related challenges) was identified. 

  MS varied in terms of the extent to which the SD focused on current and forthcoming plans represented 
in their RRF national plans. Some made this a main focus of the dialogue, while others mentioned the 
RRF in passing, focusing also on actions and initiatives that had been recently completed. 

CfE caveats 

  Unlike  the  RRF  and  SD  documentation,  the  CfE  submissions  were  ‘pre-classified’,  in  that  separate 
submissions were made under each of enabling factors and digital skills provision. Some of the content 
of the submissions on digital skills included enabling factors topics, and vice versa. About 20% of the 
analysed content of the CfE submissions on enabling factors consisted of digital skills topics, while 
only 5% or so of the analysed content of the CfE submissions on digital skills consisted of enabling 
factors topics. In these instances, the topics were re-assigned from digital skills to enabling factors 
submissions and vice versa. 
The  relative  emphases  given  to  the  various  themes  in  the  submissions  to  the  CfE  reflect  the 
perspectives of the stakeholders, and it should be borne in mind that submissions were more frequent 
for some stakeholder types (e.g. non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and less for others 
(e.g. Trade Unions). In the results in Sections 3 and 4, we provide comparisons of topic frequencies 
across stakeholder types. 

 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
3  Enabling factors for successful digital education 

This section provides a summary of the topics and themes emerging from the thematic analysis as they relate 
to enabling factors for digital education. First, the results of the RRF analysis are presented. This is followed by 
the results from the SD analysis; and, finally, the topics and themes emerging from the CfE submissions. 

3.1 

Enabling factors in RRF national plans 

3.1.1 

Topic analysis overview 

As noted in Section 2, each sub-component of the relevant sections of the RRF national reports were classified 
firstly as investment or reform. Then, working from a combination of pre-defined and emerging topics (whilst 
at the same time aiming for topic unity across RRF, SD and CfE sources) each investment and reform item was 
assigned one or more topics. Table 3.1 provides short descriptions for each topic, while Figure 3.1 shows the 
distribution of topics across investments and reforms. 

In interpreting the results, recall that analysis focuses only on content and not on size of investment. 

Table 3.1. Descriptions of topics in the thematic analysis of RRF national plans enabling factors 

Topic 

Legislative or governance reform 

Infrastructure, 
equipment 

connectivity, 

Digital content, tools and platforms 

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

Research and data 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment 

Networking/collaborative supports  

Opportunity/innovation 

Description 
Broad 
legislative  or  governance  reforms  to  support  the 
implementation  of  enabling  factors  for  a  digital  education 
ecosystem 
Reforms or investments relating to the provision of infrastructure 
(hardware  including  servers),  connectivity  (enabling  high-speed 
transmission  of  digital  content  and  processes),  and  equipment 
(including peripherals and assistive technologies) 
Reforms  or  investments  relating  to  digital  content,  tools  and 
platforms to support teaching and learning 
Reforms  or  investments  relating  to  initial  teacher  education, 
continued professional development of teaching staff focused on 
digital pedagogy 
Reforms  or  investments  supporting  enabling  factors-related 
research and data activities, e.g. national research study 
Reforms or investments relating to enabling factors targeted at 
specific  groups  including  socio-economically  disadvantaged 
persons, women, older persons 
Reforms or investments relating to the monitoring, evaluation or 
assessment of enabling factors, such as impact assessment or 
monitoring of infrastructural investment 
Reforms  or 
investments  supporting  activities  that  foster 
collaborative  work  and  network-based  support  for  educators, 
teaching staff, students, etc. 
Reforms  or  investments  relating  to  innovations  in  enabling 
factors (e.g. in emerging technologies infrastructure)  

For  reforms,  the  most  frequent  topics  related  to  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment  (23%);  digital 
content, tools and platforms (20%); and broad legislative or governance reforms relating to digital education 
21%). In terms of investments, the most frequent topic related to investment in infrastructure, connectivity 
and equipment (38%), followed by digital content, tools and platforms (22%).  

Figure 3.1 also includes a category for investments and reforms of other topics: these comprise topics shown 
in Table 3.1 above for which frequencies were less than 2.5%.  

We do not provide a separate analysis of topics with frequencies of less than 5% (rounded), since there is an 
insufficient number of cases to provide reliable or generalisable information. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1. Distribution of RRF national report topics on enabling factors (%), by investment and 
reform 

38,0

23,4

21,3

22,0

20,2

Infrastructure, connectivity, equipment

Legislative or governance reform

0,0

Digital content, tools and platforms

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing

Networking/collaborative supports/activities

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy

Opportunity and innovation

Research and data

12,2

9,6

7,3

8,5

0,0

0,0

0,0

6,4

6,8

5,3

6,3

4,9

Others

2,5

5,3

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

Investments

Reforms

Table 3.2 shows the number of MS in which the enabling factors ‘reforms’ and ‘investments’ were mentioned. 
The three most frequent reforms, classified by topic, relate to infrastructure, connectivity and equipment (14 
MS);  digital  content, tools and platforms  (14  MS); and  general  legislative  or governance  reforms related  to 
enabling factors (10 MS). Other topics featured in the reforms of between two and five MS.  

Consistent with the reforms, investments relating to infrastructure, connectivity and equipment (23 MS) and 
to digital content, tools and platforms (18 MS) were the most frequently referenced. In addition, investments 
to support equity, inclusion and wellbeing featured in 12 MS and the RRF national plans of 9 MS referenced 
investments in ITE/CPD in digital pedagogies. The remaining enabling factors investment topics featured in two 
to seven MS. 

Table 3.2. Distribution of enabling factors reform and investment topics from RRF national plans 
across 27 MS 

Topic 

Reforms 

Investments 

Infrastructure, connectivity, equipment 

Digital content, tools and platforms 

Legislative or governance reform 

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

Monitoring, evaluation and assessment 

Networking/collaborative supports/activities 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Research and data 

Opportunity and innovation 

Others 

14 

14 

10 

5 

5 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

23 

18 

0 

9 

2 

7 

12 

6 

7 

2 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.2 

Themes emerging from the RRF analysis 

In interpreting the results it should noted that there is overlap across topics in the themes emerging. This is 
because multiple topics have been assigned to each sub-component. It should also be recalled from Section 2 
that there is a wide variation in the number of sub-components (and hence topics) associated with each MS. 
The end of this section provides a short summary of key findings.  

3.1.2.1  Legislative and governance reforms 

The RRF sub-components under this topic from 10 MS included reference to broad legislative or governance 
reforms. 

  About  a  quarter  of  these  consisted  of  legislative  reforms  to  enable  investments  in  primary  and 
secondary schools, relating to large-scale investment in infrastructure, connectivity and/or equipment; 
reforms to enable ITE and CPD in digital pedagogies; and reforms to implement evaluation systems 
for schools and/or teachers. 

  A further one-quarter or so consisted of comprehensive reforms of Higher Education, covering aspects 
such 
progression, 
research/development/innovation activities, and cross-institutional and public-private collaborations. 

or  modernisation, 

digitalisation 

governance, 

training, 

career 

as 

  Another quarter or so described the development or enactment of national frameworks, such as for 
digital education reform, cybersecurity strategy, data in society strategy, and reform of the VET sector. 

 

The remainder consisted of legislative reform for broad infrastructure, connectivity and/or equipment 
projects (e.g. large-scale broadband connectivity or public administration/services cloud solutions), and 
reforms to support, regulate or strengthen research, development and innovation in both public and 
private sectors. 

3.1.2.2 

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment 

Reforms relating to infrastructure, connectivity and equipment in 14 MS referred to (ordered from most to 
least frequent): 

  Reforms  to  implement  infrastructural  or  connectivity  investments  in  formal  education  settings 

(primary, secondary, VET and Higher Education, and including special educational supports); 

 

 

Legislative  reforms  to  support  or  accelerate  broadband  connectivity  projects  (many  of  these 
prioritising areas/regions based on need); and  

The  development  of  policies  or strategies which  are  related  to  digital  education  and  which  include 
elements of infrastructure, connectivity and/or equipment. 

About one-fifth of investments (across 23 MS) targeted primary and secondary education, one-fifth Higher 
Education settings, and about one-eighth focused on VET settings. Some of the investments in formal education 
settings referred solely to one of these three aspects of an enabling digital education ecosystem (e.g. devices 
for learners only), though a majority of the investments took a holistic perspective.  It was more common in 
Higher Education than at other levels of the formal education system to refer to investments in infrastructure 
or equipment to support research and skills in innovative or emerging digital technologies. In contrast, within 
primary and secondary, there was more of a focus on investment in devices for students/learners and school 
infrastructure. In VET settings, these investments were commonly accompanied by investments to digital skills 
training  offers  in  response  to  existing  and  emerging  labour  market  need.  A  common  theme  across  these 
investments  was  targeting  to  tackle  the  digital  divide,  e.g.  prioritising  these  investments  to  disadvantaged 
students or school communities.  

Around  one  in  eight  of  the  investments  referred  to  infrastructure,  connectivity  or  equipment  in  non-formal 
education settings (youth centres, libraries, etc.), where digital inclusion was a central focus. 

One-fifth of investments referred to high-speed broadband connectivity projects. Two aspects of these were 
quite  common:  investments  to  address  remaining  gaps  in  connectivity  (for  example  in  rural  and  remote 
communities), and investments to upgrade all or parts of the connectivity infrastructure to higher connectivity 
speeds, with many MS referencing both objectives within their national RRFs. 

142 

 
 
 
 
The  remaining  investments  under  this  topic  referred  to  both  the  public  and  private  sectors,  consisting  of 
infrastructural investments to support the digitalisation of public services or business, and SMEs in particular. 
A small number referred specifically to cybersecurity. 

In  general,  with  the  exception  of  the  large-scale  broadband  connectivity  investments,  it  was  the  norm  for 
investments in infrastructure, connectivity or equipment to occur alongside investments in digital skills reskilling 
or upskilling. 

3.1.2.3  Digital content, platforms and tools 

The most frequently occurring targets of reforms relating to digital platform, content and solutions in 14 MS 
were primary, secondary and Higher Education levels, where these reforms supported the implementation of 
investments to develop digital learning content (as part of curricular revisions or reforms to CPD of educators) 
and/or platforms to support teaching, learning and interoperability between institutions or between levels of 
the education system (e.g. development of a unified platform to enable the flow of digital content and school 
data  between  central  and  school-level  actors).  A  small  number  of  reforms  in  this  area  referred  to  the 
development of platforms or other digital supports for public services including public employment services. 

One-third of investments relating to content, tools and platforms across 18 MS referred to primary and/or 
secondary schools or to the formal education system more broadly, while a further one-sixth referred to Higher 
Education, and about one in ten referred to VET. Key emerging themes in these investments, particularly in VET 
and Higher Education settings, were personalised and self-directed learning, flexibility, and solutions to support 
hybrid teaching and learning. Investments are targeted at both educators and learners. 

Of the remaining investments, these were evenly distributed across the public sector, businesses and vulnerable 
groups as their targets. Regarding the public sector, investments support data integration and modernisation, 
cybersecurity solutions, and the adoption of innovative technologies. In the business environment, investments 
referred to digital solutions to support efficiency and innovation. Investments targeted specifically to vulnerable 
groups  refer  to  digital  learning  content  and  solutions  to  enable  skills  training  for  jobseekers,  youth,  older 
persons, and prison detainees, accompanied by infrastructural investments. 

All of the investments in digital content, platforms and tools are accompanied by investments in education and 
skills training offers. 

3.1.2.4  Networking/collaborative supports/activities 

Half of the small number of reforms featuring networking or collaborative supports or activities (in five MS) 
were  targeted  at  formal  education,  either  primary  and/or  secondary,  or  Higher  Education.  These  reforms 
included  references  to  new  collaborative  support  structures (e.g.  new  regional  IT  support  staff  for  schools) 
and/or to encourage or strengthen inter-institutional collaboration. The remaining reforms were split across the 
public  and  private  sectors  and entailed  the  establishment  of  new  collaborative  structures, including  public-
private partnerships. There were a very small number of governance reforms aimed at a co-ordinated approach 
across the public sector. 

Investments featuring networking or collaborative supports or activities were referenced in seven MS. Two-
fifths or so were targeted at Higher Education and comprised the support for participation in European research 
networks/structures, the strengthening of international links, and/or the establishment of digital competence 
hubs to support staff and/or students. A further one-third or so of these investments were targeted at primary 
and  secondary  schools  and  consisted  of  the  establishment  of  teacher  collaboration  structures  (as  part  of 
broader CPD activities), advisory/support centres, or IT support. Around a quarter of investments targeted VET 
systems,  consisting  of  the  establishment  of  regional  clusters,  centres  of  excellence,  and/or  structures  to 
facilitate public-private or multi-stakeholder partnerships. A very small number of investments featuring this 
topic  referred  to  the  establishment  of  innovation  hubs  or  competence  centres  in  the  public  services  and 
business sectors. 

3.1.2.5  Monitoring, evaluation and assessment 

Reforms which featured monitoring, evaluation and assessment were identified in five MS. These referred to 
measures to implement monitoring of digital education strategies. These operated at different levels of the 

143 

 
 
 
 
system, ranging from high-level (e.g. reform to enable education policy monitoring at the national level or to 
implement a monitoring and tracking system of students) to more local levels (e.g. reform to implement a new 
school  and  teacher  evaluation  system),  or  within  a  specific  sector  of  education  (e.g.  a  reform  to  enable 
transversal co-ordination of VET).  

Investments featuring this topic were referenced in just two MS and covered less than 5% of all investment 
topics, so are not reported on here. As noted in Section 3.1.1, there are too few cases for a robust description 
to be provided. 

3.1.2.6  Opportunity and innovation 

Reforms featuring opportunity and innovation were referenced in two MS, and covered less than 5% of all 
reform topics, and so are not reported on here.  

Investments which featured opportunity and innovation were referenced in seven MS. These related either to: 

 

 

Investments in the research/development/innovation (RDI) ecosystems, for example to support digital 
research infrastructure deployment in HEIs (commonly with an international focus and with links to 
broader RDI efforts or strategies), the establishment of digital innovation hubs for Higher Education 
and/or  businesses,  or  structures  to  support  RDI  collaborations  between  Higher  Education  and 
businesses;  
Investments to support the deployment of emerging and advanced digital technologies, for example 
the  establishment  of 
support 
development/deployment of  emerging and advanced technologies in education and/or  employment 
sectors. 

frameworks  or  governance 

regulatory 

structures 

to 

3.1.2.7 

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

Reforms which referred to ITE and CPD in digital pedagogy featured in five MS, and were targeted at primary 
and secondary levels of the formal education system, or to Higher Education, with just one reform referring 
specifically to supporting special education needs. 

Two-thirds of investments that made explicit reference to ITE or CPD in digital pedagogies (in nine MS) were 
targeted  at  primary  and  secondary  education;  the  remaining  one-third  were  evenly  divided  across  VET  and 
Higher Education settings. Regarding primary and secondary school investments, investments largely consisted 
of  CPD  to  support  educators  in  the  use  of  digital  technologies  to  support  curricular  reform  and/or  hybrid 
learning.  

In VET and Higher Education settings, meanwhile, investments related primarily to CPD to support hybrid or 
distance learning, and/or to support recent or planned reforms to course offerings. Common themes in VET and 
Higher  Education  contexts  were  relevance  to  existing  and  emerging  labour  market  demand,  flexibility  and 
innovative approaches.  

3.1.2.8  Research and data 

Reforms featuring the research and data topic featured in three MS, and covered less than 5% of all reform 
topics, and so are not reported on here.  

A small number of investments that supported research and data on enabling factors were identified (in six 
MS). These were mainly targeted at the Higher Education and national research communities and consisted of 
references to further research and/or data collection efforts on enabling factors in digital education systems 
or investments to support data policy implementation. They also commonly referred to developing existing or 
new links to the broader European research communities. 

3.1.3  Summary of RRF national report findings  

Broad legislative and governance reforms relating to enabling factors featured in the RRF national plans 
of 10 MS and comprised 21% of all reform topics. Half of these were targeted at primary/secondary and/or 
Higher Education and related to reforms to facilitate implementation of digital education strategies or Higher 
Education reforms. A quarter referred to development/enactment of broad reforms or policies relating to digital 
education,  cybersecurity,  data,  or  VET  systems.  The  remainder  consisted  of  legislative  reforms  to  enable 
deployment of large-scale connectivity or cloud solutions projects.  

144 

 
 
 
 
Reforms relating to infrastructure, connectivity and equipment in 14 MS (23% of reform topics) most 
commonly enabled infrastructural/connectivity investments in formal education settings. They also included 
legislative reforms to support/accelerate broadband connectivity projects, and development of digital education 
policies or strategies. About one-fifth of investments in 23 MS (38% of investment topics) targeted primary 
and secondary education, one-fifth Higher Education setting, and about one-eighth focused on VET settings. A 
majority  of  investments  took  a  holistic  perspective,  considering  multiple  infrastructural  elements.  In  Higher 
Education, investments commonly supported research and skills in innovative or emerging digital technologies. 
In VET, investments were commonly accompanied by modernising of training offers to incorporate digital skills 
training  in  response  to  existing  and  emerging  labour  market  need.  Around  one  in  eight  of  the  investments 
referred to infrastructure, connectivity or equipment in non-formal education settings where digital inclusion 
was  a  central  focus.  It  was  the  norm for  these  investments to  occur  alongside  investments  in  digital  skills 
reskilling  or  upskilling.  A  further  one-fifth  of  investments  referred  to  high-speed  broadband  connectivity 
projects, and a small number of investments referred to cybersecurity infrastructure. 

The most frequently occurring targets of reforms relating to digital platform, content and solutions in 14 
MS (20% of reform topics) were primary, secondary and higher levels of education, where they supported the 
implementation  of  investments to  develop  digital  learning  content  and/or for teaching  and  learning,  and/or 
interoperability  between  institutions  or  between  levels  of  the  education  system.  One-third  of  investments 
featuring this topic across 18 MS (covering 22% of investment topics) referred to primary and/or secondary 
schools  or  to  the  formal  education  system  more  broadly,  while  a  further  quarter  or  so  referred  to  Higher 
Education, and about one in ten referred to VET. Emerging themes in these investments, particularly in VET and 
Higher  Education,  were  personalised  and  self-directed  learning,  flexibility,  and  solutions  to  support  hybrid 
teaching and learning. The remaining investments were distributed across the public sector (to support data 
integration, cybersecurity, and innovative technology adoption); the business sector (to support efficiency and 
innovation);  and  targeted  at  vulnerable  groups  (to  enable  skills  training).  All  of  these  investments  are 
accompanied by education and skills training offers. 

Half of the small number of reforms featuring networking or collaborative supports or activities (in five 
MS and comprising 7% of reform topics) were targeted at formal education, either primary and secondary, or 
Higher Education. These reforms included references to new collaborative support structures (e.g. new regional 
IT support staff for schools) and/or to encourage or strengthen inter-institutional collaboration. The remaining 
reforms were split across the public and private sectors and entailed the establishment of new collaborative 
structures, including public-private partnerships. There were also a very small number of governance reforms 
aimed at a co-ordinated approach across the public sector. Investments featuring this topic were referenced in 
seven MS (and covered 8.5% of investment topics). Two-fifths or so were targeted at Higher Education and 
comprised support for strengthening international links, and/or the establishment of digital competence hubs 
for  staff  and/or  students.  A  further  one-third  were  targeted  at  primary  and  secondary  schools  for  teacher 
collaboration structures, advisory/support centres or IT support. Around a quarter of investments targeted VET 
systems  (e.g.  for  centres  of  excellence  or  multi-stakeholder  partnership  structures).  A  very  small  number 
referred to the establishment of innovation hubs or competence centres in the public services and business 
sectors. 

Reforms  which  featured  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment  (in  five  MS  and  accounting  for  6% of 
reform topics) referred to measures to implement monitoring features of digital education strategies, operating 
at different levels of the system, ranging from  high-level to more local levels, or within a specific sector of 
education (e.g. VET). Investments featuring this topic were too few in number to report on separately. 

Reforms  featuring  opportunity  and  innovation  were  also  too  few  in  number  to  report  separately. 
Investments featuring this topic were referred to in the RRF national plans of seven MS and comprised 6% of 
all investment topics. They related to investments in research/development/innovation (RDI) ecosystems or for 
the deployment of emerging and advanced digital technologies in settings both inside and outside of education.  

Reforms which referred to ITE and CPD in digital pedagogy featured in five MS (5% of reform topics), and 
were targeted at primary and secondary levels of the formal education system, or to Higher Education, with 
just one reform referring to special education needs. Two-thirds of investments in nine MS under this topic (7% 
of all investment topics) were targeted at primary and secondary education and focused on CPD for educators 
on the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning to support curricular reform and/or hybrid learning. 
The  remaining  one-third  were  evenly  divided  across  VET  and Higher Education  settings,  where  investments 

145 

 
 
 
 
related primarily to CPD to support hybrid or distance learning, and/or to support recent or planned reforms to 
course offerings, focusing on existing and emerging labour market demand.  

There were too few reforms featuring the research and data topic to report on separately.  A small number 
of investments (5% of topics) were identified in six MS. These were mainly targeted at the Higher Education 
and  national  research  communities  and  consisted  of  references  to  further  research  and/or  data  collection 
efforts on enabling factors in digital education systems or investments to support data policy implementation. 
They  also  commonly  referred  to  developing  existing  or  new  links  to  the  broader  European  research 
communities. 

There are some important gaps in the content of the RRF national plans as they relate to enabling factors for 
digital education.  

 

 

 

First, there is very little emphasis on monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. While it may be 
the  case  that  monitoring,  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  are  built  into  existing  policy 
implementation (indeed, in some MS their RRF plans are embedded in their national strategies, and in 
these strategies there is provision or reference to monitoring), it could nonetheless be a concern that 
the  RRF  national  plans  did  not  routinely  build  references  to  monitoring,  evaluation  or  impact 
assessment in order to be able to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of major investments and 
reforms. This theme is further explored in the next section which  discusses the findings of the SD 
meetings.  
Secondly,  while  some  RRF  national  plans  made  explicit  provision  for  enabling  factors  relating  to 
disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, the monitoring of investments and reforms in this regard is less 
clear. This could suggest, in conjunction with the first point, that any effort to focus more on monitoring 
and evaluation should include a particular focus on these groups.  
Thirdly,  while  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  this  is  a  broad,  qualitative  analysis,  it  is  nonetheless 
striking  that  the  references  to  investments  in  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment  are  more 
frequent  than  references  to  other  foundational  enabling  factors,  i.e.  digital  content,  platforms  and 
tools; and CPD and ITE in digital pedagogies. Of course, it may be the case that investments in these 
latter areas are  funded  by  other national  or European  sources.  The  SD  discussions  provide  further 
valuable insights into MS’ priorities with respect to the various enabling factors. 

3.2 

Enabling factors in the Structured Dialogue  

3.2.1 

Topic analysis overview 

Through a combination of pre-defined and emerging topic analysis, 8 topics were identified. Table 3.3 provides 
a description of topics. 

Two main groups emerged in the SD when it comes to enabling factors (see Table 3.4): 

Foundational enabling factors for successful digital education: 

 

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment (22.5% of topic instances) 

  Digital content, tools and platforms (19%) 

 

ITE and CPD for digital pedagogy (15%) 

  Networking/collaborative supports/activities (8.5%). 

Enabling factors that provide direction, structure and value for successful digital education: 

  Monitoring, evaluation and assessment (18%) 

 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing (10%) 

  Opportunity and innovation (4%) 

 

Research and data (3%). 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.3. Descriptions of topics in the thematic analysis of RRF national plans: enabling factors 

Topic 

Infrastructure,  connectivity, 
equipment 

Description 
The  provision  of  infrastructure  (hardware  including  servers),  connectivity 
(enabling  high-speed  transmission  of  digital  content  and  processes),  and 
equipment (including peripherals and assistive technologies) 

Digital  content,  tools  and 
platforms 
and 
ITE 
pedagogy* 
Networking/collaborative 
supports/activities 

digital 

CPD, 

Monitoring,  evaluation  and 
assessment 

Research and data 

Equity, 
wellbeing 

inclusion 

and 

Opportunity and innovation 

Digital content, tools and platforms used for teaching, learning and assessment  

Initial teacher education, continued professional development of teaching staff 
focused on digital pedagogy 
Supporting activities that foster collaborative work and network-based support 
for educators, teaching staff, students, etc. 
Activities  relating  to  the  monitoring,  evaluation  or  assessment  of  enabling 
factors, such as impact assessment or monitoring of infrastructural investment. 
This  topic  also  includes  actions  and  systems  to  govern  enabling  factors 
implementation,  such  as  investment  subject  to  institutional  compliance  with 
given criteria  
Enabling  factors-related  research  and  data  activities,  e.g.  national  research 
study 
Initiatives  on  enabling  factors  targeted  at  specific  groups  including  socio-
economically disadvantaged persons, women, older persons 
Innovative  initiatives  on  enabling  factors  (e.g.  in  emerging  technologies 
infrastructure)  or  opportunities  identified  to  build  on  the  existing  enabling 
ecosystem 

*Initiatives related to the enhancement of digital skills of teachers/educators are included under digital skills in 
Section 4. 
Note. Challenges, barriers and concerns in the development or implementation of an enabling ecosystem for 
digital education, where referenced, are classified under the specific topic(s) to which they refer. 

Table  3.4.  Structured  Dialogue  frequencies  of  enabling  factors  topics  (N  =  719)  and  challenges 
within topics (n = 118), together with the count of MS (N = 27) in which each topic and topic-related 
challenge is referenced 

Enabling Factors Topic 

N 
topic 
instances 

%  of  all 
topic 
instances 

N 
challenges 
within 
topic 

% 
challenges 
within 
topic 

in 

N  MS 
which 
topic 
is 
referenced 

in 
N  MS 
which 
topic 
challenge  is 
referenced 

connectivity, 

content, 

Infrastructure, 
equipment 
Digital 
platforms 
Monitoring, 
assessment 
ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

tools  and 

evaluation, 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 
Networking/collaborative 
supports/activities 
Opportunity or innovation 

Research and data 

Total 

162 

139 

127 

107 

70 

61 

30 

23 

22.5 

19.3 

17.7 

14.9 

9.7 

8.5 

4.2 

3.2 

30 

8 

33 

26 

18 

2 

0 

1 

25.4 

6.8 

28.0 

22.0 

15.3 

1.7 

0.0 

0.8 

27 

26 

26 

27 

26 

24 

16 

13 

16 

6 

20 

17 

14 

2 

0 

1 

719 

100.0 

118 

16.4 

N/A 

N/A 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
On average across the 27 MS, 28 topic instances relating to enabling factors were identified (range = 16-47). 
With the exceptions of research and data, and opportunity and innovation, all topics were referenced in the SD 
of a large majority (24 to 27) of MS. 

Overall, 16% of all topic instances referred to challenges or concerns. Topics in which challenges were most 
frequent are monitoring, evaluation and assessment (28%); infrastructure, connectivity and equipment (25%); 
and ITE and CPD for digital pedagogy (22%).  

Specifically  in  relation  to  challenges,  the  topics  most  widely  referenced  across  MS  were  again  monitoring, 
evaluation and assessment (20 MS); infrastructure, connectivity and equipment (16 MS); and ITE and CPD for 
digital pedagogy (17 MS); and additionally, equity, inclusion and wellbeing (14 MS).  

A transversal theme, EU support (not displayed in Table 3.4), provides a description of suggestions from MS 
as to how these various challenges may be addressed at the EU level. Roughly half of the 130 or so instances 
of EU support relate to enabling factors (the other half relate to digital skills). 

We also examined the transversal theme of  governance, engagement and partnerships under enabling 
factors and describe the results of this analysis in a later part of Section 3. 

As described in Section 2, each topic was classified within the analysis framework along several dimensions: 
target group, level (international, national, regional, mixed), and sector (education, employment, mixed; and 
public, private or mixed public/private) to provide insight into the location within the ecosystem of each topic 
instance.  

The remainder of this section describes the key themes and challenges under each topic in turn. This is followed 
by a summary of references to EU support, and a short summary of key findings. 

3.2.2 

Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis 

3.2.2.1 

Infrastructure, connectivity, equipment 

Themes 

There is a strong shared view among officials in all 27 MS that effective and equitable digital infrastructure, 
connectivity  and  equipment  forms  the  foundation  of  a  successful  digital  education  ecosystem.  Overall,  a 
majority of the SD documentation that referred to infrastructure, connectivity and equipment investments (25% 
of topic instances) was at primary and secondary levels, with the remainder focused on Higher Education and 
VET. References to investments in infrastructure, connectivity and equipment tended to be more widespread 
among MS with less well-developed digital education ecosystems. We identified seven emerging trends. 

 

Large-scale investment  in devices for students is extremely common, with many MS in addition 
referring  to  devices  for  teachers.  These  large-scale  infrastructural  investments,  particularly  within 
primary  and  secondary  education  systems,  were  occurring  within  broader  digital  education  and/or 
digital  skills  strategies,  and  were  commonly,  though  not  always,  accompanied  by  other  enabling 
factors (such as digital content/tools/platforms; CPD and ITE in digital pedagogies, discussed below). 
Many MS were accompanying device investments for individuals with broader programmes of school 
or  institutional  digital  infrastructural  investments,  for  example,  in  the  upgrading  of  classroom 
equipment, re-fitting of ICT laboratories with equipment to enable the teaching and learning of coding 
and programming using robotics (for example); and/or the teaching and learning of new and emerging 
technologies skills such as AI.  

  A large majority of MS referenced recent investments in devices for students during the  pandemic, 
providing either free or subsidised devices (occasionally these being accompanied by free or subsidised 
connectivity). There are three general trends with respect to measures targeted at  disadvantaged 
students in this regard:  
Provision of universal free learning content including devices to students 
Identification, by some criterion, of disadvantaged learners and supplying them with free devices and 
occasionally other supports (such as connectivity or family support)s 
Provision of subsidies or vouchers so that disadvantaged learners can access devices (and occasionally 
also connectivity) more inexpensively.  

I. 
II. 

III. 

The above schemes largely appear to refer to socio-economically disadvantaged groups, and very occasionally 
more broadly to educational disengagement. There is little if any information in the SD as to what metrics were 
148 

 
 
 
 
used  to  identify  the  disadvantaged  groups.  Some  MS  provided  devices to  other  groups such  as  the  elderly 
population, with the onset of the pandemic within their broader digital inclusion agenda; and a small number 
also referred to investments at the pre-school level of the system.  

  A few MS indicated student-device ratio targets they would like to achieve, while a small number 
of  MS  appear  to  have  already  met  their  targets  in  this  regard.  References  to  targets  concerning 
learner-device ratios were not consistently made during the SD meetings. However, a general trend in 
this regard is for the provision of one device per student from upper primary level onwards and one 
device  for  every  four  or  five  students  among  younger  grade  levels.  While  in  some  MS  the  recent 
investments in  devices  has concluded, in a majority, this  is set to  continue  under the  RRF national 
plans.  

  A specific aspect of these investments relates to the choice of device for students. An early emerging 
trend is that  keyboard-free  devices (tablets)  are  favoured  by  some  MS  for younger children, while 
devices  with  a  keyboard  are  favoured  for  older  children  and  (young)  adults.  The  transitional  and 
developmental needs of children (and the consequent implications for digital pedagogies) relating to 
keyboard and mouse skills is an issue that may merit further exploration. 
Just a small number of MS specifically mentioned assistive technologies investment. This is not to 
say  that  there  is not  investment  and  support  in  assistive  technologies,  but  rather to  note  that  the 
incorporation of assistive technologies at all levels of the education system is an issue that may merit 
further prioritisation and co-ordination efforts among MS. 

 

  Ongoing, substantial investment in providing and enhancing connectivity (again under RRF national 
plans  and  commonly  following  on  from  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  investment), 
focusing  initially  on  communities  that  are  the  least  well  served  (those  without,  or  with  slow 
connectivity), was mentioned by a majority of MS. The issue of connectivity for some countries has 
been solved and for others with marked geographic, economic and demographic discrepancies, it is 
still a challenge.  
In all MS, the maintenance and upgrading of these systems will remain and important task. As with 
infrastructural  investments,  these  were  commonly,  though  not  always,  embedded  within  broader 
national digital education strategies or initiatives. 

 

Challenges 

One-quarter (25%) of topic instances under this theme were indicative of challenges, which is higher than the 
average percentage of challenges across topics (16%). MS with rankings that are lower than the EU average 
on infrastructure and connectivity frequently expressed the sentiment of ‘a lot achieved but still a lot more 
to be done’. Clearly, this reflects not only the size of investments required but also the scale and complexity 
of the implementation effort.  

 

 

 

 

This,  first  of  all,  raises  the  question  of  how  to  best  support  MS  with  less  well-developed  digital 
infrastructure and connectivity ecosystems to accelerate in a manner that does not result in reform 
overload or fragmentation. Indeed, some MS also raised the issue that primary schools are under local 
responsibility, hence the government cannot oblige the use of tools or instruments provided - including 
internet. The lack of coverage in some areas was also raised by some MS. 
Second,  while  some  MS  have  (or  shortly  will  have)  systems  in  place  to  track  school/institutional 
device/infrastructural investments in schools/institutions, several MS noted that it was a challenge to 
monitor these investments due to a lack a national/regional system to track the use of equipment. In 
a few MS, there were difficulties in centrally auditing school devices and equipment.  
Third, a  ‘services gap’ referred  to by a small number of  MS for local  school network  maintenance: 
frequently,  network  services  serve  schools  from  outside.  When  schools  report  problems  on  their 
networks, this is often related to issues with the local network inside the school. In the absence of a 
dedicated IT support staff for schools, this gap can be quite disruptive to schools’ effective use of 
digital technologies (where IT services may be lost completely until an IT support person can visit the 
school). This ‘services gap’ is also linked to the infrastructure and connectivity topic. 
Finally,  the  challenge  of  sustaining  and  maintaining  devices  and  other  elements  of  infrastructural 
investments commonly arose, and this issue was expressed in three aspects. The first is that MS that 
do  not  have  digital  coordinators  to  support  schools  report  challenges  in  terms  of  technical 
maintenance and support for school staff. In many cases, this support is delegated to school staff 
who do not have the knowledge, skills or time to sustain this role. The second aspect is that, in a few 

149 

 
 
 
 
of the SD, MS authorities expressed the need to incorporate device and equipment refurbishment and 
recycling in their digital education infrastructure planning. Third, in some MS, the lack, or early stages 
in,  implementation  of  whole-government  approach  appeared  as  a  related  challenge  to  the  second 
issue,  where  difficulties  in  obtaining  Finance  Ministry  support  for  investment  in  connectivity  for 
schools. 

3.2.2.2  Digital content, tools and platforms 

Themes 

In the SD discussions on this topic (which emerged in 26 MS and accounted for 19% of topics), about three-
fifths of the commentary on this topic referred to primary and secondary schools, with the remainder spread 
across Higher Education and VET. 
Recent and current initiatives (commonly in combination) include: 

 

 

Platforms  that  give  access  to  digital  educational  content  to  support  teaching,  learning  and 
assessment  activities,  with  these  developments  frequently  linked  to  national/regional  curricular 
reforms 
Platforms  that  facilitate  schools’  day-to-day  administrative  and  communication  activities 
(internally among staff, staff and students, with parents, etc.) 

  Remote/blended teaching and learning platforms 
 

Investments in elements of the ecosystem that facilitate interoperability between legacy systems, 
or which enable new interoperability to function 

  Development of new digital teaching and learning content and tools, and/or digitalisation of teaching 

and learning materials 
 
Teaching and learning content/tools for emerging technologies such as AI, IoT, and big data analytics 
  Open education resources, some of which were targeted at a general level, others being targeted 

more specifically at groups and/or digital skills areas 

  Self-assessment  tools  (such  as  SELFIE  and  SELFIEforTEACHERS)  for  use  by  teachers,  students, 

school leaders, and citizens more generally 

  Digital competence frameworks and guides (such as DigComp, DigCompEdu and DigCompOrg) for 

use by teachers and school leaders. 

It  is  evident  that  MS  are  at  different  stages  of  implementation.  An  emerging  trend  with  respect  to  digital 
content, tools and platforms is that significant efforts and investments are being made to create and sustain 
integrated  platforms  that  provide  educators  and  students  with  a  single  login  or  entry  point  to  a  range  of 
pedagogical, administrative (including monitoring) and pedagogical functions. Frequently, these efforts gave 
rise to discussions in the SD meetings of about interoperability, data security, legacy/transition, co-ordination 
and sustainability, as described below. Also relatively common were requests from MS authorities for support 
in content development (best practice sharing and content sharing). 

Challenges 

The percentage of challenges under this topic (7%, across six MS) was lower than the overall average across 
topics (16%). Four key challenges emerged in the area of digital content, tools and platforms: 

 

 

First,  MS  raised  concerns  about  the  ability  of  schools  and  other  educational  institutions  to  meet 
GDPR503 obligations (given the large amounts of data now under the responsibility of schools as data 
controllers) and to ensure cybersecurity of their systems and users (particularly given recent trends 
towards cloud-based and integrated tools and services). These are areas for which support at the level 
of the EU was sought (as described later). 
Second,  MS described the inherent level of  complexity in the digital ecosystems of their education 
systems,  citing  challenges  in  implementing  digital  platform  solutions  in  particular.  While  many  MS 
were working to overcome these challenges, others are currently operating within a landscape that is 
more  fragmented  for  a  variety  of  reasons  including  legacy  issues  and  education  system 

503 The General Data Protection Regulation, which came into effect in May, 2018 (https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/).  

150 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

decentralisation. Several MS sought EU-level support in overcoming interoperability challenges relating 
to digital platforms. 
Third, concern was expressed among some MS about the timing and pace mismatch between updating 
curricular and other pedagogical content and rapid changes in digital technologies.   
Finally, a small number of MS expressed the view that Higher Education was not currently integrating 
digital content and tools sufficiently to fully develop and exploit digital skills and their potential among 
staff and students. 

3.2.2.3  Networking and collaborative supports and activities 

Themes 

Almost  all  MS  (24  of  the  27)  described  implementing  multiple  networking  and  collaborative  initiatives  to 
support an enabling ecosystem for digital education (and these descriptions accounted for 8.5% of all topic 
instances). Many referred to existing actions which are currently being developed or enhanced following the 
learnings and experiences  of  the  pandemic.  They  cover  a  range  of  activities which  cut  across  levels of  the 
formal education system and which operate variously at local, regional and national levels. A little over half of 
the initiatives identified in the SD documentation were targeted at primary and secondary levels of the system, 
with the remainder split across Higher Education and VET or to a combination of VET with other parts of the 
education system.  

Commonly-mentioned networking and collaborative supports and activities were: 

  Collaborative networks of and for school leaders and teachers (including Communities of Practice). 
The purpose and function of these networks varied, but most commonly enabled peer learning and 
supports for leadership, teaching and learning in relation to digital education and digitisation. 

  Various  co-ordination  supports,  for  example  to  enable  schools  to  work  together  to  purchase 
equipment, or through regional IT co-ordinators to provide supports in planning and implementation 
of schools’ digital education plans and/or technical support and assistance.  
Structures and activities that are designed to enable stakeholder and social partner involvement 
in strategy development and implementation. 

 

  National or regional fora to facilitate discussion and shared learning on digital ecosystem issues. 

We identified two emerging trends: 

 

 

First, several MS described a new dedicated support role for schools. This role is given a variety of 
titles, such as ICT co-ordinator, digital guru, or ICT support staff. Many MS are recognising that such 
support  needs  to  include  more  than  technical  support  and  maintenance,  since  school  leaders  and 
educators  also  need  strategic  guidance  and  support  for  their  schools’  digital  plans,  as  well  as 
pedagogical guidance in the use of digital tools in teaching, learning and assessment.  
Second, some MS have integrated these activities into a broader digital education strategy. In contrast, 
in  other  MS,  these  activities  appear to  be  of  a  more  bottom-up  nature.  The  extent  to  which  these 
activities are strategically integrated and developed within a broader policy framework is therefore 
unclear in some MS. 

Challenges 

There were few challenges associated with this topic (2% compared to the overall average of 16%), though a 
small number of MS expressed a desire to enhance networking and collaboration activities across the formal 
educational system, particularly across primary and secondary levels. 

3.2.2.4 

ITE and CPD, digital pedagogy 

Themes 

A large  majority of the  commentary from all 27  MS on ITE (Initial Teacher Education) and CPD (Continuing 
Professional Development) (15%) of all topics related to primary and secondary levels of the education system, 

151 

 
 
 
 
with much less emphasis on supporting the development of digital pedagogies among educators in the Higher 
Education or VET sectors. 

The following emerged as relatively common themes regarding CPD: 

 

  During the pandemic with the sudden shift to distance learning, the difficulty for a large number of 
teachers to  cope with the new conditions  became  clear and a digital training effort was launched. 
Building  on  the  learnings of  the  pandemic,  many  MS  have,  or are  in  the  process  of, implementing 
educator CPD at a large scale, using online tools, often in combination with other techniques (e.g. face-
to-face training, digital platforms to enable collaborative exchange).  
It  was  not  uncommon  for  MS  to  implement  CPD  programmes  for  educators  that  combined  digital 
education pedagogies (embedding digital technologies in teaching and learning) with digital skills (to 
enhance the digital competences of educators) (the latter is discussed under Section 4). However, in a 
few MS, the focus appears to be largely on digital pedagogies. 
Just  a  few  countries  were  also  implementing  programmes  specifically  targeted  at  school  or 
institutional leaders, in order to enable them to support the development of digital pedagogies among 
teaching staff and to support the digital transformation of schools more generally. However, overall, 
commentary was largely focused on teachers, with just a handful of instances referring to CPD for 
school leaders or a mixture of teachers and school leaders. 

 

  A  small  number  of  MS  referred  specifically  to  DigCompEdu  as  a  useful  framework  for  developing 

teachers’ digital pedagogical skills and learning pathways. 

A majority of MS indicated that ITE included a mandatory or core component of digital pedagogies while there 
were a couple of instances which indicated that this was either non-mandatory or under review. ITE in most 
MS is embedded in HEIs and most of them have autonomy over their curricula and what is included in them. 
This means limited influence for the government to impact how digital pedagogy skills are taught in ITE.  
It is noteworthy that the discussions on CPD and ITE in digital pedagogies tended not to include references to 
the actual or expected impact of such efforts, whether on teachers or students. Further, there were not many 
references across MS on the continuity of teacher training. This rather fragmented and ad-hoc nature of support 
for teacher learning and development may be underpinned by a range of factors, including the non-mandatory 
nature of CPD in many MS. Notwithstanding the value of self-reflection tools such as SELFIEforTEACHERS, the 
low levels of assessment or monitoring of teacher digital competences remains low (the latter is discussed 
under Digital Skills, Section 4). 

Challenges 

The percentage of topic instances identified as challenges in the analysis (22%, across 17 MS) is slightly higher 
than the overall average (16%).  

 

  A key emerging challenge in the digital pedagogical skills of educators relates to a broader issue in 
teacher  supply.  This  was  expressed  in  various  ways,  ranging  from  more  general  references  to  the 
teacher supply issue including ICT teacher shortages or difficulties in finding qualified staff to act as 
IT  co-ordinators  (also  referenced  under  Section  3.2.2.3  above),  to  more  specific  analysis  of  the 
problem, including difficulties in attracting younger teachers into the profession; engaging hard-to-
reach  school  leaders and  teachers (within  the  context  of  an  ageing  teacher  population  which  may 
already be struggling with limited human resources); low salaries to attract digitally-skilled teaching 
personnel  in  comparison  with  the  private  and  other  sectors;  and/or  difficulties  in  attracting  and 
retaining teachers in specific regions or communities (including rural and disadvantaged areas). 
For some MS, the provision of CPD and ITE on digital pedagogies represented a difficult investment 
choice,  that  is,  whether  it  would  be  more  effective  to  invest  broadly  in  all  educators,  or  to  target 
investment to some teachers (e.g. dedicated teachers of ICT-related subjects). This choice implies a 
necessity to clarify the roles of teachers within the formal education system, i.e. whether some roles 
or all roles require digital pedagogical skills, and at which levels. 
Some  MS  with  regional  governance  of  their  systems  also  pointed  to  challenges  in  obtaining  a 
comprehensive overview of the situation, when the responsibility for teacher education and training is 
devolved from central Government. 
Some  MS  commented  also  on  a  perceived  mismatch  between  the  training  offer  and  the  needs  of 
educators. This issue may be made more challenging by low or varied motivation of teachers, and a 

 

 

152 

 
 
 
 
need  to  strengthen  digital  leadership  culture  from  school  management,  as  well  as  the  current 
monitoring situation, in which most MS do not currently have a means to assess or monitor teachers’ 
digital  pedagogical  skills  (or  digital  skills)  in  order  to  diagnose  and  address  needs.  While  it  is 
acknowledged by some MS that international studies such as TALIS and ICILS provide valuable insights 
into the education system, these sources do not provide the required information for matching training 
offer to need. 

  We can also observe that the relatively low focus on CPD in the VET and Higher Education sectors 
relative to primary and secondary levels may merit further attention, at least to assess the current 
and emerging needs of educators in these parts of the education system. 

Regarding ITE, the two key challenges related to: 

 

 

increasing enrolments in these courses against stiff competition for more attractive ICT career paths 
(discussed in more detail in Section 4, under digital skills ITE); and  
the need, as expressed in a small number of MS, to further improve the ITE training offer and make 
implementation more consistent as it relates to digital pedagogies. As noted previously, universities 
tend to have autonomy, resulting in challenges in directly influencing Higher Education strategies with 
regard to the number of ITE course places or attracting students to ITE courses. 

3.2.2.5  Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Themes 

Within the topic of equity, inclusion and wellbeing, which featured in 26 of the 27 SD and accounted for 15% 
of  topic  instances,  the  initiatives  and  actions  described  by  MS  were  spread  across  three  main  groups: 
disadvantaged  or  vulnerable  individuals/communities;  special  education  (which  was  also  discussed  under 
infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment  [assistive  technologies]);  and  broader  initiatives  at  primary  and 
secondary  level  which  included  a  focus  on  equity  and  inclusion.  In  these  descriptions,  MS  frequently  cited 
existing  evidence  to  contextualise  the  initiatives,  but  detail  on  intended  outcomes  and  impacts  of  these 
initiatives tended to be lacking. 

These initiatives may be described in three broad categories: 

 

Targeted  investments  of  devices  and  infrastructure,  prioritising  remote  and  disadvantaged 
communities and individuals; 

  Digital content and pedagogies for learners with special educational needs; 
 

Tailored educational programmes and supports designed to promote and support digital inclusion of 
priority  groups,  commonly  within  broader  social  inclusion  programmes  (e.g.  to  reduce  early  school 
leaving or provide broader educational supports in a rural community). 

Challenges 

Similar to the average  percentage  of challenges across all topics (16%, spread across 14  MS),  15% of the 
commentary under this topic was classified as a challenge. The key issue within the topic of equity, inclusion 
and  wellbeing  relates  mainly  and  firstly  to  widely-expressed  concerns  about  the  digital  divide.  MS 
expressed concerns about disparities primarily in terms of digital infrastructure and access of individuals living 
in urban and rural/remote areas and in more and less disadvantaged communities, including migrants, refugees 
and specific ethnic groups such as the Roma. MS expressed this both in terms of the infrastructure of homes 
as well as schools and educational institutions. It is clear that, despite or even perhaps because of the pandemic 
(with substantial investments, efforts and new awareness), MS recognise the need to address the digital divide 
as it is manifested in various ways in individual contexts. Indeed, several MS cited findings that indicate that 
the pandemic has, in some ways, further exacerbated and/or further exposed the existing digital divide. In the 
discussions, several MS authorities expressed a need to understand the challenges faced by different groups 
and how to make systems more inclusive. 

In  expressing  these  concerns, it  is clear that  MS  are  continuing  to  invest  financial  and  human  resources to 
tackle the digital divide. However, from the evidence emerging in the structured dialogue thematic analysis, MS 
need  more  support  in  targeting  investments  to  support  equity  and  inclusion  within  the  digital  education 
ecosystem and in monitoring the impact and effectiveness of such efforts. 

153 

 
 
 
 
Secondly, a few countries expressed concerns about the digital wellbeing of students, and cited examples 
of initiatives designed to promote safe and healthy use of digital technologies and cope with cyberbullying. 
These concerns, which were more widespread than initiatives to tackle them, suggest a need to address digital 
wellbeing needs of MS’ education systems in a more co-ordinated manner. 

Some MS also mentioned the new and additional concerns and challenges emerging as a result of the crisis in 
Ukraine (for example, the additional human resources to support these children and their parents), where it 
should be noted that MS are differentially affected by this crisis. 

3.2.2.6  Monitoring, evaluation, assessment 

Themes 

Monitoring, evaluation and assessment activities were quite widely referenced in 26 of 27 MS, covering 18% 
of all topic instanced) and discussed in the SD meetings, reflecting both EC priorities and the priorities and 
concerns of MS officials. Efforts are largely focused on primary and secondary levels of the education system. 
The most common forms of monitoring, evaluation and assessment activities are described below. 

  A little over half of MS mentioned monitoring activities within the broader implementation plans of 
their national strategies, and it was common to have external quality assurance mechanisms (e.g. via 
an  Inspectorate).  While  all  MS  expressed  an  awareness  of  the  importance  of  monitoring  enabling 
factors, MS are at very different stages of doing so. While, in a small number, monitoring systems are 
well-developed and new and innovative enabling factors indicators are under development, other MS 
have a more ad-hoc and fragmented approach to monitoring (as described under Challenges, below). 
Indeed,  the  varying,  and  frequently  the  absence  of,  descriptions  of  impact  evaluation  of  digital 
ecosystem investments, indicate that MS are at varying levels of development in their implementation 
of impact evaluation.   

  Governance or regulatory activities: these included, as examples, the introduction of digital workplans 
in a number of countries, requirements for schools to have a digital education plan in place in order 
to receive funding, and performance agreements with HEIs to regulate digital resource funding.  
  Use of self-assessment tools by schools (e.g. SELFIE) and/or teachers (e.g. SELFIEforTEACHERS) were 
present  in  about  half  MS  SD  documentation.  MS  which  reported  using  these  tools  spoke  positively 
about them, though in a majority, their use tended to occur in a bottom-up fashion, and some MS 
sought support to further integrate the use of these tools more formally or extensively in monitoring 
and evaluation activities. Some MS also indicated that, with the change of curricula  (and ICT being 
included),  tests  would  support  the  monitoring  process,  with  some  viewing  this  as  a  reason  not  to 
further develop monitoring systems. 
In a  small number of  MS, comprehensive  systems to  monitor school device  usage were already in 
place, while in a few others, these systems were under development. Although some form of system-
level data collection for monitoring purposes was widespread, the collection and usage of system-
level data for this purpose appears to vary widely. 

 

  About two-thirds of MS referred to large-scale international assessments such as ICILS, PIAAC, PISA 
and TALIS to monitor the state of play in their digital ecosystems. This suggests that MS appreciated 
the  added  value  of  participating  in  international  comparative  studies,  though  as  noted  elsewhere, 
some acknowledged that these studies cannot address all national monitoring and evaluation needs 
and that supplementary national data collection and monitoring activities are needed. 
Finally, process evaluations of enabling factors were also mentioned: these tended to refer to specific 
national  evaluation  studies  of  programmes  or  initiatives,  such  as  national  surveys  of  teacher  and 
student usage of digital technologies for teaching and learning. 

 

Challenges 

Challenges in monitoring, evaluation and assessment were relatively high (28% compared to an average across 
topics of 16%, spread across 20 MS) and may be grouped under three themes, which show a strong relationship 
with governance (see Section 3.2.2.10 below): 

  Achieving  a  whole-of-government,  systemic  approach;  the  ability  to  link  the  various  elements  of 
strategies and enablers together (i.e. infrastructure, standards and curricular adjustments, content and 

154 

 
 
 
 
training). This is related to the complexity and effort required in a whole-of-government strategy co-
ordination  and  monitoring, in  which  regional  governance  adds  an  extra  layer  of  complexity, and is 
exacerbated by gaps in the monitoring system, and challenges related to data and interoperability. 
  Matching  the  digital  ecosystem  to  the  needs  of  individual  schools:  this  entails  tailored  and  agile 
approaches. However, it should be noted that a small number of MS have reported success in achieving 
this complex task through the use of IT co-ordinators working with clusters of schools where a tailored 
approach, adapted to local needs and resulting in local capacity building: such an approach requires 
sustained human resources. 
Finally,  reflecting  the  diversity  of  MS,  the  SD  for  many  countries  also  indicated  specific  gaps  in 
monitoring  and  evaluation  ecosystems,  three  of  the  more  commonly-mentioned  being  a  lack  of 
systematic  monitoring of teachers’ digital  pedagogical  skills; lack of monitoring of device usage in 
schools; and the current situation of an ad hoc monitoring more generally. 

 

3.2.2.7  Research and data 

Themes 

There was relatively little commentary on research and data relating to enabling factors (this topic appeared 
in 13 MS and accounted for just 3% of topic instances), which could suggest a need for EU-level co-ordination 
and support of research in this area. 

Two main themes emerged: 

 

 

Specific references to national research studies on enabling factors topics, such as overcoming the 
digital divide, online behaviour of young people, the validation of digital learning portfolios. 
Platforms and tools for the storing and dissemination of enabling factors research and data. 

Challenges 

No challenges under enabling factors research and data emerged. However, a majority of MS called for the EC 
to undertake more research and collection of evidence in relation to enabling factors. 

3.2.2.8  Opportunity and Innovation 

Themes  

The nature of this topic is twofold (and it emerged in 16 structured dialogue meetings, covering 4% of topic 
instances): on the one hand, it describes the actions and learnings of MS in response to the COVID 19 pandemic, 
which are used to as an opportunity to enhance the digital education ecosystem. The opportunity presented by 
the pandemic is related to governance, engagement and partnerships (see Section 3.2.2.10 below). On the other 
hand, it describes innovative enabling factors initiatives among MS. 

For  MS  with  already  well-developed  digital  education  and  skills ecosystems,  they  commented  that  existing 
platforms and solutions greatly supported efforts to respond to the crisis.  

A majority of MS are using and building on the learnings of the pandemic as an opportunity to: 

  Continue building on existing and newly-established digital infrastructure, connectivity, tools, content 
and platforms to further enhance the digital education ecosystem and the delivery of blended teaching 
and learning. 

  Use the newly established lines of communication and collaboration across government, levels of the 
system, and with social and industry partners which had arisen in response to the crisis, to continue 
to build the digital ecosystem in targeted ways (e.g. decentralisation reforms). 

  View  and  harness  EdTech  development  and  public-private  partnerships  as  a  strategic  means  to 

enhance the digital education ecosystem. 

Regarding innovation, an array of innovative activities were described by MS in the SD. These included: 

155 

 
 
 
 
  New and innovative programmes that include digital ecosystem enabling factors, such as innovative 
school leadership, incorporation of AI into teaching, learning and assessment CPD and tools, and the 
development of a system for the quality assurance of EdTech teaching and learning apps. 
Investments to encourage the development of content and solutions to support new and emerging 
technologies. 

 

Challenges 

Apart from the significant challenges that had emerged with the onset of the pandemic, MS did not raise any 
challenges relating to opportunity or innovation.  

3.2.2.9  EU support for enabling factors 

Suggestions for support at the EU level were provided by 23 of the 27 MS. Main themes are summarised below. 

  Many MS called for support at the EU level in the conducting of research and gathering of evidence in 
relation  to  enabling  factors,  perhaps  indicating  a  recognition  of  developing  objectives  reflecting 
optimal targets, and the overall complexity of the topic. 

  A majority of MS wanted more opportunities to exchange best practices with one another on: 

o  enabling factors for digital ecosystems, including ecosystems that successfully reach remote 

and vulnerable groups;  

o  CPD and digital content and solutions for digital pedagogies;  
o 

the use of tools and frameworks (such as DigComp and SELFIEforTEACHERS) to support CPD 
and educator self-assessment and monitoring;  

o  models for the provision of technical support and maintenance to schools;  
o  Higher Education modernisation and reform initiatives; and  
o 

the  sharing  of  solutions  to  some  of  the  technical  challenges  associated  with  the  digital 
education ecosystem (e.g. interoperability). 

Further  funding  supports  relating  to  infrastructure  and  connectivity  and  advice  on  efficient  and 
effective funding of these were sought. Many MS were of the view that further funding is required for 
this aspect of their digital ecosystems, highlighting in particular connectivity in general, and hardware 
for Higher Education.  
Some MS expressed a desire for the EU to strengthen its co-ordination and regulatory activities in a 
range of digital ecosystems enabling areas, including:  

o 

o 

o 

the  use  of  common  language/terminology  and  standards  in  the  general  area  of  digital 
education 
further alignment and connections of various digital ecosystem enabling initiatives within and 
across EU institutions 
stimulation of partnerships with EdTech while at the same time supporting regulation of the 
EdTech industry (e.g. data privacy, data ownership) 
regulations and supports for interoperability at European level 

o 
o  monitoring Higher Education digitalisation strategies; and 
o  data privacy policy consolidation (including exchanges between MS and the European Data 

Protection Board). 

Several MS sought technical support from the EC to address data privacy (particularly as this relates 
to schools and educational institutions in their new role as [GDPR] data controllers, where the sheer 
volume and interconnectedness of data is difficult to manage), digitalisation of Higher Education, and 
in finding solutions for updating of curricular and other pedagogical content to keep pace with changes 
in digital technologies.  

 

 

 

  A few MS referred specifically to DigComp seeking better harmonisation or alignment in the use of 

DigComp across MS. 

3.2.2.10  Governance, engagement and partnerships 

At the ‘top tier’ of governance, and recognised as a key factor in enabling the successful development and 
implementation of digital education and/or skills policies are the national and regional structures that enable 
whole-of-government approaches to policy development and implementation. 

156 

 
 
 
 
The main challenges relating to engagement and partnerships were articulated with respect to implementing 
whole-of-government approaches to policies on digital education and skills. A majority of MS were experiencing 
challenges in this regard, and the SD discussions on this theme indicate particular difficulties with the policy 
implementation  and  monitoring  phases  (as  already  noted  in  the  section  on  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
assessment).  

While  a  majority  of  MS  are  moving  towards  or  already  implementing  whole-of-government  approaches  to 
digital education and skills policies, an emerging finding is that the co-ordination efforts are experienced as 
very challenging and frequently technically complex, in particular at the implementation and monitoring stages. 
Indeed some MS noted challenges in the demarcation between operational programmes. There was variation 
across MS with respect to the number of distinct digital education and skills policies and strategies in place, 
and  it  is  common  for  MS  to  have  a  high  number  of  distinct  strategies.  However,  an  emerging  trend  is  for 
overarching strategies which incorporate sub-strategies, in line with whole-of-government approaches to policy 
more generally. Another challenge with respect to co-ordination and implementation relates to co-ordination 
across  government  levels,  particularly  in  MS  with  regional  governance  structures  and  high  levels  of  local 
autonomy. Some MS noted the need to strengthen links with industry and between sectors, where collaboration 
between VET, Higher Education and industry were at the early stages. 

Actions  and  initiatives  which  incorporated  engagement  between  actors  in  the  digital  education  ecosystem 
appeared  in  about  one-third  of  topic  instances  and  across  all  27  MS,  reflecting  widespread  engagement 
practices at various levels of the digital education ecosystem.  

A  majority  of  engagement  practices  reflected  engagement  among  public  actors  within  the  education  and 
employment sectors, very frequently with social partners (including unions, teacher representative bodies and 
inclusion  actors)  on  issues  relating  to  digital  education,  and  in  some  cases,  e.g.  Higher  Education,  cross-
institutional engagement on digital education enablers (e.g. interoperability).  

In a majority of MS, the SD documentation described engagement between education and industry sectors as 
part of digital education strategy implementation. Engagements also occurred at other levels within sectors. 
These included initiatives to  build links  between the two;  there  were also a few examples of  public-private 
engagement on digital education policies and initiatives via national fora or other enabling infrastructures.  

A  little  under  one  in  ten  actions  and  initiatives  referenced  partnerships,  and  these  appeared  in  the  SD 
documentation of about two-thirds of MS. The most frequently mentioned partnerships referred to networking 
and collaborative supports or activities targeted at primary and secondary levels (but a few also including VET 
and Higher Education), where schools or educators worked in partnership with one another for peer-to-peer 
knowledge sharing or for a common purpose such as the purchase of school infrastructure. Very few of these 
comprised public-private partnerships. Those that were discussed include the co-creation or co-development 
of digital content or solutions or in the co-funding of infrastructure or devices.  

Challenges were expressed by some MS in involving all stakeholders in digital education and skills reforms, 
particularly  in  MS  with  regional  governance  arrangements,  and  several  MS  cited  challenges  in  engaging 
educators to participate in CPD. Several MS expressed a desire to stimulate more public-private partnerships, 
in particular with the EdTech sector, to strengthen the digital education ecosystem, and some recognised the 
potential of EdTech to make significant contributions through partnerships. In doing so, some concerns were 
expressed about the need to regulate the influence of EdTech on the education sector, particularly in Higher 
Education. 

3.2.3  Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue 

Two  groups of enabling factors emerged  from the analysis of SD  documentation. These are  foundational 
enabling  factors  –  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment;  digital  content,  tools  and  platforms; 
networking/collaborative supports/activities; and ITE and CPD for digital pedagogy; and enabling factors that 
provide  direction,  structure  and  value  for successful  digital  education  –  equity, inclusion  and  wellbeing; 
monitoring, evaluation and assessment; research and data; and opportunity and innovation. 

157 

 
 
 
 
The SD discussions highlighted challenges relating to monitoring, evaluation and assessment; equity, inclusion 
and wellbeing; ITE and CPD for digital pedagogy; and infrastructure, connectivity and equipment. 

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment are being prioritised across a large majority of MS. Emerging 
trends, building on the learnings of the pandemic were that:  

 

 

large-scale investment in devices, commonly within the broader digital education strategy are taking 
place,  and,  consistent  with  RRF  national  reports,  there  is  ongoing  and  substantial  investment  in 
improving connectivity;  
specific measures targeted at disadvantaged learners commonly include the provision of free devices 
(and sometimes within universal free provision of devices for learners);  

  where device targets are specified, these refer to one device per learner from the upper primary level 
to secondary level, and one device per four or five students in lower primary (noting that in some MS 
the provision of devices to learners entails the use of tablets among younger age groups and devices 
with keyboards among older age groups); and  
assistive technologies were not widely referenced in the structured dialogue meetings, suggesting that 
this is an issue that may merit further attention.  

 

Variation  in  coverage  within  regions  of  MS  is  apparent.  Two  main  challenges  emerged  with  respect  to 
infrastructure, connectivity and equipment: a majority of MS do not yet have a system to track the use of digital 
equipment (and some MS lack an audit system for devices and equipment); and secondly, some MS expressed 
concerns about the maintenance of equipment, devices and/or connectivity (in terms of refurbishment/recycling, 
lack of human resources to provide technical support and maintenance to schools, and, in a broader sense, 
difficulties in obtaining Finance Ministry support for investment in connectivity for schools).  

MS are making significant efforts to support their digital education ecosystems through a range of content, 
tools and platforms, building on work that began with the onset of the pandemic. An emerging trend is the 
development  of  integrated  platforms  that  provide  educators  and  students  with  a  single  entry  point.  This, 
however, can give rise to complex technical challenges. 

Three key concerns were raised in the SD discussions about content, tools and platforms:  

 
 
 

challenges for schools and other educational institutions to meet GDPR obligations;  
complex interoperability and legacy platform system challenges; and 
challenges in matching the pace of technological change with updated teaching and learning content 
and tools. 

Almost  all  MS  described  implementing  multiple  networking  and  collaborative  initiatives  to  support  an 
enabling ecosystem for digital education. An emerging trend is a dedicated support role for schools. Many MS 
are recognising that such support needs to include both technical support and maintenance as well as digital 
pedagogy and strategic planning. Several MS noted a desire to further enhance existing collaborative networks 
across levels of the education system.  

Regarding CPD and ITE for digital pedagogies, many MS are in the process of implementing CPD at a large 
scale, building on the learnings from the pandemic, and frequently combining both digital skills training for 
educators with enhancing their digital pedagogical competences. While participation in CPD is monitored in a 
majority  of  MS,  there  was  much  less  focus  on  its  impact.  CPD  programmes  for  education  leaders  were 
mentioned in some SD discussions but  were less widespread than CPD for teachers, and the focus on CPD 
generally was at primary and secondary levels rather than VET and Higher Education. A few MS specifically 
referenced DigCompEdu, expressing the view that it was a useful framework for developing teachers’ digital 
pedagogical  skills  and  learning  pathways.  Where  ITE  was  discussed,  most  indicated  that  ITE  included  a 
mandatory or core component on digital pedagogies. 

Challenges in relation to CPD were discussed in 17 SD meetings. Concerns were frequently expressed in relation 
to  the  broader  issue  of  teacher  supply.  Difficulties  in  attracting  teachers  to  the  profession  and  engaging 
teachers to participate in CPD were also mentioned. At times this could lead to difficult investment choices, 
reflecting a tension between CPD for all teachers and CPD for a specific sub-group of teachers (this suggesting 
in turn a need to clarify or specify different teacher roles). Some MS commented also on a perceived mismatch 
between the training offer and the needs of educators which could be exacerbated by low or varied motivation 

158 

 
 
 
 
of teachers, and a need to strengthen digital leadership culture from school management, and the fact that 
many MS do not currently have a means to assess or monitor teachers’ digital (pedagogical) skills. Challenges 
concerning ITE focused on increasing enrolments in these courses in the context where HEIs, the primary source 
of ITE courses, are relatively autonomous, and where other courses may be more attractive in terms of labour 
market and salary prospects. 

Descriptions of equity, inclusion and wellbeing initiatives fall into three broad groups: investments targeted 
at  disadvantaged  communities,  programmes  tailored  to  disadvantaged  or  vulnerable  groups,  and  digital 
content and pedagogies to meet special educational needs. Just over half of MS (14) expressed concerns about 
the  digital  divide,  recognising  it  as  an  issue  with  multiple  causes  and  manifestations,  and  some  MS  noted 
(consistent with the research evidence) that concerns about the digital divide had increased following the onset 
of the pandemic. MS authorities expressed a need for more support in targeting investments to support equity 
and equality with regard to digital education, as well as in monitoring the impact and effectiveness of such 
efforts. Concerns were also expressed about the digital wellbeing of students. This could suggest a need to 
address digital wellbeing needs of MS’ education systems in a more co-ordinated manner.  

While all MS expressed an awareness of the importance of monitoring, evaluating and assessing enabling 
factors, MS are at different stages of doing so. While monitoring systems are well-developed in a small number 
of  MS,  many  have  a  fragmented  or  ad-hoc  approach  to  monitoring.  It  was  common  for  MS  to  describe 
challenges in achieving an integrated and systematic approach. Further, in some MS, collaboration between 
sectors,  notably  especially  VET,  Higher  Education  and  industry  were  at  the  early  stages.  The  use  of  self-
assessment  tools  such  as SELFIE  were  referenced  by  several  MS;  however,  there  were  also  some  calls for 
support to further integrate the use of these tools in monitoring and evaluation activities (that is, integrating 
existing bottom-up approaches in the use of these tools with top-down approaches).  

There was relatively little commentary on research and data relating to enabling factors, which could suggest 
a need for EU-level co-ordination and support of research in this area. Indeed, a majority of MS called for the 
EC to undertake more research and collection of evidence in relation to enabling factors. 

A  majority  of  MS  are  using  and  building  on  the  learnings of  the  pandemic  as  an  opportunity  to  continue 
building on existing and newly-established digital infrastructure, connectivity, tools, content and platforms; use 
newly-established lines of collaboration and communication; and harness EdTech developments and public-
private partnerships. Regarding innovation, several innovative activities were described by MS in the SD. These 
included new and innovative teaching/learning and assessment programmes and the development of content 
and solutions to support new and emerging technologies. 

A clear emerging trend is the adoption by a large number of MS of  whole-of-government approaches to 
digital education and digital skills policy development and implementation. However, a majority of MS found 
these co-ordination efforts challenging across departments, levels and with stakeholders, particularly at the 
implementation and monitoring phases, and many MS have multiple national strategy and policy documents 
relating to digital education, which could be both a symptom and a cause of challenges in implementing whole-
of-government approaches. 

Another emerging trend was the recent increase in  EdTech activities and many MS officials recognised the 
potential of working with the EdTech industry to further improve or enhance digital educational infrastructure, 
tools and content (and there are a small number of examples of successful partnerships between Governments 
and the EdTech industry); nonetheless, in some MS concern or uncertainty was expressed in terms of managing 
regulatory aspects of the EdTech industry and/or the influence that EdTech may have on education systems. 

Key areas for which advice or support from the EU (mentioned in 18 SD meetings) with respect to enabling 
factors were: 

 

 
 

Support at EU level in the conducting of research and gathering of evidence in relation to enabling 
factors 
Funding support relating to infrastructure and connectivity 
Technical  and  operational  advice  or  support  concerning  data  privacy  and  updating  of  pedagogical 
content.  

159 

 
 
 
 
MS  also  sought  more  opportunities  to  exchange  best  practices  with  one  another  in  a  range  of  areas 
including: 

The use of tools and frameworks 

  Reaching remote and vulnerable groups 
  CPD, digital content and solutions for digital pedagogies 
 
  Models for the provision of technical support 
  Higher Education reform and digitalisation initiatives 
  Sharing of solutions to technical challenges (e.g. interoperability). 

The SD discussions included calls for the EC to strengthen its co-ordination and regulatory activities in a 
range of areas, including 

Further alignment and connections of various initiatives within and across EU institutions 
Stimulation of partnerships with EdTech  
Regulation of the EdTech industry  
Regulations and supports for interoperability  

  Awareness-raising and use of common language/terminology and standards in digital education 
 
 
 
 
  Monitoring Higher Education digitalisation strategies 
  Data privacy policy consolidation 
  Harmonisation or alignment in the use of DigComp. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3 

Enabling factors in the submissions to the Call for Evidence 

This section considers the themes emerging from the submissions to the CfE on enabling factors for digital 
education. Similar to the previous two sections, an overview of topics is first provided. This is followed by a 
description of the main themes emerging from the qualitative analysis. Finally, we provide a summary of key 
findings. 

3.3.1 

Topic analysis overview 

Table 3.5 provides a description of each of the topics that emerged from the submissions to the CfE, while 
Figure 3.2 shows the frequencies of topics across submissions.  

Almost  one-quarter  (24%) of  the  topics  identified  concerned  equity, inclusion  and  wellbeing.  Also  relatively 
frequent  were:  networking,  collaboration  and  capacity  building  (18%),  infrastructure,  connectivity  and 
equipment (17%), professional development of teachers and educators (13%) and digital pedagogies (12%). 
On the other hand, commentary on cybersecurity and data protection (4%), public-private partnerships (6%) 
and monitoring and evaluation/impact assessment (7%) were less frequent. 

Table 3.5. Description of topics emerging from the analysis of the Call for Evidence on enabling 
factors 

Topic 

Digital pedagogies 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Infrastructure,  connectivity  and 
equipment 

Monitoring and evaluation; impact 
assessment 

Networking,  collaboration  and 
capacity building 

Professional 
teachers and educators  

development, 

Public-private partnerships 

Description 
Views and perspectives on digital pedagogies (including their role 
in education more generally) 
Views and perspectives on equity, inclusion and wellbeing in the 
digital education ecosystem 
Comments  about  infrastructure,  connectivity  and  equipment 
(including some references to tools and platforms) 
Views  on  the  role  of  monitoring,  evaluation  and  impact 
assessment in the digital education ecosystem, including whole-
of-government approaches 
Views emphasising the importance  of collaborative activities to 
support  digital  education, 
individuals, 
institutions, sectors, Government departments and MS 
Views on the professional development of educators to support 
the digital education ecosystem 
Comments  on  the  place  of  public-private  partnerships  in  the 
digital education ecosystem 

including  across 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2. Frequencies of topics emerging in the submissions to the Call for Evidence on enabling 
factors 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing

23,8

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment

Networking, collaboration and capacity building

Professional development, teachers and educators

Digital pedagogies

20,9

18,0

12,8

11,6

Monitoring and evaluation; impact assessment

Public-private partnerships

7,0

5,8

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

Of interest is the relative emphasis given to the various topics, depending on stakeholder group. This is shown 
in Table 3.6, using ‘heat’ colour coding to illustrate topics with higher (orange to red) and lower (yellow to green) 
levels of emphasis across stakeholder groups.  

Table  3.6.  Distribution  of  enabling  factors  topics  in  the submissions  to  the Call  for  Evidence on 
enabling factors by stakeholder group 

162 

TopicAcademic/ research InstitutionBusiness associationBusiness/ CompanyIndividualNon-profit or non-government organisationPublic AuthorityTrade unionOtherTotalEquity, inclusion and wellbeing13.315.011.814.340.711.110.030.823.8Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment16.735.029.428.616.911.110.023.120.9Networking, collaboration and capacity building40.010.011.87.113.644.410.07.718.0Professional development, teachers and educators 13.315.011.814.38.511.130.015.412.8Digital pedagogies10.010.05.935.76.811.120.015.411.6Monitoring and evaluation; impact assessment6.70.017.60.06.811.110.07.77.0Public-private partnerships0.015.011.80.06.80.010.00.05.8Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
The table shows differences in the relative contributions of stakeholders, which is to be expected, given their 
different perspectives within the digital education ecosystem. For example: 

 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing were emphasised to a relatively high degree in submissions from non-
profit and non-government organisations 

  Academic/research institutions and public authorities placed a relatively high emphasis on networking, 

collaboration and capacity building 

  Business associations, businesses/private  companies and individual submissions  placed a relatively 

high emphasis on infrastructure, connectivity and equipment 

 

Trade  unions  placed  a  relatively  high  emphasis  on  professional  development  of  teachers  and 
educators. 

3.3.2 

Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis 

In this section, we discuss the themes emerging within each of the topics, in order of frequency (from most- to 
least-frequently mentioned topic). 

3.3.2.1  Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

The commentary in relation to equity, inclusion and wellbeing mentioned accessibility as both a priority and a 
concern,  emphasising  the  need  to  allocate  funds  to  accessibility  efforts  (e.g.  accessible  learning  content, 
accessibility standards) and to raise awareness of technologies to support accessibility. Some of the comments 
referenced an accessible learning environment, describing a holistic perspective on this issue.  

A  second  theme  emerging  under  this  topic  consisted  of  concerns  about  disadvantaged  students  and  their 
families, with various suggestions provided for their inclusion and support, including provision of devices, direct 
engagement with students to hear their views, and the investment in educators in non-formal education and 
training settings.  

A third theme related to digital wellbeing, where submissions emphasised the need to educate young people 
or otherwise minimise the potential harmful effects of technology (e.g. cyber-addiction, or, in a few instances, 
exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [RF EMF]).  

Fourth, a small number of submissions referred more generally to the adoption of rights-based or value-driven 
approaches that reflect diversity.  

There was also concern expressed about the potential for digital technologies to result in the withdrawal of 
existing (non-digital) resources and supports within the education system, with commentary reflecting the view 
that digital technologies are tools that should be used to support and enhance existing resources, not replace 
them. 

3.3.2.2 

Infrastructure, connectivity and equipment 

Commentary on this topic covered two main themes: the need to improve the digital infrastructure of education 
and training systems, with several comments advocating the provision of devices to learners; and the need for 
further investment in infrastructure and connectivity.  

A third emerging theme indicates a tension between public education systems and private entities, particularly 
EdTech and large technology corporations. We saw under this topic the concept of digital sovereignty to protect 
against the influences of ‘tech giants’, and suggestions to develop an alternative teaching and learning platform 
for  digital  education  and  skills.  This  tension  is  also  reflected  in  some  commentary  stating  that  education 
systems should serve their own needs rather than the needs of industry.  

Finally,  some  of  the  commentary  on  this  topic  concerned  data  protection  and  data  privacy.  Commentary 
referred  to  the  importance  of  further  incorporating  ‘privacy  by  design’  and  ‘security  by  design’  in  the 
development of digital educational platforms and tools. There  were also calls in the commentary for more 
support  and  co-ordination  at  the  EU  level  regarding  the  handling  of  personal  data.  Privacy  by  design  and 
security by design concepts tended to coincide with commentary on interoperability, suggesting that a single 
overarching  set  of  guidelines  could  potentially  cover  these  various  technical  and  operational  features  of 
platforms and systems. 

163 

 
 
 
 
3.3.2.3  Networking, collaboration and capacity building 

The first theme to emerge under this topic relates to comments directed at the level of the EU. These consisted 
of suggestions for actions at EU level to enable MS to enhance their national digital education ecosystems, and 
included: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the development of an EU framework and/or protocols on interoperability, and further investment in 
interoperability;  

development of data privacy standards relating to digital(ised) education data; 

guidelines on the ethical use of AI and on the recognition of non-formal learning;  

development of an EU-wide  repository of  digital pedagogical content and an EU-wide  platform for 
digital education (where the concept of European digital sovereignty was mentioned);  

EU-level engagement with private actors to achieve better value for money on digital content;  

standardisation of educational data at EU level; and 

encouragement to build on research already occurring at EU level). 

The second theme referred to the need to foster effective collaboration among MS and for more opportunities 
and spaces for digital education actors in MS to exchange and share best practices.  

Finally, a small number of submissions commented on the potential for collaboration between industry and 
education and training actors. 

3.3.2.4  Professional development, teachers and educators 

Various stakeholder groups highlighted the central role of teachers and educators within the education system, 
reflecting a view that there is a need to do more to recognise and support them in their role, within a complex 
and rapidly evolving digital landscape. Submissions highlighted a need to foster and promote teacher training; 
there were calls for more investment in teacher professional development; and several mentioned the need to 
provide incentives to encourage participation in professional development, as well as recognition of it. Some of 
the  commentary  emphasised  the  importance  of  protecting  teachers  against  over-burden  and  suggested 
incorporating professional development into working hours. A small amount of commentary on this topic noted 
the  importance  of  competence  and  motivation  of  new  teachers  entering  the  profession  and,  with  this,  the 
importance of including digital pedagogies as a core element of general teacher education. There was a view 
that  professional  development  in  digital  pedagogies  should  be  for  all  teachers,  rather  than  a  selection  of 
teachers, although there was also the recognition that categorising digital education training and matching this 
to the different teacher roles or skills levels would be beneficial. 

3.3.2.5  Digital pedagogies 

In the commentary on digital pedagogies, there was a frequently expressed view that teaching and learning 
must be learner-centred, and therefore digital tools were seen as a means to support quality education, i.e. to 
be used only if it adds value to the teaching and learning practice, rather than their adoption or use being an 
end in itself. Commentary on this topic indicated some ambivalence concerning the role of digital pedagogies: 
one set of views was that the use of digital content and tools can increase students’ interest and motivation, 
that  more  instructional  time  should  be  spent  on  ICT,  and  that  common  guidance  and  training  on  digital 
pedagogies  should  be  developed.  On  the  other  hand,  general  disagreement  with  the  promotion  of  digital 
education was expressed by some contributors; and a view was expressed that common guidelines on digital 
pedagogy at EU level would not be feasible given wide differences across MS. Reference to the subsidiarity 
principle under this topic reflects the important and distinct roles of national and EU-level actors in the digital 
education system. 

3.3.2.6  Monitoring and evaluation; impact assessment 

There was not extensive commentary on this topic, although some submissions reflected the recognition of the 
need for integration and coherence within the digital education ecosystem, with actions supported by targets 
and monitoring of effectiveness and inclusion. 

164 

 
 
 
 
3.3.2.7  Public-private partnerships 

The relatively small amount of commentary consisted of general support for the fostering of public-private 
partnerships, as well as suggestions on  how fostering public-private  partnerships  could enhance the digital 
education  ecosystem  (for  example,  in  developing  CPD  for  teachers  and  potential  benefits  of  collaboration 
between  public  actors and  educational  and academic  publishers).  A  minority  of  the  commentary  on  public-
private partnerships expressed concerns about over-reliance on digital platforms and tools that are privately 
rather than publicly financed. 

3.3.3  Summary of Call for Evidence findings 

In  the  submissions  to  the  CfE  on  enabling  factors,  we  observed  differences in  the  relative  contributions  of 
stakeholders.  For  example,  equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing  were  emphasised  to  a  relatively  high  degree  in 
submissions  from  non-profit  and  non-government  organisations,  while  academic/research  institutions  and 
public authorities placed a relatively high emphasis on networking, collaboration and capacity building. Results 
are summarised in order from most to least frequently occurring overall. 

Regarding equity, inclusion and wellbeing, the submissions to the CfE on enabling factors advocated a rights-
based or value-driven approach that reflects diversity. There was an emphasis on accessibility, and concerns 
expressed about digital wellbeing of students. 

Infrastructure  and  connectivity  were  widely  recognised  as  important, with  calls for  both  improvements and 
further investments in this area. There was also some commentary on data protection, where the notions of 
privacy  by  design  and  security  by  design  were  advocated,  and  these  concepts  tending  to  co-occur  with 
interoperability concerns. 

EU-level support was suggested in relation to interoperability, data privacy and data protection, educational 
data standardisation, and engagement with  private actors in the  digital education  system. There were also 
suggestions that the EU support the development of guidelines on ethical use of AI, recognition of non-formal 
learning, along with suggestions for EU-wide platforms and digital repositories. 

Regarding  collaboration and partnerships, the submissions advocated for  MS to exchange best practices on 
various  themes  and  challenges.  The  fostering  of  public-private  partnerships  and  collaborations  between 
education and industry was broadly supported. However, some concern was expressed about the influence of 
‘tech giants’ in the education system, resulting in a need to serve the interests of the education system rather 
than industry. 

Regarding professional development of teachers and educators, the centrality of teachers’ roles in the (digital) 
education ecosystem was emphasised. Various submissions expressed the view that there is a need to better 
support  and  recognise  this  central  role.  A  few  submissions  recommended  incentivising  CPD  and  making  it 
feasible for teachers to attend, e.g. during work hours. Some submissions noted that CPD in digital pedagogies 
should be viewed through the broader lens of CPD more generally. 

In  commenting  on  digital  pedagogies,  the  submissions  took  a  holistic  and  learner-centred  perspective, 
advocating the use of digital tools only if they add value, and not substituting or reducing existing resources 
with digital ones. Some ambivalence is evident in the submissions. While some were enthusiastic about the 
potential  of  digital  technologies to  increase  motivation  or  felt  that  more  hours  should  be  dedicated  to  the 
teaching  of  ICT  in  schools,  others  expressed  concern  about  the  harmful  effects  of  digital  technologies  and 
questioned the feasibility of a common EU approach, given the broad diversity across systems. 

Monitoring was referenced relatively less frequently, and commentary indicated that monitoring could be more 
effective within an integrated and coherent digital education ecosystem, with some emphasising the need to 
monitor both effectiveness and inclusion aspects of digital education. 

165 

 
 
 
 
4 

Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training 

This section provides a summary of the themes and issues emerging from the thematic analysis as they relate 
to the provision of digital skills. Similar to Section 3, the results of the RRF analysis are presented first; this is 
followed  by  the  results  from  the  SD  analysis;  and  finally,  the  topics  and  themes  emerging  from  the  CfE 
submissions are described. 

4.1 

Provision of digital skills in RRF national plans 

4.1.1 

Topic analysis overview 

As noted in Section 2, each sub-component of the relevant sections of the RRF national reports were classified 
initially as investment or reform. Then, working from a combination of pre-defined and emerging topics (whilst 
aiming for topic unity across RRF, SD and CfE sources) each investment and reform item was assigned one or 
more topics. Table 4.1 provides short descriptions for each topic, while Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of 
topics across investments and reforms. 

In interpreting the results, recall that analysis looks at content and not on size of investment. 

Table  4.1.  Descriptions  of  topics  in  the  thematic  analysis  of  RRF  national  plans  digital  skills 
provision 

Topic 

Legislative and governance reform 

Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills 
outside formal education 
Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills  in 
education 
including 
settings, 
curricular reforms 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

ITE and CPD, digital skills 

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment 

Opportunity and innovation 

Research and data 

Description 
Broad legislative and governance reforms to support digital skills 
provision 
Reforms or investments relating to digital skills provision outside 
of formal education 

Reforms  or  investments  relating  to  digital  skills  provision  in 
formal education settings 

Reforms  or  investments  for  digital  skills  provision  targeted  at 
specific  groups  including  socio-economically  disadvantaged 
persons, women, older persons 
Reforms  or  investments  relating  to  initial  teacher  education, 
continued professional development of teaching staff focused on 
digital skills 
Reforms or investments relating to the monitoring, evaluation or 
assessment of digital skills provision 
Innovative digital skills initiatives (e.g. in emerging technologies 
skills  provision)  or  opportunities  identified  to  build  on  existing 
digital skills provision  
Digital skills research and data activities, e.g. national research 
study 

For reforms, the most frequent topics related to broad legislative and governance reforms (24%), reforms 
relating  to  digital  skills  provision  outside  of  formal  education  (25%),  and  reforms  to  support  digital  skills 
provision in  formal education settings (24%). In terms of  investments, the most frequent topic  related to 
digital skills provision outside of formal education (39%), followed by digital skills provision in formal education 
(16%) and equity, inclusion and wellbeing (14%).  

Figure 4.1 also includes a category for investments and reforms of other topics: these comprise topics shown 
in Table 4.1 above for which frequencies were less than 2.5%.  

We do not provide a separate analysis of topics with frequencies of less than 5% (rounded), since there is an 
insufficient number of cases to provide reliable or generalisable information. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1. Distribution of RRF national report topics on digital skills provision (%), by investment 
and reform 

39,0

25,0

24,4

23,8

Initiatives to boost digital skills outside formal
education

Initiatives to boost digital skills in education settings

16,0

Legislative or governance reform

0,0

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing

13,6

9,5

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment

ITE and CPD, digital skills

Research and data

Opportunity and innovation

0,0

0,0

Others

5,6
6,0

4,7
4,8

4,7

8,9

7,5
6,6

0,0

5,0

10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0

Investments

Reforms

Table 4.2 shows the number of MS in which digital skills reforms and investments were mentioned. The three 
most frequent reforms, classified by topic, relate to initiatives to boost digital skills outside of formal education 
(19 MS); initiatives to boost digital skills in education settings (including curricular reforms) (18 MS); and general 
legislative or governance reforms related to the provision of digital skills (19 MS). Other topics featured in the 
reforms of between two and seven MS.  

Largely consistent with the reforms, investments were concentrated on initiatives to boost digital skills both 
outside of formal education (21 MS) and in formal education settings (17 MS) and on equality, inclusion and 
wellbeing  in  relation  to  digital  skills  provision  (17  MS).  The  remaining  enabling  factors  investment  topics 
featured in two to nine MS. 

Table 4.2. Distribution of digital skills reform and investment topics from RRF national plans across 
27 MS 

Topic 
Legislative and governance reform 
Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills  outside  formal 
education 
Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills  in  education 
settings, including curricular reforms 
Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Research and data 

ITE and CPD, digital skills 

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment 

Opportunity and innovation 

Research and data 

Others 

Reforms 

Investments 

19 

19 

18 

10 

2 

6 

7 

5 

2 

2 

0 

21 

17 

17 

7 

5 

6 

9 

7 

2 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2 

Themes emerging from the RRF analysis 

As already noted in Section 3.1.2, there is overlap across topics in the themes emerging. This is because multiple 
topics have been assigned to each sub-component. It should also be recalled from Section 2 that there is a 
wide variation in the number of sub-components (and hence topics) associated with each MS. The end of this 
section provides a short summary of main findings. 

4.1.2.1  Legislative and governance reforms 

Just over half of the RRF national plan reforms that were classified under this broad legislative and governance 
reform topic (in 19 MS and accounting for 24% of digital skills reform topics) consisted of broad skills-related 
reform or strategy development (for example, the development of a national digital skills plan, or new strategy 
for lifelong upskilling), with differing targets or focus. About half were targeted at the labour market, including 
active labour market policy reform; reskilling and upskilling reforms for SMEs, public/civil servants; and strategy 
development to address labour market skills mismatches; about a third related to broad skills reforms within 
the education system, and the remainder of these were targeted very broadly across both the education and 
employment sectors. 

About a third of these broad reform measures specifically referenced legislative reforms, which again covered 
a variety of themes, including legislation to permit greater flexibility, transition, digitalisation and training in 
the  labour  market;  new  legal  frameworks  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  VET  systems;  legislative 
amendments targeted at Higher Education to enhance attractiveness/flexibility/competence of academic staff 
or merging of HEIs to larger entities to enhance advanced IT studies; and reforms to strengthen the provision 
and monitoring of CPD.  

Of  the  remaining  broad  legislative  and  governance  reforms,  a  small  number  were  targeted  at  research, 
development and innovation, in particular to enable public-private partnerships for  digital innovation, and a 
couple of reforms aimed at strengthening monitoring and data relating to digital skills provision. 

4.1.2.2  Digital skills provision outside of formal education 

As noted earlier, this was the topic with the highest frequency of investments (51.5%, across 21 MS) and was 
accompanied by a sizeable number of reforms (16%, across 19 MS). 

A majority of reforms under this topic (three-quarters or so) were variously targeted at the labour market 
generally (e.g. active labour market policy reforms, establishment of a continuous learning and employment 
centre,  mechanisms  for  public-private  partnerships,  or  reforms  to  enable  implementation  of  digital  skills 
training vouchers/incentives); businesses and in particular SMEs (e.g. establishment of a Digital Innovation Hub, 
incentivisation  of  digital  skills  training);  government  (e.g.  establishment  of  competence  support  structures, 
reforms to enable digital upskilling of public servants); or citizens more generally (e.g. to establish individual 
training  accounts,  regulatory  framework  for  adult  learning).  The  remaining  quarter  or  so  consisted  of 
descriptions  of  the  development  or implementation  of  broad, national  plans  or  strategies,  such  as  national 
digital skills plans or strategies for lifelong learning. 

Investments in the provision of digital skills outside of formal education were almost evenly split between 
initiatives for the provision of digital skills training for specific purposes or labour market sectors (including a 
few cases where advanced and specialised digital skills training, e.g. ICT specialisms, AI, was the focus); and 
initiatives which described a combination of general (frequently basic level) and specific digital skills training, 
with a few investments focused on the provision of basic digital skills.  

About a quarter of these initiatives were broad in nature, i.e. they described the provision of digital skills training 
within an overall lifelong learning approach, and these broadly-targeted investments tended to offer a mixture 
of basic and more advanced or specific digital skills training, often mentioning digital inclusion among their 
aims. A further 10% of investments were specifically focused on digital inclusion of vulnerable or marginalised 
groups. Around one-third of the investments were targeted at the labour market, where two trends emerged – 
the first was a focus on  reskilling and upskilling for workers in vulnerable or evolving occupational sectors, 
which was often combined within the same investment with upskilling and reskilling of jobseekers, and the 
second  was  upskilling  and  reskilling  that  that  was  forward-focused  on  emerging  technologies,  and  digital 
combined with green skills. A further quarter or so of these investments were targeted at business (particularly 
SMEs) and industry, and all of these consisted of specific or advanced digital skills training. The remaining 10% 
of investments in digital skills training outside of formal education were targeted at government employees 

168 

 
 
 
 
and these were linked to either general public administration or public services reform or to reforms of specific 
sectors (e.g. the judiciary). 

An interesting difference that was observed across these investments is in terms of the ultimate driver of the 
investment. In some cases, digital skills provision was linked to national strategies in specific aspects of digital 
skills, e.g. AI, cybersecurity; while in others, digital skills provision investments were driven by labour market 
demand; and in yet others, digital skills provision investments were driven by digital and social inclusion for 
vulnerable groups. 

4.1.2.3  Digital skills provision in formal education 

With respect to formal education settings, reforms which featured the topic of digital skills provision in formal 
education were identified in 18 MS (and covered a little over 24% of reforms topics). These were reasonably 
evenly divided across primary and secondary, VET, Higher Education, and reforms that cut across both formal 
and non-formal education settings. 

With regards to primary and secondary school, we identified curricular reforms in nine MS; two of these also 
include pre-primary education. In a majority of cases these curricular reforms relating to digital skills provision 
are part of a broader investment in education and skills and/or governance reforms. 

Reforms in the Higher Education sector, meanwhile, were to facilitate a range of actions, for example, increasing 
course  places  in  ICT-related  undergraduate  and/or  postgraduate  studies;  to  adapt  both  course  content  and 
structure (e.g. length, delivery mode) in order to better match to both digital skills supply and demand; and 
reforms  to  enable  collaboration  and  digital  skills  knowledge  transfer  across  HEIs  and/or  between  Higher 
Education and industry. 

Reforms in the VET sector covered governance, structural and training content elements. Examples of reforms 
in this sector include integration of new VET courses into the national qualifications framework; to strengthen 
the labour market relevance of VET courses; and to establish or strengthen co-ordination structures across VET, 
Higher Education, and/or businesses. 

Investments for the provision of digital skills in formal education featured in the RRF national plans of 17 MS, 
accounting for 16% of digital skills investments topics. A little over half of these investments were targeted at 
Higher Education, covering a range of actions (e.g. increase in course places, provision of advanced or emerging 
technology  specialist  undergraduate  and/or  postgraduate  courses,  scholarships,  supports  for  educators  and 
students  in  general  digital  skills).  In  about  half  of  the  investments  in  Higher  Education,  collaboration  with 
industry and/or international actors was a prominent feature. Roughly one in three of these investments was 
targeted at primary and/or secondary education, and just two of these made explicit reference to curricular 
reforms (with one additional RRF national plan referencing curricular reform of pre-primary). Rather, the focus 
of investments at these levels was on the promotion of digital skills among learners. The remaining investments 
entailed modernising of VET systems and course offer, with an increased focus on (digital) skills for the labour 
market.  

A comparison of the reforms and investments, particularly with respect to curricular reform at primary and 
post-primary  levels,  could  suggest  that  the  pace  of  curricular  reform  implementation  is  lagging  behind 
implementation of digital skills provision initiatives at other levels of the formal education system. 

4.1.2.4  Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Reforms which featured equity, inclusion and wellbeing were identified in 10 MS (and accounted for 9.5% of 
reform  topics).  A  common  feature  of  these  reforms  was  the  enhancement  of  existing  programmes  to 
strengthen digital and social inclusion. Examples of such reforms include: labour market-related measures to 
tackle the gender gap in the ICT sector; comprehensive reform of VET and/or active labour market policies in 
order  to  strengthen  services  to  individuals  with  low  skills,  in  disadvantaged  communities,  in  vulnerable 
employment sectors, and/or with disabilities; establishment of structures to include outreach and guidance to 
vulnerable groups; and reform to support regional inequalities in digitalisation and digital skills. A couple of 
these reforms included explicit reference to wellbeing (alongside digital skills provision to promote digital and 
social  inclusion),  and  a  couple  were  specifically  targeted  at  the  integration  and  skilling  of  migrant  groups 
(including digital skilling). 

About  two-fifths  of  the  investments  in  digital  skills  provision  featuring  equity, inclusion  and  wellbeing  sit 
within a broader social and digital inclusion agenda. The focus of these investments was on the provision of 
169 

 
 
 
 
basic  digital  skills  training  to  specific  groups,  variously  referred  to  as  ‘disadvantaged’,  ‘marginalised’  or 
‘vulnerable’.  Examples  include  investment  in  basic  digital  skills  for  marginalised  groups  which  includes 
conversion of libraries into digital skills hubs; dedicated digital inclusion packages which typically combine the 
provision of devices or equipment with digital skills training; and a couple of instances of investments targeted 
at specific groups, e.g. older persons, prison detainees, vulnerable women.  

The remaining three-fifths of investments are located within broader active labour market skilling activities 
and a majority of these combine provision of basic, advanced and/or sector-specific digital skills training. These 
investments contain a strong focus on individuals not in employment, education or training. A core aim of these 
investments is to enhance the employability of individuals through enhanced skills matching to labour market 
need. While some of the investments are embedded more broadly within upskilling and re-skilling initiatives 
(including explicit reference to digital skills), others are specifically targeted at digital skills required for specific 
labour market sectors. 

4.1.2.5 

ITE and CPD, digital skills 

Reforms  that  featured  this  topic  were  identified  in  six  MS  (5%  of  all  reforms  topics),  while  investments 
featured in five MS (5% of all investments topics).  

Regarding reforms, half of these were targeted at primary and secondary levels of the education system and 
refer to curricular reforms accompanied by digital skills and digital pedagogical skills training for educators. Of 
the remainder, half involved ITE and/or CPD reform, again to enhance both digital skills and digital pedagogical 
skills of teachers, while the other half made reference to digital skills development of educators within broader 
Higher Education and VET reform actions. 

A majority of the investments featuring this topic were targeted at primary and secondary education and 
related to CPD (rather than ITE) for digital skills development, which tended to have two main purposes: (i) to 
support curricular reform (again, digital skills training tended to be accompanied by CPD in digital pedagogies), 
or (ii)  to  support  investments  in  infrastructure  and  platforms,  where  the  aim  of  the  CPD was  to  foster the 
development of technical digital skills in order to  use these tools effectively for teaching and learning (e.g. 
hybrid settings). 

The remainder of the investments featuring this topic were targeted at Higher Education settings, where the 
focus was on CPD for the acquisition of digital skills to accompany broader digitalisation and/or innovation 
reforms  in  these  settings.  Digital  skills  development  was  again  accompanied  by  digital  pedagogical  skills 
training in these instances, along with digital skills training for learners. 

4.1.2.6  Monitoring, evaluation and assessment 

Reforms featuring this topic were identified in seven MS (accounting for 6% of all reforms topics). The reforms 
covered a range of areas, including the establishment of quality standards and or monitoring arrangements in 
VET systems; enhancements to competence identification measures and skills mismatch monitoring; and digital 
skills assessment in recruitment procedures. 

Investments featuring this topic (in six MS and covering 6% of all investments topics), meanwhile, supported 
developments  or  enhancements  in  labour  force  digital  skills  assessment  and  monitoring;  digital  skills 
accreditation; and references to evaluations of proposed digital skills initiatives.  

4.1.2.7  Opportunity and innovation 

Too few reforms featuring this topic were identified to merit separate description/reporting. 

Investments featuring opportunity and innovation were identified in nine MS, covering 9% of all digital skills 
investment  topics.  It  can  be  noted  that  this  topic  tended  to  feature  among  MS  with  strong  existing  digital 
education and skills ecosystems.  

The investments comprise, firstly, digital innovation projects that include an explicit mention of digital skills 
provision. Around half of these are broad programmes with actions that cut across non-formal education and 
industry; the remainder are focused mainly on either labour market or VET and Higher Education settings. A 
strong  theme  in  these  investments  is  the  establishment  or  strengthening  of  public-private  and/or  multi-
stakeholder partnerships/collaborations at regional, national, and/or international levels. 

170 

 
 
 
 
The remainder of investments featuring this topic were divided between broad initiatives to support emerging 
technologies which included an explicit focus on skills development (for example, AI, quantum computing); and 
initiatives  that  are  targeted  toward  the  development  of  specialised  or  more  sector-specific  digital  skills 
development (such as biotechnologies and microelectronics). 

4.1.2.8  Research and data 

Too few reforms featuring this topic were identified for separate description/reporting. Investments relating 
to research and data on digital skills provision featured in the RRF national reports of seven MS (accounting for 
just 5% of all investments topics), and these MS also tended to be among those with robust digital education 
and  skills  ecosystems.  These  were  focused  on  (i)  enhancing  research  activities  on  advanced  or  specialised 
digital skills development, with an emphasis on collaboration and partnerships between Higher Education and 
industry and the internationalisation of the RDI sector, and (ii) research activities embedded within initiatives 
for the advancement of the application and development of skills relating to emerging digital technologies, 
such as  AI and  quantum computing.  Links with the international research  community were also a common 
feature of these investments.  

4.1.3  Summary of findings from the RRF analysis 

The  RRF  national  plans  provide  high-level  descriptions  of  major  reforms  and  investments.  This  section 
considered only those components of the RRF national plans as they relate to digital skills provision. There is 
much variation in MS regarding the number of sub-components specified in their RRF national plans. This limits 
the interpretation to a broad qualitative overview of key themes, trends and gaps. 

Just  over  half  of  the  RRF  national  plan  reforms  that  were  classified  within  the  broad  legislative  and 
governance reform topic (in 19 MS) consisted of broad skills-related reform or strategy development, while a 
further  one-third  or  so  consisted  of  legislative  reforms  covering  a  variety  of  themes  (e.g.  labour  market 
flexibility/transition,  VET  modernisation;  Higher  Education  rationalisation  or  modernisation,  provision  and 
monitoring of CPD).  

Digital skills provision outside formal education was the topic with the highest frequency of investments 
(across 21 MS) and was accompanied by a sizeable number of reforms (across 19 MS). A majority of reforms 
under this topic (three-quarters or so) were variously targeted at the labour market generally; businesses and 
in  particular  SMEs;  government;  or  citizens  more  generally.  The  remaining  quarter  or  so  consisted  of 
descriptions  of  the  development  or implementation  of  broad, national  plans  or  strategies,  such  as  national 
digital skills plans. About a quarter of the investments which featured this topic were broad in nature, describing 
provision of digital skills training within an overall lifelong learning approach, and they tended to offer a mixture 
of basic and more advanced or specific digital skills training, often  mentioning digital inclusion among their 
aims. About one in 10 were focused on digital inclusion. Around one-third of the investments were targeted at 
the labour market, where two trends emerged – a focus on reskilling and upskilling for workers in vulnerable 
or evolving occupational sectors, and forward-focused skills provision on emerging technologies, and green and 
digital skills combined. A further quarter were targeted at business (particularly SMEs) and industry, and all 
consisted  of  specific  or  advanced  digital  skills  training.  The  remaining  10%  of  investments  in  digital  skills 
training outside of formal education were targeted at government employees. Investments appear to vary in 
terms  of  their  drivers,  be  they  content  (e.g.  AI,  cybersecurity,  labour  market  demand)  or  digital  and  social 
inclusion priorities. 

With respect to digital skills provision in formal education settings, reforms which featured the topic of 
digital skills provision in formal education were identified in 18 MS and were reasonably evenly divided across 
primary  and  secondary,  VET,  Higher  Education,  and  reforms  that  cut  across  both  formal  and  non-formal 
education  settings. Curricular reforms at  primary and secondary  were identified in nine MS. Reforms in the 
Higher  Education  sector  facilitated  a  range  of  actions  (e.g.  increasing  course  places  adapting  both  course 
content  and  structure,  and  enabling  collaboration  and  digital  skills  knowledge  transfer  across  HEIs  and/or 
between Higher Education and industry). Reforms in the VET sector covered governance, structural and training 
content elements. Investments for the provision of digital skills in formal education featured in the RRF national 
plans of 17 MS. A little over half of these investments were targeted at Higher Education, covering a range of 
actions. In about half of the investments in Higher Education, collaboration with industry and/or international 
actors was a prominent feature. Roughly one in three of these investments was targeted at primary and/or 
secondary education, and just two of these made explicit reference to curricular reforms.  

171 

 
 
 
 
Reforms which featured equity, inclusion and wellbeing were identified in 10 MS. A common feature was 
the enhancement of existing programmes, and a small number included explicit reference to wellbeing and the 
integration  and  skilling  of  migrant  groups.  About  two-fifths  of  the  investments  in  digital  skills  provision 
featuring equity, inclusion and wellbeing sit within a broader social and digital inclusion agenda. The focus of 
these investments was on the provision of basic digital skills training to specific groups. The remaining three-
fifths of investments are located within broader active labour market skilling activities and a majority of these 
combine  provision  of  basic,  advanced  and/or  sector-specific  digital  skills  training  with  a  strong  focus  on 
individuals not in employment, education or training.  

Reforms that featured ITE and CPD for digital skills were identified in six MS, while investments featured 
in five MS. Regarding reforms, half of these were targeted at primary and secondary levels of the education 
system  and  refer  to  digital  skills  and  digital  pedagogical  skills  training  for  educators  as  part  of  curricular 
reforms or reforms to ITE/CPD systems, while the other half made reference to digital skills development of 
educators in Higher Education and VET. A majority of the investments featuring this topic were targeted at 
primary and secondary education and related to CPD (rather than ITE) for digital skills development to support 
(i)  curricular  reform  or  (ii)  investments  in  infrastructure  and  platforms.  The  remainder  of  the  investments 
featuring this topic were targeted to Higher Education settings. 

Reforms featuring monitoring, evaluation and assessment were identified in seven MS and concerned a 
range  of  themes  including  the  establishment  of  quality  standards  and  or  monitoring  arrangements  in  VET 
systems  and  enhancements  to  skills  mismatch  monitoring.  Investments  featuring  this  topic  (in  six  MS), 
meanwhile, supported developments or enhancements in labour force digital skills assessment and monitoring; 
digital skills accreditation; and evaluations of proposed digital skills initiatives.  

Too  few  reforms  featuring  opportunity  and  innovation  were  identified  to  merit  separate  description. 
Investments  featuring  opportunity  and  innovation  were  identified  in  nine  MS,  which  tended  to  have  strong 
existing digital education and skills ecosystems. Investments comprise firstly, digital innovation projects that 
include  digital  skills  provision;  second,  the  establishment  or  strengthening  of  public-private  and/or  multi-
stakeholder  partnerships/collaborations;  third,  initiatives  to  support  emerging  technologies;  and  fourth,  the 
development of specialised or more sector-specific digital skills development. 

Too few reforms featuring research and data were identified for separate reporting. Investments featured 
in the RRF national reports of seven MS and these  MS again tended to be among those with robust  digital 
education  and  skills  ecosystems.  These  were  focused  on  enhancing  research  activities  on  advanced  or 
specialised digital skills.  

Key observations from the analysis are that: 

  As with the analysis of enabling factors for digital education, we did not see extensive reference to 
monitoring, evaluation or assessment activities in national RRF plan sections that refer to digital skills 
provision, although as noted in Section 3, it is the case that monitoring activities are referenced in the 
national  digital  skills  strategies  of  some  MS.  Nonetheless,  the  monitoring  of  planned  investments, 
particularly with respect to digital and social inclusion, may merit attention.  

  With respect to digital skills assessment, there appears to be little emphasis on reforms or investments 
in this area either inside or outside of the formal education system. This is a gap which is explored 
further in the SD analysis in the next section.  

 

 

Third,  with  respect  to  digital  skills  provision  in  and  outside  of  the  formal  education  system,  we 
observed that some MS are implementing broad reform programmes that cover both while others are 
tending to treat formal and non-formal education in a more separate manner. The links between the 
investments in digital skills provision inside and outside of formal education settings may merit further 
clarification and attention.  

Finally, a comparison of reforms and investments targeted at compulsory schooling suggests that the 
pace of curricular reform implementation is lagging behind implementation of digital skills provision 
initiatives at other levels of the system. 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2 

Provision of digital skills in the Structured Dialogue 

4.2.1 

Topic analysis overview 

Through  a  combination  of  pre-defined  and  emerging  topic  analysis,  seven  topics  were  identified.  Table  4.3 
provides a description of topics. 

Table 4.3. Descriptions of topics in the thematic analysis of structured dialogue meetings: digital 
skills provision 

Topic 

Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills 
outside  of  formal  education 
settings 
Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills 
in  formal  education  settings, 
including curriculum reforms 
ITE and CPD - digital skills* 

evaluation 

Monitoring, 
and 
assessment, including existing or 
planned digital skills certification 
or accreditation schemes   
Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Research and data 

Opportunity or innovation 

Description 
Digital  skills  training  initiatives  for  upskilling  and  reskilling  outside  of 
formal  education  including,  among  others,  digital  skills  training  for 
jobseekers 
Digital 
primary/secondary, VET, and Higher Ed  

skills  provision 

courses  and 

programmes) 

(e.g. 

in 

Initial teacher education, continued professional development of teaching 
staff focused on more specific or advanced digital competence 
Activities relating to the monitoring, evaluation or assessment of digital 
skills,  including  skills  forecasting.  References  to  assessment  include 
existing or planned digital skills certification or accreditation schemes   

Digital  skills  initiatives  targeted  at  specific  groups  including  socio-
economically disadvantaged, women, older persons 
Digital skills research and data activities, e.g. national research study 

Innovative  digital  skills  initiatives  (e.g.  in  emerging  technologies  skills 
provision)  or  opportunities  identified  to  build  on  existing  digital  skills 
provision 

*Initiatives related to the enhancement of digital pedagogical skills of teachers/educators are included under 
enabling factors. 
Note. Challenges, barriers and concerns in the development or implementation of an enabling ecosystem for 
digital education, where referenced, are classified under the specific topic(s) to which they refer. 

Digital skills provision topics emerged under two key groups: 

Direct-impact initiatives and actions (i.e. those with a direct relationship with the target group(s)): 

  Digital skills initiatives outside of education settings (39%) 
  Digital  skills  initiatives  in  education  settings  (including  curricular  reforms)  (22%  of  digital  skills 

provision topic instances) 
Equity, inclusion and wellbeing-related digital skills initiatives (10%). 
ITE and CPD for digital skills (6%). 

 
 

Indirect-impact initiatives and actions (i.e. those with an indirect relationship with the goal(s) of the digital 
skills provision action(s)): 

  Monitoring, evaluation and assessment (including digital skills certification or accreditation) (14%) 
 
  Opportunity or innovation (5%). 

Research and data (5%) 

On average across the 27 MS, 36 topic instances relating to digital skills provision were identified (range = 19-
53) (Table 4.4). With the exceptions of research and data (21 MS), ITE and CPD for digital skills (21 MS), and 
opportunity and innovation (22 MS), all topics were referenced in the Structured Dialogue of all or almost all 
MS. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
Overall, 16.5% of all topic instances referred to challenges or concerns. Topics in which challenges were most 
frequent  are  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment  (where  29%  of  topic  instances  were  classified  as 
challenges), and equity, inclusion and wellbeing (21%).  

Also in relation to challenges, the topics most widely referenced across MS were again monitoring, evaluation 
and assessment (15 MS) and equity, inclusion and wellbeing (16 MS); as well as initiatives outside of education 
settings (23 MS) and initiatives in education settings (15 MS).  

Table 4.4. Structured Dialogue frequencies of digital skills topics (N = 984) and challenges within 
topics  (n  =  162),  together  with  the  count  of  MS  (N  =  27)  in  which  each  topic  and  topic-related 
challenge is referenced 

Enabling Factors Topic 

topic 
N 
instances 

%  of  all 
topic 
instances 

N 
challenges 
within 
topic 

% 
challenges 
within 
topic 

in 

N  MS 
which 
topic 
is 
referenced 

Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills 
outside of education settings 
Initiatives  to  boost  digital  skills  in 
formal  education  settings,  including 
curriculum reform 
Monitoring, 
assessment 

evaluation 

and 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

ITE and CPD - digital skills 

Research and data 

Opportunity or innovation 

382 

38.8 

53 

13.9 

27 

219 

137 

94 

58 

48 

46 

22.3 

13.9 

9.6 

5.9 

4.9 

4.7 

32 

40 

20 

10 

6 

1 

14.6 

29.2 

21.3 

17.2 

12.5 

2.2 

16.5 

27 

27 

26 

21 

21 

22 

Total 

984 

100.0 

162 

N/A 

N/A 

in 

N  MS 
which 
topic 
challenge 
is 
referenced 

23 

15 

15 

16 

8 

5 

1 

A transversal theme, EU support (not displayed in Table 4.4), provides a description of suggestions from MS 
as to how these various challenges may be addressed at EU level. Roughly half of the 130 or so instances of 
EU support relate to digital skills (the other half relate to enabling factors). 

As described in Section 2, each topic was classified within the analysis framework along several dimensions – 
target group, level (international, national, regional, mixed), and sector (education, employment, mixed; and 
public, private or mixed public/private) to provide insight into the location within the ecosystem of each topic 
instance.  

The remainder of this section describes the key themes and challenges under each topic in turn. This is followed 
by a summary of references to EU support and a short summary of key findings. 

4.2.2 

Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis 

4.2.2.1  Digital skills initiatives outside of education settings 

Themes 

This theme  accounted  for 39% of  all  digital  skills  provision  topics,  and  featured  in  the  structured  dialogue 
meetings of all 27 MS. A majority of MS had been engaging in digital skills training initiatives outside of formal 
education settings over the past number of years. For general digital skills training, Public Employment Services 
(PES) and national Digital Skills and Jobs Coalitions were key vehicles for these training efforts, which were 
frequently embedded in active labour market policies and broader skills training initiatives.  

An analysis of the content of commentary within this topic indicated six sub-areas of focus: 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

initiatives that focused on the provision of general digital skills 
upskilling and reskilling initiatives with a sector-specific focus 
provision of advanced digital skills training 
initiatives with a mixed focus (e.g. the provision of both general and specific digital skills training offer 
within an integrated system) 
efforts  to  co-ordinate  and  integrate  the  provision  of  digital  skills  training  outside  of  education 
settings 

A recent emerging trend is that several MS have been or are in the process of implementing digital skills training 
initiatives  at  very  large  scale,  using  online  solutions  including  MOOCs  (massive  open  online  courses)  to 
maximise reach. Several MS were offering incentives such as free or subsidised training offers, and centralised 
digital skills training repositories, to encourage uptake. Digital reskilling and upskilling of staff in SMEs and the 
unemployed was of high priority for a large majority of MS, though these efforts were met with challenges, as 
described below. 

However, for these large-scale initiatives the focus of the commentary was on delivering training to the desired 
group(s) rather than on monitoring the outcomes and impacts of these initiatives. Nonetheless, a small number 
of MS described recent and  current technical initiatives which  would enable the  monitoring and tracking of 
digital  skills  training  participation  and  outcomes  (discussed  further  under  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
assessment). In other words, while initiatives’ aims and target groups were almost invariably described, and it 
was relatively common for targets to be referenced, there was less commentary on what measures are in place 
to ensure the quality and relevance of these initiatives or on the assessment of their impact. 

There were some impressive and resource-intensive examples of comprehensive and targeted initiatives, for 
example, using local libraries or newly-established and local staff, including the creation of new digital skills 
co-ordinators,  coupled  with  awareness-raising  campaigns  to  reach  and  engage  citizens  at  scale.  In  the 
Structured Dialogue, a majority of MS referenced their RRF plans and have committed to sizeable investments 
in digital skills training initiatives outside of formal education. 

Within the context of digital skills training for the labour force, several MS were in the process of implementing 
digital skills training initiatives for civil servants as part of a broader reform programme for the civil service (or 
specific sectors of the civil service). 

Challenges 

About 14% of topic instances under this theme were classified as challenges, which is similar to the average 
rate  of  challenges  across  all  topics  (16.5%),  and  challenges  related  to  this  topic  featured  in  23  of  the  27 
structured  dialogue  meetings.  Five  areas  of  challenge  in  the  provision  of  digital  skills  outside  of  formal 
education emerged from the analysis: 

 

In a majority of MS, the training offer was perceived to be currently insufficient to meet training needs 
for digital skills, both for the population and for ICT specialisms. Indeed, some MS reported challenges 
in  the  process  of  decision-making  for  effective  and  efficient  investments  in  digital  skills  training, 
seeing a tension between a focus on high-level or advanced digital skills and digital skills for all. 
  MS articulated the concerns and challenges that they were experiencing in terms of the ICT specialists 
shortage, citing evidence from both national and international sources. Estimates of the scale of ICT 
specialists shortages varied significantly across MS. MS identified various components to be tackled 
to meet this challenge. It was widely recognised that the economic attractiveness of the private ICT 
industry acted as a pull from other sectors, particularly those in the public and civil services (including 
the teaching profession). In this context, some MS referred to ‘brain drain’ where young ICT talent was 
leaving the country to work under more economically favourable conditions. However, it must be noted 
that  several  MS  have  established  schemes  to  attract  talent  from  abroad,  including  fast-track  visa 
schemes and Higher Education study incentives, though it appears that it is too soon to gauge the 
success or impact of these schemes. It may be noted, though, that these visa and mobility incentive 
schemes operate differently across MS. Also, some MS reported successful outcomes via public-private 
partnerships  to  meet  the  growing  need  of  ICT  specialists  through,  for  example,  industry  or  private 
involvement in curriculum and course design, and strong links and/or agreements between education 
and enterprises at national, regional and local levels. Ultimately, it was clear from MS’ perspectives 

175 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

that meeting the ICT specialists shortages would require a concerted and multi-faceted efforts that 
cut across both formal and non-formal education settings. 
Some  MS  expressed  difficulties  in  engaging  their  adult  population  in  lifelong  learning  initiatives 
including those relating to digital skills and these MS were more likely to indicate a need for more 
investment in awareness-raising for adult education and training. They identified various groups at 
risk  of  social  and  economic  exclusion,  most  frequently  individuals  in  socioeconomically  deprived 
communities, in geographically remote or  rural communities, older individuals, and younger people 
with low levels of formal education. In addition, some MS suggested that a new group was emerging 
since the onset of the pandemic, and merited attention and support in digital skilling initiatives – older 
individuals of working age with some or mid-level formal educational qualifications. Depending on the 
economic profile of the MS, various labour market sectors were highlighted as being vulnerable and 
in need of digital upskilling and reskilling to adapt to the twin transition and increases in automation, 
for example, various sectors in tourism and manufacturing. The low representation of girls and women 
in the ICT sector was raised as a challenge and a concern, and all MS cited examples of initiatives to 
enhance female participation in the ICT sector. However, with few exceptions, these initiatives did not 
take  a  systemic  perspective  to  identify  and  address  the  multiple  causes  of  this  challenge,  with 
descriptions of initiatives tending to convey an incomplete and fragmented approach to gender equity. 
There was a perceived mismatch between digital skills training offer and training and labour market 
need. This was most commonly expressed in terms of concerns with supporting the acquisition of basic 
digital skills across the population, where it was widely accepted that engaging the most difficult to 
reach required meaningful and sustained effort at the local community level, by staff who understand 
the communities, their needs, and their local support services and infrastructures. 
Reflecting  one  of  the  priorities  of  the  EC,  as  well  as  concerns  in  some  MS,  digital  upskilling  SME 
employees  was  viewed  as  a  significant  challenge.  This  concern  was  particularly  acute  in  MS  with 
relatively high proportions of their labour force employed in SMEs, coupled with lack of supports or 
incentives for SMEs employers to provide digital skills training to their employees.  

4.2.2.2  Digital skills initiatives in education settings  

Themes 

Digital skills initiatives in education settings featured in all 27 structured dialogue meetings, with this topic 
accounting for 15% of all digital skills provision topic instances. There is considerable variation across MS in 
the positioning of digital skills in primary and secondary school curricula, including the extent to which curricular 
reforms were underway. Some emerging trends are described below. 

In primary and secondary education: 

 

 

The understanding of the importance of the provision of digital skills in formal education has been 
articulated by all MS. MS vary in the way they refer to digital skills, with some putting more emphasis 
on  ICT,  others  on  digital  competences,  and  others  on  informatics.  Some  MS  focus  more  on  digital 
literacy and safe use of the internet. European alignment on terminology would enable MS to gain a 
coherent understanding of digital skills and work towards a common direction.  
Some MS have already integrated digital skills into their curricula, and others are now designing their 
curricular reforms to ensure that digital skills are covered as part of the curriculum at both primary 
and secondary levels. A common element is that MS have realised the need to integrate digital aspects 
into their curricula responding to European priorities as set out in the Digital Education Action Plan 
2021-2027.  DigComp is widely used as a framework or tool from which to  develop  curricula, with 
some MS adapting the framework to national or regional context. 

  MS which have recently or are currently implementing curricular reforms are tending to make digital 
skills a core subject at both primary and secondary levels; however, this is not invariably the case. 
Specific digital skills subjects aimed at fostering digital skills included into the curriculum (e.g. robotics, 
AI, coding) varies across MS, and some MS have developed a new subject that encompasses many 
aspects of digital skills, though again, the name and focus of this subject varies. There is considerable 
content, linguistic and cultural variation in what each MS is including in such subject, varying from 
basic ICT skills to robotics, coding, AI, digital literacy and media literacy. 
There is a low emphasis on the assessment of digital skills within curricular reform efforts. The current 
scenario is focused on ensuring that digital skills  are put on the agenda in each MS, rather than at 

 

176 

 
 
 
 
assessing them. More effort may be needed in supporting MS ensuring an effective and efficient way 
of assessing digital skills and to align assessment with curricular learning outcomes. This observation 
is related to the monitoring, evaluation and assessment topic (discussed below). 

  An emerging trend evident in some MS is the development of digital skills at preschool level, commonly 

using play-based approaches. 

Within Higher Education initiatives: 

 

  A  substantial  minority,  about  one-third,  referred  to  programmes  designed  to  teach  general  digital 
skills, while about two-thirds referred to initiatives designed to increase the provision of advanced or 
specialist digital skills (e.g. ICT specialists,  AI,  cybersecurity). In about  half of MS, a  combination of 
both approaches is being or will be implemented. 
To tackle ICT skills shortage, MS were implementing a variety of initiatives, frequently in combination, 
and often within broader STEM initiatives. These included the creation of additional ICT course places, 
creation of new courses, shorter or more flexible courses to adapt to the varying needs of learners, 
and/or  subsidised  courses  (some  via  public-private  partnerships).  Attempts  to  attract  more  women 
into these courses, encouraging multidisciplinarity, and supporting the use of microcredentials were 
also recorded. Authorities in several MS expressed a need to find ways to increase the low demand 
for post-secondary ICT education, and to maintain graduate studies for specialised ICT skills, as well 
as meeting the current supply and ‘industry pull’ through shorter and flexible pathways. It was noted 
in several structured dialogue meetings that many ICT graduates are pulled into the market given the 
offers provided in the ICT market tend to be more attractive and do not always require that students 
finish their degree. In some countries, the ICT market is in competition for ICT teachers. Those with ICT 
speciality are more attracted to the ICT market than to teaching ICT given the job offers are more 
attractive, and this leads to a lack of ICT specialists that are dedicated to teaching.   

  A secondary theme to boost digital skills of all was the introduction in some MS of more general digital 
skills courses into existing ‘non-ICT’ disciplines (humanities and social sciences), and training offers 
for Higher Education educators and students on digital skills. The general Higher Education initiatives 
tended to emphasise incentivising or otherwise increasing the levels of digital skills across a broad 
range  of  courses,  or  the  incorporation  of  digital  skills  training  in  the  more  traditionally  ‘non-ICT’ 
courses. Approaches underpinning the specialist initiatives vary, most commonly involving increases 
in  relevant  Higher  Education  courses,  introduction  of  new  Higher  Education  courses  (at  times  in 
collaboration with industry), and/or introduction of flexible and/or short modules or conversion courses 
in ICT specialisms with integration of microcredentials in some cases.  

We also found a small number of references to digitalisation efforts within formal education, efforts to co-
ordinate the provision of digital skills within and across education settings, or between education settings and 
industry, and efforts to attract ICT talent into the country (e.g. with fast-track ‘ICT visas’ or measures to reverse 
‘brain drain’ in the ICT sector). 

Initiatives to boost digital skills were less commonly referenced in the VET sector. However, a strong emerging 
theme was efforts to align and reform VET curricula to labour market demand, with digital skills central to 
these alignment efforts and to accredit and integrate digital skills within the VET accreditation system. The 
development of VET teachers’ digital competence remains an issue that still requires addressing in several MS. 
There was also a recognition of the particular positioning of VET within the education and training system and 
the  complexities  this  brings  –  many  MS  authorities  noted  a  need  to  elevate  its  status  and  to  identify  and 
address  interdependencies  with  the  other  elements  of  the  education  system  and  labour  market  in  policy 
implementation. 

Within Adult Education, the dominant theme was the inclusion of digital skills, including reskilling and upskilling 
in broader initiatives. A common goal in this specific form of education is to avoid labour marginalisation due 
to digitalisation, while at the same time to encourage and support the transition.  

Only a small number of digital skills provision initiatives within formal education were being implemented so 
as  to  foster  stronger  links  between  levels  of  the  system,  for  example,  VET  and  Higher  Education;  upper 
secondary and Higher Education. 

Challenges 

177 

 
 
 
 
We identified four main challenges in the provision of digital skills in formal education. Challenges appeared in 
15% of topic instances across 15 MS. 

  Although some MS commented on the fact that the pandemic appears to have resulted in a shift in 
engagement of educators in CPD in digital skills, the sustainability of this effort is a challenge. Many 
MS cited low levels of interest/motivation/participation in digital skills CPD provision among education 
staff  for  a  variety  of  reasons  including  ageing  staff  populations,  existing  overload  and  existing 
teaching staff shortages which put further pressure on the system. This challenge tended to be more 
pronounced in MS where digital skills were optionally in the curriculum and assessment systems. While 
a majority of MS indicated that digital skills were optional in educators’ CPD, an emerging trend is to 
incentivise or make mandatory digital skills within CPD and, even more so, ITE.  

  Many MS indicated challenges in assessing or monitoring digital skills levels of education staff. 
 

Particularly within primary and secondary education settings, MS described challenges in implementing 
digital skills and assessing learning targets within a transversal approach, where the responsibility for 
achieving  learning  targets  is  shared  across  teachers  of  different  subjects.  Also  at  primary  and 
secondary level, legacy issues and the complexity of curricular reform were described, especially when 
moving from optional to mandatory subjects, and/or from a transversal to separate-subject or blended 
approach. For example, in moving from an optional to a mandatory subject, variations across schools 
in the implementation of the optional curriculum results in considerable differences between schools’ 
capacity to implement a mandatory curriculum. In terms of the complexity of reform, many MS need 
to make difficult decisions in implementing the reform in a staggered manner across student cohorts 
over a number of years, while at the same time maintaining continuity in the learning experiences of 
students as they move through the system. 

  As noted previously, there are quite widespread concerns about the numbers of ICT graduates and low 
retention  rates  in  university  courses,  and  recognition  that  overcoming  this  challenge  requires  a 
combination of actions, depending on the particular context of MS. In some MS, attractive job offers - 
from different sectors of the economy (e.g. tourism) - lead young people to drop out of their studies. 
The result of this situation is an increasing shortage of skilled ICT professionals and aggravation of 
job risk for workers (the unqualified or partially qualified are the most vulnerable to change). 
It was also noted that attracting more women into ICT courses and professions could be an important 
part of a solution to this challenge, while at the same time serving to bridge the ICT gender gap (a 
theme that is discussed further under equity, inclusion and wellbeing, below). 

 

4.2.2.3  CPD and ITE, digital skills 

Themes 

This topic emerged in the structured dialogue meetings of 21 MS and accounts for just 6% of all digital skills 
topic  instances.  In  and  of  itself, this could  suggest  the  need  to  learn  more  about  the  initial  and continuing 
professional  development  to  foster  digital  skills of  educators.  Related  to  this,  it  is  not  clear  in  some  cases 
whether the training offers of MS focused on digital pedagogical skills or specifically on the improvement of 
teachers’ digital skills (or both).  

A clear emerging trend regarding CPD on digital skills across MS is building on the experience of the pandemic. 
MS are extending the tools and supports in place to support teachers to build digital skills, making widespread 
use  of  online  training,  including  MOOCs,  and  platforms  that  integrate  digital  skills  and  digital  pedagogical 
training  and  solutions.  These  are  described  in  more  detail  under  Enabling  Factors  (Section  3).  Some  MS 
mentioned the willingness and enthusiasm of teachers and school leaders to participate in these CPD offers, 
having learned from the pandemic that digital skills offer benefits to both teachers and students. However, 
there were also concerns about the extent to which the engagement of teachers and school leaders in CPD 
would be sustainable. This said, the scale of training offer in CPD is impressive with commentary suggesting 
that this scaling up has been achieved in a relatively short time. The focus of the effort as emerging from the 
SD documentation is on raising participation rates (and some MS have recently introduced incentive schemes 
to encourage participation).   

With respect to ITE, the general trend is towards the inclusion of digital skills as a core part in preparatory 
courses, but the manner in which this is assessed (or not) varies across MS, as already noted. Some MS require 

178 

 
 
 
 
digital  skills training  to  start  a  teaching  career, and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  or not  this requirement 
becomes more widespread. 

The link between the digital skills acquired during ITE and how to sustain this with CPD was largely absent from 
SD  discussions.  Also,  commentary  on  CPD  and  ITE  for  digital  skills  tended  to  occur  in  the  absence  of 
commentary on the actual or expected impact of such efforts, whether on teachers or students. 

Challenges 

Challenges relating to CPD and ITE for digital skills were identified in eight MS and in 17% of topic instances, 
which is similar to the average  percentage of  challenges  (16.5%). The thematic analysis indicates that  not 
many challenges were raised by MS in the area of CPD and ITE for educators in digital skills, over and above 
what has already been discussed under CPD and ITE in digital pedagogies in Section 3. As already noted, when 
these were mentioned, MS identified this as a general need and challenge and saw the current supports for 
teachers and educators in CPD in particular as insufficient. A small number of MS identified specific contextual 
challenges, including the optional nature of CPD resulting in a broad and fragmented training offer, a lack of 
incentives for teachers to participate in digital skills training as part of their professional development, the fact 
that teachers in need of participating in digital skills CPD tended to be more difficult to reach, and, inevitably, 
broader contexts such as existing shortages of teacher supply, age profile of teachers, and relative earnings of 
teachers which tended to exacerbate this challenge.  

At least on the basis of the SD information, it seems that ITE and CPD for digital skills is an area in need of 
more attention, in terms of assessing and meeting need, monitoring implementation, and assessing impact. 

4.2.2.4  Equity, inclusion and wellbeing in digital skills provision 

Themes 

This topic emerged in almost all (26 of 27) structured dialogue meetings and accounts for about 10% of all 
digital skills topic instances. The two dominant themes under equality, equity and wellbeing in the provision of 
digital skills referred to women and digital inclusion more generally. 

Regarding women, a range of digital skills-related initiatives were mentioned by MS, some of these in place 
over a number of years. Most MS cited multiple initiatives aimed at gender equity which cut across both the 
education  and  employment  sectors.  These  were  quite  varied,  ranging  from  comprehensive  multi-year 
programmes  targeted  toward  girls  and  women  in  disadvantaged  communities;  industry-led  mentoring 
programmes;  information  days  and  awareness-raising;  educational  projects  designed  to  engage  girls  in 
technology; and digital upskilling and reskilling initiatives for women. With few exceptions, the descriptions of 
these programmes were not accompanied by information on their impact, and the use of comprehensive and 
systemic programmes for girls and women in ICT were uncommon. Nonetheless, the measures mainly concern 
efforts  to  educate  women  and tackle  gender stereotyping  and  therefore  seem to  be  aimed  at  longer-term 
change rather than short-term actions (such as temporary financial incentives). 

Regarding digital inclusion, common initiatives included: 

 

 

Targeted digital skilling, reskilling and upskilling initiatives for jobseekers, most frequently under the 
auspices  of  Public  Employment  Services  (PES),  though  at  times  initiatives  were  implemented  with 
industry or other private partners. 
Targeted digital reskilling and upskilling initiatives for employers and employees of vulnerable labour 
market sectors (which varied across MS), sometimes in public-private partnerships. 

  Courses on digital skills for elderly populations, including cybersecurity, frequently accompanied by 

outreach and engagement efforts. 

  Digital  skills trainings  for  migrant  and  refugee  groups, often  referenced  within  a  broader initiative 

 

aimed at the inclusion and integration of these newcomers. 
Reskilling and upskilling initiatives implemented in rural and remote communities, commonly as a part 
of promoting employment opportunities in these areas. 

Less  commonplace  but nonetheless a  priority in some  MS were initiatives to promote digital wellbeing and 
digital safety. 

179 

 
 
 
 
It was not commonplace for MS to specifically refer to individuals with special educational needs or disabilities; 
in contrast, some MS with specific ethnic or cultural minorities were implementing initiatives to support the 
digital skills development of these groups. 

The phrase or concept of hard-to-reach groups appeared quite frequently in the structured dialogue meetings 
in the context of this topic, and it may be helpful to distinguish between two senses of this phrase, the first 
being hard to reach socially, (i.e. not socialising or integrated in their local  communities, therefore requiring 
effort and locally-based outreach), and the second being geographically hard to reach. Many groups may be 
hard to reach in both senses. 

Finally,  while  targets  (in  terms  of  participation  or  reach)  were  occasionally  mentioned  in  the  dialogues, 
commentary on impact is absent. 

Challenges 

Challenges in relation to equity, inclusion and wellbeing were identified in the structured dialogue meetings of 
16 MS, and account for 21% of topic instances, which is somewhat higher than the  average percentage of 
challenges across all digital skills topics (16.5%).  

About half of the commentary on challenges relating to equity and equality concerned the under-representation 
of  girls  and  women  in  ICT,  most  frequently  expressed  as a  concern  about  the  low  share  of  females in  ICT 
professions and ICT graduates (with some noting that the share of women in ICT professions is lower than the 
share of women ICT graduates). A small number of  MS expressed a need to  understand the  causes of the 
gender gap better in order to address it. 

The other challenges identified referred to digital inclusion and the digital skills gap more broadly, and tended 
to be expressed as a stated need to identify solutions and supports that could reach groups in vulnerable and 
remote  communities.  Frequently,  this  was  expressed  in  conjunction  with  concerns  about  infrastructure, 
particularly connectivity. Equity, inclusion and wellbeing concerns are also discussed under Enabling Factors. 

A factor common across all efforts to promote equity, inclusion and wellbeing in digital skills provision was the 
level of human resources required to engage meaningfully with individuals in the target groups, which in turn 
required an understanding of local community contexts. 

4.2.2.5  Digital skills monitoring, evaluation and assessment 

The topic of digital skills, monitoring and assessment appeared in all 27 dialogues and accounted for 14% of 
topic instances. It is an aspect of digital skills provision that was regarded as by MS as particularly challenging 
by MS: 29% of topic instances, mentioned across 15 MS, were classified as challenges, which is almost twice 
the percentage of challenges across all digital skills topics (16.5%). While there is widespread recognition and 
acceptance  about  the  importance  of  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment,  additional  support  would  be 
required  to  enable  their  implementation.  Indeed,  many  MS  are  seeking  EU-level  support  in  this  area,  as  is 
described later. 

Themes 

Monitoring,  evaluation  and  assessment  activities can  be  grouped  as  falling  inside  or  outside  of  the  formal 
education system. 

In the formal education system, commonly-cited monitoring, evaluation and assessment initiatives suggest the 
following emerging trends: 

 

 

In about one-third of MS, digital skills certification is being implemented or is under development, with 
partial or complete alignment with DigComp being the most common approach. The target group(s) 
vary, and include students (at end of secondary school and in Higher Education), and multiple groups 
or the population. Again, the task of developing and implementing digital skills certification is widely 
viewed as complex and challenging. 
Some MS are moving towards or have already implemented digital skills certification of teachers as 
part of CPD, and some are in the process of developing monitoring systems for CPD for digital skills 
(e.g. to establish links across CPD providers in order to systematically track participation).  

180 

 
 
 
 
  A majority of MS include digital skills components in ITE, though these components are not always 

 

core or mandatory. 
Several MS are developing or implementing microcredentials and individual learning accounts in Higher 
and Vocational Education contexts, though this is widely seen as complex and challenging. 

  Assessment of students’ digital skills across MS shows a highly varied picture. For instance, some MS 
have  added  digital  skills  to  their  national  examination  systems  (some  transversally,  others  as  a 
separate  subject),  while  the  national  assessment  of  digital  skills  as  part  of  a  broader  monitoring 
system is not widespread. However, there has been a growth in participation of international large-
scale assessments, notably the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS). That 
said, just seven MS participated in ICILS in 2018, and 22504 are indicated to take part in 2023. The 
next cycle of ICILS is in 2027, with the results of that cycle available at the end of 2028. More frequent 
measurement and monitoring of students’ digital skills may be helpful in monitoring progress towards 
the 2030 targets. 

Key themes emerging from non-formal education and training were: 

  A majority of MS use multiple data sources, most commonly PES coupled with other data sources, to 
produce short, medium and long-term labour market forecasting, with most covering both supply and 
demand. Many MS have national digital competence observatories or systems whose information is 
used to enable data-informed policy responses, for example, more targeted training programmes. 
Some  MS  have  recently  implemented,  or  are  implementing,  systems  to  track  digital  skills  training 
offers, but the monitoring of quality of training offer tends not a focus of these efforts. 

 

  A minority of MS have established a comprehensive system of assessing and monitoring digital skills.  

Challenges 

As already noted, a majority of MS were experiencing challenges in the monitoring, evaluation and assessment 
of digital skills provision.  

 

The key challenges in Section 3 under monitoring, evaluation and assessment; and engagement and 
partnerships,  particularly  in  relation  to  whole-of-government  approaches  to  policy  implementation, 
can be seen also to apply to digital skills provision.  

Other common challenges are summarised below.  

 

 

 

Several MS described challenges in scaling up initiatives and expressed a desire to gain knowledge 
and capacity to identify and quickly scale up promising or successful small-scale or pilot digital skills 
initiatives 
There  was  a  perceived  need  to  develop  both  microcredentials  (i.e.  recognition  of  short  courses  or 
training) and digital skills certification to support the monitoring of individual learning pathways and 
agility in responding to the challenges of the digital (and green) transition). While some MS indicated 
that these were already in development, others expressed a need for technical support and raised the 
issue of cross-institution, cross-sector and cross-country interoperability and quality assurance of both 
microcredentials and digital skills certifications, as well as for a common approach to the definition 
and measurement of digital skills. 
Some MS indicated that the assessment and monitoring of teachers’ digital skills were a challenge; 
this tended to be more frequently a challenge where CPD was optional and training offers were spread 
across a range of education and training providers. Aside from digital skills of educators, some MS 
also cited a lack of digital skills assessment tools (as opposed to digital skills self-reflection tools) in 
formal education and the population more broadly as a barrier to the effective monitoring of digital 
skills policies. There were higher levels of success with these efforts in MS where DigComp or other 
competence  frameworks  were  being  implemented  in  a  comprehensive  manner  across  digital  skills 
curricula, assessment, education and training initiatives. 

  While a  majority of  MS  have skills forecasting activities in place, two  challenges in this area  were 
commonly referenced: first, national data and capacity to produce longer-term digital skills forecasts; 
and  second,  challenges  in  resolving  the  tension  between  sectoral  skills  forecasting  and  the  more 

504 One of the 22 MS participating in 2023, Belgium, covers only the Flemish Community. See 

https://www.iea.nl/index.php/studies/iea/icils/2018 and https://www.iea.nl/index.php/studies/iea/icils/2023.  

181 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

transversal perspective that digital skills forecasting (particularly for maintaining an up-to-date and 
agile training offer) requires. 
From a conceptual point of view, several MS commented that that impact assessment (in the sense 
of the measurement of impact of measures  designed to  support the acquisition of digital skills) is 
generally extremely challenging, and several MS expressed a desire to build capacity in this area and 
learn from other MS. 

  Other challenges under monitoring, evaluation and assessment related specifically to individual MS, 
where  national  authorities  identified  gaps  in  digital  skills  policies  and  provision  that  needed  to  be 
addressed. These included, for example, digitalisation policy in Higher Education, an industrial digital 
skills policy, and more engagement with social partners and industry in monitoring, evaluation and 
assessment efforts. 

4.2.2.6  Research and data 

Themes 

Research and data on digital skills featured in the structured dialogue meetings of 21 MS and accounted for 
just 5% of all digital skills topics. The bulk of MS’ research efforts and data focus were on digital skills in the 
employment sector. A range of research methodologies were being employed by MS to provide data for policy 
on digital skills provision (e.g. big  data analysis, surveys, interrogation of Public Employment Services data; 
thematic  research  reports  by  national  research  agencies),  and  while  some  research  studies  focused  on 
specialist or sectoral digital skills, others examined broader, transversal digital skills; a common theme among 
all is an attempt to better identify labour market digital skills need, gaps and trends. 

A  second  emerging  trend  in  research  and  data  on  digital  skills  provision  relates  to  research  on  emerging 
technologies (AI and quantum computing), often embedded within a broader programme of innovation. 

A third emerging theme relates to the establishment of digital skills data hubs or data warehouses, to permit 
improved monitoring of various aspects of the digital skills ecosystem, such as training offer, graduate tracking, 
and labour market trends. 

Fourth, there were a small number of references to specific research studies on digital skills provision including 
evaluations of digital skills curriculum reforms, the acquisition of digital skills in students, and ICT course drop-
out causes and prevention.  

Challenges 

The  key  challenge  under  research  and  data  to  support  digital  skills  provision  related  to  labour  market  and 
employers’ needs. This was expressed in two senses; first, in terms of the lack of available data in this area 
and  the  resulting  difficulty  in  meeting  labour  market  demand  with  supply  by  digital  skills  reskilling  and 
upskilling; and second, in terms of challenges relating to obtaining digital skills demand data in a timely and 
efficient manner, for example, by engaging employers effectively. 

4.2.2.7  Opportunity and Innovation 

The nature of this topic, which emerged in the structured dialogue meetings of  22  MS  and covering 5% of 
digital skills topics, is twofold. On the one hand, it describes the actions and lessons of MS in response to the 
pandemic which were used as a foundation to build on for digital skills provision; on the other, it describes 
initiatives among MS to boost digital skills in innovative ways and/or boost digital skills relating to emerging 
and advanced technologies such as AI and quantum computing. 

Themes 

The  pandemic  has  tested  all  countries’  education  and  training  systems  in  ways  that  could  not  have  been 
foreseen.  

A majority of MS are using and building on the lessons of the pandemic as an opportunity to: 

 

Enhance  and  up-scale  the  digital  skills training  offer,  building  on  developments  in  response  to  the 
pandemic, across both education and employment sectors. 

182 

 
 
 
 
  Build on the newly-established lines of communication and collaboration across government, levels of 
the system, with social and industry partners, to continue the digital transformation in targeted ways 
(e.g. strengthened industry and employer involvement in  VET;  continued  public-private partnerships 
for digital skills initiatives). 

  Harness the recent changes to accelerate the transformation of education systems, particularly in the 

Higher Education sector. 

Regarding innovation: 

  Digital Innovation Hubs (i.e. support facilities for businesses to become more competitive by improving 
their business/production processes as well as products and services by means of digital technology) 
have been established in a majority of MS, though most are not yet sufficiently well-established yet 
to demonstrate impact. 
Some MS are implementing initiatives to promote AI skills both inside and outside of formal education. 
Some MS have created new partnerships (government-academia; public-private; Higher Education and 
industry, for example) to support skills development in emerging technologies, most commonly AI. 
  A small number of MS mentioned extensive, large-scale projects or initiatives, some of these involving 

 
 

multiple MS, on emerging or advanced technologies, which include a digital skills component. 

Challenges 

Aside from the significant difficulties and challenges that had emerged with the onset of the pandemic, MS did 
not raise significant challenges relating to opportunity or innovation.  

4.2.2.8  EU support for digital skills provision 

Suggestions for support at the EU level were provided by 21 MS. These are summarised below. 

  MS sought for further opportunity to exchange with one another on good or best practices, or solutions 

to issues of shared concern; these covered: 
o  engaging with hard-to-reach groups for digital skills provision;  
o 
o 
o 
o  good practices in governance and co-ordination of digital skills policies; and 
o  development of public-private partnerships for digital skills provision. 

fostering a culture of data-driven policy-making; 
increasing the share of women in ICT professions; 
successful strategies for responding to digital skills needs in rapidly evolving contexts; 

  MS also sought further opportunities for exchange with the EC and/or efforts on the part of the EC to 

o 

the co-ordination of efforts to address digital skills gaps;  

support the co-ordination of activities of MS in a range of areas. These included:  
o 
o  multi-country projects on digital skills provision, for example, Digital Innovation Hubs;  
o 
o 

the evaluation of digital skills provision initiatives;  
clarity in the relationships between the various EU-level digital skills bodies, initiatives, strategies 
and funding instruments; 
technical  and  operational  support  for  the  adoption/integration  and  monitoring  of  digital  skills 
through microcredentials;  
support for awareness-raising for digital skills particularly among employer groups;  
support for the implementation of impact assessment; and  
tackling the gender divide in ICT. 

o 
o 
o 
To support their efforts, MS also requested support at EU level in relation to digital assessment (as 
opposed  to  self-reflection)  tools for  general  and  specific  populations;  tools for the  monitoring  and 
evaluation of digital skills policies and initiatives; and suggestions for further development of digital 
skills frameworks, such as the development of a digital skills/digital competence framework for civil 
servants. 

 

  MS called for further research and analysis in two areas specifically: forecasting of digital skills, and 

digital skills provision mapping across formal and non-formal education and training systems. 

4.2.3  Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue 

Two groups of digital skills provision topics emerged from the analysis of SD documentation. These are direct-
impact initiatives and actions (digital skills initiatives in education settings; digital skills initiatives outside of 

183 

 
 
 
 
education settings; ITE and CPD for digital competence/skills; and equity, inclusion and wellbeing-related digital 
skills initiatives); and indirect-impact initiatives and actions (monitoring, evaluation and assessment; research 
and data; and opportunity or innovation). 

The SD discussions highlighted challenges relating to initiatives both inside and outside of formal education 
settings; equity, inclusion and wellbeing; and monitoring, evaluation and assessment. 

Digital skills initiatives outside of education settings was the most frequently referenced topic in the SD 
discussions; this is consistent with what was observed in  the RRF  national plan analysis. It was possible to 
distinguish  between  four  kinds  of  initiatives:  skills  provision  that  was  general,  sector-specific,  advanced,  or 
mixed; along with efforts to co-ordinate and integrate these four kinds of digital skills provision. The focus of 
the commentary was on delivering training to the desired group(s) rather than on monitoring the outcomes and 
impacts of these initiatives, though monitoring of this kind was in place in a minority of MS. Also consistent 
with  what  we  saw  in  the  RRF  national  reports,  several  MS  are  in  the  process of  implementing  digital  skills 
training initiatives for civil servants. 

In a majority of MS, the training offer was perceived to be insufficient to meet current need, both for general 
training and for ICT specialisms, with a tension expressed between investing in high-level or advanced digital 
skills and  digital  skills  for  all.  A  majority  of  MS  expressed  concerns  about  the  ICT  specialists shortage  and 
provided both analysis and solutions for the issue. From this, it is clear that meeting this shortage would require 
a  sustained  and  multi-faceted  effort.  Some  MS  reported  that  engaging  adults  in  digital  skills  training  was 
challenging and underlined the need for more awareness-raising in this regard, as well as the need to invest 
effort and human resources in outreach efforts at the local community level. MS also discussed and highlighted 
specific labour market sectors that were seen to be particularly in need of upskilling and reskilling, which varied 
depending on their specific national economic contexts. Upskilling and reskilling of SME employees was seen 
to be more of a challenge in MS where large percentages of the workforce were employed in SMEs. There were 
also  several  descriptions  of  initiatives  to  enhance  female  participation  in  the  ICT  sector;  however,  these 
initiatives tended to convey a fragmented approach. 

Regarding  digital  skills  provision  in  formal  education,  recent  and  current  curricular  reforms  were 
referenced by about two-thirds of MS. There is considerable variation across MS in the positioning of digital 
skills  in  national  curricula  for  example  with  respect  to  the  inclusion  of  specific  skills  and  subjects  (e.g. 
programming, robotics, AI).  However, the importance of the provision of digital skills in formal education is 
recognised across all MS. Within these varied contexts, there is a low emphasis on the assessment of learners’ 
digital  skills,  which  indicates  that  further  efforts  in  assessing  digital  skills  and  to  align  assessment  with 
curricular learning outcomes need to be made. 

Despite this wide variation, there is an emergence of some early trends across MS. There is an emergence of 
teaching digital competence both transversally and as a separate subject. In upper secondary, tertiary and VET, 
additional digital skills subject(s) are available in several MS, commonly on an optional basis. There is also an 
emergence of teaching and learning informatics at upper primary and lower secondary levels, commonly as a 
separate, core subject. 

In  Higher  Education,  there  is  more  of  a  focus  on  the  development  of  programmes  to  teach  specialist  and 
advanced digital skills than on general digital skills; this is consistent with what was observed in RRF national 
plans. About half of MS reported implementing a combined (generalist-specialist) approach in Higher Education. 
Also, to tackle the ICT skills shortage, MS are implementing a variety of initiatives including more course places, 
and  shorter  or  more  flexible  courses,  many  supported  by  microcredentials  development.  Many  MS  sought 
solutions to the labour market pull of ICT students and identified competition between these courses and those 
for ICT teachers. Some MS mentioned the development or implementation ICT profession visa schemes and/or 
schemes to attract students from overseas to enrol in ICT courses to tackle this shortage. 

Although less  frequently referenced, a  strong emerging theme in the VET  sector is a  focus on aligning and 
reforming VET curricula to labour market demand, with digital skills playing a major role in these efforts. From 
the  SD  discussions,  it  seems  that  teachers’  digital  competence  requires  more  attention  within  the  broader 
context of elevating the status of VET more generally. 

Three key challenges were identified in digital skills provision in formal education: 

184 

 
 
 
 
 

  Challenges in achieving sustained engagement of teachers and educators in CPD, which is exacerbated 
by teacher shortages in several MS: some highlighted a need to incentivise or make CPD mandatory. 
Particularly  within  primary  and  secondary  education,  MS  reported  challenges  in  implementing  and 
assessing learning targets in a transversal approach. More generally, curricular reform was viewed a 
challenging, for a variety of reasons. 
The widespread concerns about the number of ICT graduates was viewed in some of the SD meetings 
(expressed in terms of ICT course demand, number of ICT course places, and ICT course graduation 
rates) as an opportunity to bring more women into the profession. 

 

In some SD meetings, MS representatives suggested that further alignment of digital education terminology at 
the European level would support MS to work together in a common direction in this regard, across both formal 
and  non-formal  education  settings.  Some  suggested  that  DigComp  could  provide  a  basis  for  terminology 
alignment.  

A clear trend in the provision of CPD and ITE in digital skills is the widespread use of online training at scale, 
building on the experiences of the pandemic. The general trend in ITE is towards the inclusion of digital skills 
as a core part of preparatory courses, but assessment of digital skills in ITE varies across MS. The link between 
the digital skills acquired during ITE and how to sustain this with CPD was absent from SD discussions, and the 
discussions did not provide much information on the expected impacts of teacher professional development. 
In  MS  where  CPD  was  optional,  there  were  more  challenges  in  engaging  the  teaching  profession,  and  the 
training offer tended to be more broad and fragmented.  

Regarding equity and inclusion in digital skills provision, one of the two dominant themes was women in ICT. 
Various initiatives were described but these tended not to be accompanied by information on their impact, and 
systemic and comprehensive programmes were not at all widespread. The second theme was digital inclusion, 
which  covered  a  range  of  targeted  skilling,  reskilling  and  upskilling  initiatives  (for  unemployed,  low-skilled, 
elderly populations, rural and remote communities, migrants and refugees). It was not commonplace for MS to 
refer  specifically  to  individuals  with  disabilities  or  special  educational  needs.  A  key  challenge  in  equitable 
provision of digital skills raised during the SD discussions is the level of human resources required to engage 
meaningfully with the target communities. 

Monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision was, consistent with what was found with respect to the 
SD on the enabling factors topics, viewed as generally challenging. Several trends in this area emerged from 
the SD discussions: skills accreditation in VET; early use of microcredentials in Higher Education and VET; and 
interest in digital skills certification. Challenges in this area, in addition to those already identified in Section 3, 
related  to  scaling  up  successful  initiatives;  complexity  in  developing  microcredentials  and  digital  skills 
certifications; the measurement and monitoring of teachers’  digital skills; accurate  digital skills forecasting; 
and general complexities associated with impact assessment. 

Research and data in relation to digital skills provision were concentrated in the employment sector, where 
a range of data sources and methodologies were being implemented for forecasting, to provide data on policy 
for  digital  skills  provision.  Several  SD  discussions  included  references  to  research  and  data  on  emerging 
technologies, and many MS had established or were establishing digital skills data hubs or warehouses. The 
key challenge in this area was the timely availability of appropriate data for skills forecasting. 

Regarding opportunity and innovation, a large majority of SD discussions demonstrated significant learnings 
from the onset of the pandemic and efforts to continue to build on these. Also, many MS referenced digital 
innovation hubs, and several are implementing initiatives to promote AI skills or other emerging and advanced 
technologies, often through the creation of new partnerships. 

Suggestions for support at the EU level were provided by 21 MS. A majority sought further opportunity to 
exchange  learning  and  good  practices  in  a  range  of  areas,  including  engaging  with  hard-to-reach  groups, 
increasing  the  share  of  women  in  ICT;  developing  data-driven  policies;  responding  to  rapidly-evolving  skills 
needs; and development of public-private partnerships. 

MS also sought further opportunities for exchange with the EC and/or efforts on the part of the EC to support 
the co-ordination of activities of MS in a range of areas. These included the co-ordination of efforts to address 
digital skills gaps; support for multi-country projects on digital skills provision; evaluation of digitalisation and 

185 

 
 
 
 
digital skills provision initiatives;  clarity in the relationships between the various EU-level digital skills bodies, 
initiatives, and funding instruments; technical and operational support for the adoption and monitoring of digital 
skills microcredentials; support for awareness-raising on digital skills, in particular among employer groups; 
support for the implementation of impact assessment; and strategies to tackle the gender divide in ICT,  

To support their efforts, MS  also requested support at the EU level  relating to digital  assessment tools for 
general and specific populations that would be underpinned by a measurement model; tools for the monitoring 
and evaluation  of  digital  skills provision;  and  provided  suggestions  for  further  development  of  digital  skills 
frameworks. MS also called for further research and analysis in two areas specifically: forecasting of digital 
skills, and digital skills provision mapping across formal and non-formal education and training systems. 

4.3 

Submissions to the Call for Evidence on digital skills provision 

This  section  considers  the  themes  emerging  from the  submissions  to  the  Call  for  Evidence  on  digital  skills 
provision. An overview of topics is first provided. This is followed by a description of the main themes emerging; 
finally, we provide a summary of key findings. 

4.3.1 

Topic analysis overview 

Table 4.5 provides a description of each of the nine topics that emerged from the submissions to the Call for 
Evidence, while Figure 4.2 shows the frequencies of topics across submissions.  

The  content  of  the  submissions  is quite  widely  distributed  across  topics,  with  slightly  higher  coverage  (12-
22.5%) of: 

  Digital skills provision in formal education (22.5%) 
  Digital skills initiatives outside formal education (15%) 
 
  Digital skills gaps (12%). 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing (13%) 

There is a moderate level of coverage (6-9%) of: 

Policies, frameworks, monitoring, evaluation and impact (9%) 

 
  Networking, collaboration and capacity building (8%) 
  Cybersecurity and data skills (8%) 
 
  Digital skills certification/accreditation/assessment (6%). 

Public-private partnerships (6%) 

Table 4.5. Description of topics emerging from the analysis of the Call for Evidence on digital skills 
provision 

Topic 

Description 

Digital  skills  provision 
formal 
education,  including  curricular  content 
and reform 

in 

View  and  perspectives  on  digital  skills  provision  in  formal 
education  settings 
(primary,  secondary,  VET  and  Higher 
Education),  including  perspectives  on  curricular  content  and 
reform 

Digital  skills  initiatives  outside  formal 
education 

View and perspectives on digital skills provision outside of formal 
education settings, for example for employees or jobseekers 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

Views emphasising the importance of social and digital inclusion, 
and digital wellbeing 

Digital skills gaps 

Comments on challenges to and solutions for digital skills gaps 

Policies, 
evaluation and impact 

frameworks,  monitoring, 

Comments on approaches to digital skills policymaking and/or use 
of frameworks in digital skills policy implementation; views on the 
role  of  monitoring,  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  in  the 
digital skills provision ecosystem 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
Networking, collaboration and capacity 
building 

Cybersecurity and data skills 

Public-private partnerships 

Views emphasising the importance of  collaborative activities in 
digital  skills  provision,  including  across  individuals,  institutions, 
sectors, Government departments and MS 

Views  emphasising  the  importance  of  cybersecurity  skills  and 
data  literacy  and  related  themes  including  online  safety, 
protection of personal data, cybercrime and cyberbullying 

Comments  public-private  collaborations  and  partnerships  in 
relation to digital skills provision 

Digital 
certification/accreditation/assessment 

skills 

Views and perspectives on digital skills certification, accreditation 
and assessment, including microcredentials 

Figure 4.2. Frequencies of topics emerging in the submissions to the Call for Evidence on digital 
skills provision 

22,5

14,7

12,9

11,8

Digital skills initiatives in formal education, including
curricular content and reform

Digital skills initiatives outside formal education

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing

Digital skills gaps

Policies, frameworks, monitoring, evaluation and
impact

Networking, collaboration and capacity building

Cybersecurity and data skills

Public-private partnerships

Digital skills certification/accreditation/assessment

9,4

8,3

8,0

6,2

6,2

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

Stakeholder groups varied with respect to the relative emphasis given to the various topics. This is shown in 
Table 4.6, using ‘heat’ coding to illustrate topics with higher (orange to red) and lower (yellow to green) levels 
of emphasis across stakeholder groups.  

Table  4.6.  Distribution  of  enabling  factors  topics  in  the submissions  to  the Call  for  Evidence on 
digital skills provision by stakeholder group 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
  
The table shows differences in the relative contributions of stakeholders which vary depending on their role or 
perspective. For example: 

  Digital skills provision in formal education (including curricular reform) were given a relatively high 
emphasis by academic/research institutions, while provision outside of formal education and training 
was a major focus of Trade Unions. 

 

Equity, inclusion and wellbeing were emphasised to a relatively high degree in submissions from non-
profit and non-government organisations, and from individuals. 

  Academic/research institutions, Trade Unions and public authorities placed a relatively high emphasis 

on networking, collaboration and capacity building 

 

Public-private  partnerships arose as a topic  more frequently than on average in submissions from 
business and professional associations 

  Digital skills gaps were particularly emphasised more by professional associations 

  Digital  skills  certification,  accreditation  and  assessment  were  referenced  more  frequently  by 

businesses/companies, professional associations, and Trade Unions. 

4.3.2 

Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis 

In this section, we discuss the themes emerging within each of the topics, in order of frequency (from most to 
least-frequently mentioned topic). 

4.3.2.1  Digital skills provision in formal education settings 

Generally, the submissions espoused a holistic and learner-centred approach to digital skills provision in formal 
education settings, noting that it should be balanced with other skills including metacognitive (learning to learn) 
and transversal skills learning, as well as age-appropriate and adapted to individuals’ needs. It was also noted 
that autonomy should be a goal of digital skills provision in education systems. 

The digital skills of teachers emerged as a concern where it was recognised that more teaching and training 
staff  would  be  needed to  support the  provision of  digital skills in education settings.  The  skills of teachers 
should, according to some submissions, be continuously updated, recognised and supported by peer learning 
and several  of  the  submissions  highlighted  the  importance  of  teacher  skills in  specific  areas (e.g.  AI,  cloud 
technologies, data and data analytics).  

Regarding curricular content and reform, we identified areas of both convergence and divergence. 

188 

TopicAcademic/research InstitutionBusiness associationBusiness/ CompanyIndividualNon-profit or non-government organisationProfessional association Public Authority Trade union OtherTotalDigital skills provision in formal education, including curricular content and reform47.432.428.326.715.40.021.433.318.322.5Digital skills provision outside formal education0.021.610.923.314.014.37.133.316.714.7Equity, inclusion and wellbeing0.05.44.320.021.30.017.90.06.712.9Digital skills gaps5.310.88.76.711.042.97.10.021.711.8Policies, frameworks, monitoring, evaluation and impact15.82.713.00.013.20.07.10.08.39.4Networking, collaboration and capacity building21.18.16.53.35.10.021.422.28.38.3Cybersecurity and data skills5.32.70.010.011.014.37.10.011.78.0Public-private partnerships5.313.56.56.73.714.37.10.06.76.2Digital skills certification/accreditation/ assessment0.02.721.73.35.114.33.611.11.76.2Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 
 
 
 
 
 

 

There  was  widespread  recognition  across  the  submissions  that  digital  skills  teaching  and  learning 
should be a core part of curricula from an early (lower primary) age. Some submissions highlighted 
the  need  to  modernise  primary  and secondary  curricula,  and  there  were  suggestions  for  increased 
collaboration between HEIs and industries to collaborate to support curricular reform. 

Second, there was recognition of the importance of teaching and learning of informatics from primary 
level (referred to also as computer science, programming and computational skills). 

  Many  of  the  submissions  expressed  the  view  that  digital  skills teaching  and  learning  should  occur 
alongside  other  core  skills  development,  including  problem-solving,  critical  thinking,  creativity  and 
wellbeing, i.e. that they should be embedded within a broader skills framework. 

  A  fourth  common  theme  was  that  of  harmonisation  and  alignment  of  curricula,  across  primary, 

secondary and VET, and also across EU MS 

 

Fifth, regarding Higher Education, there were calls to promote cutting-edge digital skills provision and 
research, as well as multi- and inter-disciplinarity. 

There was diversity in perspectives expressed, with respect to whether or not: 

 

 

 

specialised courses such as computer science should be core or optional parts of the curricula 

digital skills across the range of proficiency from basic to advanced should be taught to all students 

formal education curricula should be aligned to the labour market. 

4.3.2.2  Digital skills education and training outside of formal education 

The five main themes that emerged under this topic were: 

  A need to adapt digital skills training offer content to the needs to individuals, professions, sectors, 
and specific groups (particularly low-skilled), along with more modularity and flexibility in structure 
The  importance  of  recognising  digital  skills  training  as  an  integral  part  of  education  and  training 
systems, seen alongside critical thinking, problem-solving, and soft skills 

 

  Calls for an increase in training offer and/or awareness-raising among enterprises and SMEs 
  Calls to leverage existing EU funding and collaborations to support provision, increase the level of EU 

funding 
Suggestions to foster links and synergies between formal and non-formal education. 

 

The remaining content under this topic provided specific suggestions for ways to boost digital skills, e.g. boot 
camps; and emphasised the health dimension of digital skills training. 

4.3.2.3  Equity, inclusion and wellbeing 

In articulating perspectives on equity, equality and inclusion, it is interesting to note that those submissions 
which  did  identify  specific  groups  which  they  felt  should  be  prioritised  in  terms  of  inclusive  digital  skills 
provision,  most  of 
followed  by 
disadvantaged/vulnerable groups, and individuals with disabilities; there were a small number of references to 
other groups (rural communities or older persons, for example).  

identified  a  single  group,  most  commonly  women, 

these 

Several of the submissions referred to multiple groups, indicating awareness and concern for the layered nature 
of social and digital inclusion/exclusion. The content of the submissions where specific groups were mentioned 
tended to underline the need for greater inclusion of the group in question in digital skills provision. 

Regardless of the group prioritised, the commentary on equity, inclusion and wellbeing indicates three specific 
perspectives: 

 

 

The digital divide was seen as a social problem, where rights-based approaches needed to be more 
strongly incorporated into digital skills provision, including giving learners a voice. 

Information on best and successful practices in overcoming the digital divide should be collected and 
disseminated, for example, approaches that are successful in engaging hard-to-reach groups. 

189 

 
 
 
 
 

The overall 80% target for 2030 should be disaggregated to specify disadvantaged and vulnerable 
groups  to  avoid  further exacerbating  the  digital  divide, and this  should  be  supported  by  a  specific 
programme including an evaluation of the programme’s outcomes. 

4.3.2.4  Digital skills gaps 

The commentary on this topic was quite varied, perhaps reflecting a recognition of the complexity of this issue. 
Broadly speaking, the commentary on digital skills gaps can be categorised into specific and general.  

Some of the commentary on digital skills gaps was quite general in nature, for example stating that a range 
of interventions is needed to address the digital skills gaps, that there is a need to boost digital skills in the 
workforce, or that both digital and soft skills should be fostered (in general).  

Underpinning much of this commentary were the two complementary perspectives of holistic approaches and 
inclusive values. That is, digital skills form part of a broader set of skills, and that digital skills provision is for 
all citizens. 

Another common theme was a perceived need to foster digital skills in emerging and advanced technologies, 
and in specialist areas (e.g. data specialisms, quantum computing). A second emerging theme was that ICT 
specialist skills can be taught and learned and as a result, recruitment practices should be broadened to ‘hire-
and-train’. It was also noted that there is potential in partnerships between education and industry to achieve 
this. 

Submissions also noted that: 

  Closing the gender gap in ICT professions would help with the ICT specialists shortage 
 
 

There is a shortage of ICT specialist teachers 
There is a need to upskill and reskill employees in specific sectors (e.g. healthcare, social care). 

4.3.2.5  Policies, frameworks, monitoring, evaluation and impact 

Some  of  the  commentary  under  this  theme  consists  of  general  observations  regarding  the  importance  of 
embedding monitoring into the digital skills policy cycle. For example, submissions noted that: 

 

 

Empirical evidence should guide policy 

There should be stronger links between research and education 

  Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are needed from the outset of policy or initiative development 
in order to ensure impact and sustainability of digital skills policies and initiatives, and this needs to 
be more widespread across MS 

 

There is a need for the development of more consistent metrics regarding digital skills provision in 
order to strengthen the monitoring of progress of MS in digital skills targets. 

More specifically, the submissions noted that: 

  Meeting  the  data  needs  for  digital  skills  forecasting  is  challenging,  but  there  is  potential  for 

collaboration between education and training providers and industry to address these needs  

 

 

 

 

There is a need for more disaggregated data to define and monitor digital skills targets (for example 
with respect to specific sub-groups of the population), which in turn could help to focus engagement 
on specific policy issues 

There is a need to measure and monitor the effectiveness of teacher training through assessment of 
their learning outcomes (digital skills levels) 

There is a need for reliable data on digital skills education and training offer 

EC frameworks relating to digital skills (DigComp, DigCompOrg and DigCompEdu) and associated tools 
(SELFIE  and  SELFIEforTEACHERS)  as  well  as  LifeComp  are  useful  for  the  development  and 
implementation of digital skills strategies, curriculum, education and training, and teacher and student 
development, and that awareness-raising about these frameworks and tools would be helpful 

190 

 
 
 
 
 

There  is  a  need  for  clarity  and  enhancements  to  definition  and  measurement  of  digital  skills,  for 
example, more precision in the definition of basic digital skills, the development of digital competence 
profiles that are sector- or occupation-specific, and a framework for a programme to support basic 
digital skills acquisition. 

4.3.2.6  Networking, collaboration and capacity building 

Under  this  topic,  a  strong  unifying  theme  of  strengthening  co-operation  and  co-ordination  emerged. 
Submissions emphasised the need for co-ordination across actors in a range of ways: across EU countries to 
promote sharing of good practices; between stakeholder groups within MS (particularly social partners); across 
government  departments  and  between  their  various  levels  of  governance;  between  education  and  labour 
market stakeholders; and in Higher Education, across disciplines. The overall goal of this of strengthening of 
co-operation and co-ordination, as some of the submissions stated, is to achieve a coherent and systematic 
approach to the provision of digital skills inside and outside of formal education settings. 

The submissions also highlighted specific issues where further attention or effort was needed, for example, in 
tackling the shortage of ICT professionals, actions to promote digital inclusion, and digital skills provision for 
SMEs. 

4.3.2.7  Cybersecurity and data skills 

About 8% of submissions’ content related to cybersecurity and data skills provision. About a quarter of this 
commentary  referred  to  the  importance  of  data  literacy  and  data  management  skills  generally  and  their 
embedding in overall digital skills development.  

The remainder focused mainly on the importance of cybersecurity and data protection skills training, where the 
general view was that all citizens needed to be aware of and use these skills. A small number of the submissions 
suggested specific ways in which cybersecurity and data protection skills could be fostered, for example by 
embedding risk awareness, security needs and data usage awareness in all digital skills training; or via co-
operation with the IT industry or social media platforms to deliver training in this area. 

4.3.2.8  Public-private partnerships 

In Section 3, it was noted that the CfE submissions relating to enabling factors expressed some ambivalence 
towards public-private partnerships. This was not the case in the CfE submissions on digital skills provision, 
where there was unanimous support expressed for public-private partnerships or collaborations in digital skills 
provision. Of course, how this was articulated showed some variation.  

Some of the submissions focused their attention on the potential benefits of partnerships and collaborations 
between Higher Education and industry; others referred to the education sector and EdTech industry partners, 
while others still referred to tripartite collaborations, most frequently between private companies, NGOs or civil 
society  organisations  and  government  actors.  Furthermore,  while  most  submissions  suggested  these 
partnerships at the national level, some suggested that the collaboration and partnership should occur at the 
EU level. 

4.3.2.9  Digital skills certification, accreditation or assessment 

All of the commentary on this topic expressed a positive view on the benefits of certification/accreditation and 
assessment, and a unified approach across MS was supported. Benefits described in the submissions may be 
summarised as follows: 

  General benefits of digital skills certification for engagement of learners, incentives to upskill or reskill, 

employability and monitoring purposes 

  Beneficial for both teachers and students (self-assessment of digital skills is insufficient) 

  Benefits  of  certification  and  microcredentials  for  building  links  between  formal  and  non-formal 

education 

  Benefits, conditional on mutual recognition across actors, in terms of mobility. 

191 

 
 
 
 
4.3.3  Summary of findings from the submissions to the Call for Evidence 

We observed that stakeholders placed varying levels of emphasis on the topics, depending on their perspectives. 
For example, trade unions placed a high emphasis on digital skills provision outside of formal education relative 
to the other stakeholder groups; while professional associations mentioned skills gaps more frequently than 
the other stakeholder groups. 

With respect to digital skills education and training outside of formal education settings, the five main themes 
that  emerged  under  this  topic  were  a  need  to  adapt  digital  skills  training  offer  content  to  the  needs  of 
individuals, professions, sectors and specific groups; the importance of recognising skills training within overall 
education and training systems alongside other core skills including problem-solving and soft skills; calls for 
more focus on the needs of SMEs; calls to leverage existing EU funding and collaboration structures to support 
provision; and various suggestions to foster links between formal and non-formal education settings. 

The content of the submissions regarding digital skills provision in formal settings emphasised a holistic and 
learner-centred approach. As was the case in Section 3, the central role of the teacher was acknowledged, and 
concerns  expressed  about  the  need  to  create  an  appropriate  and  sustainable  system  for  supporting  the 
continued upskilling of teachers in this regard. Some submissions called for teacher digital skills upskilling in 
specific areas including AI and data analytics. 

Commentary on curricular content and reform included both common and divergent points of view. Commonly 
held views were that digital skills teaching and learning should be a core part of curricula from an early age; 
there  is  a  need  to  modernise  primary  and  secondary  curricula;  and  to  support  curricular  reform,  more 
collaboration is needed between Higher Education and industry. Many of the submissions also recognised the 
importance  of  teaching  and  learning  informatics  from  an  early  age.  Similar  to  provision  outside  of  formal 
education settings, the commentary on provision within formal education expressed the view that digital skills 
should take place alongside, and should be reinforced by, the acquisition of other core skills, including critical 
thinking and wellbeing. It was also felt that more curricular alignment was needed across the formal education 
levels,  and  that  HEIs  should  foster  emerging  and  advanced  digital  skills  in  a  multi-  and  inter-disciplinary 
manner. Some differences in perspectives emerged with respect to the optional or mandatory nature of digital 
skills subjects; the level of skills to be taught (basic to advanced); and the extent to which formal education 
curricula should be aligned to the labour market. 

Commentary  on  equity,  inclusion  and  wellbeing  tended  to  reference  or  prioritise  digital  skills  provision  for 
specific groups, most commonly women, then disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, followed by individuals with 
disabilities. It was emphasised in some of the submissions that the digital divide is part of a broader social and 
systemic problem, and others suggested that exchange on best practices for achieving digital inclusion across 
MS should be encouraged. It was suggested that targets for specific groups should be included and monitored. 

Among the comments on networking, collaboration and capacity building, the unifying theme of strengthening 
co-operation and co-ordination was evident. This was expressed in a variety of ways and referring to various 
groups and structures, but the common goal underpinning this commentary was a coherent and systematic 
approach to the provision of digital skills inside and outside of formal education settings. 

Unanimously positive views about public-private partnerships were expressed in some of the submissions, and 
the main focus of this commentary was on the potential benefits of collaboration and partnership between the 
education sector and industry to meet skills provision needs. Similarly, very positive views were expressed with 
respect to both digital skills certification and the use of microcredentials. Submissions mentioned some general 
benefits  of  digital  skills  certification  in  terms  of  engagement  of  learners,  incentive  to  upskill  or  reskill, 
employability and monitoring purposes; for building links between formal and non-formal education; and for 
the learning and development of both teachers and students. Some highlighted mobility benefits, conditional 
on more mutual recognition across actors.  

Submissions  which  mentioned  frameworks  (mainly  DigComp)  were  favourable  towards  them  and  it  was 
suggested to refine and revise the definition of basic skills as well as to develop specific digital skills profiles. 

Regarding the digital skills gap, three emerging themes were: a need to foster digital skills in emerging and 
advanced technologies as well as in specialist areas; that ICT specialist skills can be taught and learned and as 
a  result,  recruitment  practices  should  be  broadened  to  ‘hire-and-train’;  and  that  there  is  potential  in 
partnerships between education and industry to achieve this.  Holistic approaches and inclusive  values were 
apparent in the commentaries on digital skills gaps. 

192 

 
 
 
 
5  Conclusions and implications 

This section provides a short set of conclusions and implications for consideration in the development of the 
Council Recommendation Proposals on enabling factors for digital education and digital skills provision. 

Summaries of the analyses are already provided in Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.3 and 3.3.3 (enabling factors) and 4.1.3, 
4.2.3 and 4.3.3 (digital skills). 

5.1 

Comparisons across the three sources of information 

Findings from the RRF and SD are largely consistent with one another. The SD serves to add rich context to the 
information in the RRF, providing a deeper understanding of enabling factors for digital education ecosystems 
and digital skills provisions by articulating challenges and priorities which might be considered at the EU level, 
as well as themes on which exchange between MS may be fruitful. 

In both sources of information, we observed similar gaps, which were confirmed as challenging in the SD. These 
relate to monitoring and evaluation of digital skills and digital education strategies or programmes; assessment 
of digital skills of various groups, particularly teachers; teacher supply and professional development; shortage 
of  ICT  specialists;  curricular  reform  challenges;  and  some  fragmentation  in  equity  and  inclusion  initiatives 
particularly in relation to girls and women, and individuals with disabilities. 

We also observed considerable diversity across MS in the strategies being deployed to meet these challenges. 
Perhaps  most  striking  is  the  diversity  in  national  curricular implementation  with  respect  to  digital  skills for 
compulsory schooling. Also remarkable was the variation in the number of digital education and/or digital skills 
policies within individual MS and the various stages MS are at with respect to whole-of-government approaches 
to  implementing  policies  in  these  areas.  Other  variations  were  more  directly  related  to  the  governance 
structures and economic and demographic variations across MS. 

The CfE diverged more from the other two sources, but this is to be expected given the differing perspectives 
of the various stakeholders. For example, while the submissions to the CfE on digital skills emphasised digital 
skills certifications and expressed positive views about them, this theme was much less prominent in the SD 
and RRF sources. Also, cybersecurity concerns were more frequently mentioned in the CfE than in the other two 
sources, although in both the RRF and SD we saw examples of cybersecurity infrastructure and cybersecurity 
skills initiatives. This highlights potential differences between the needs of governments and other stakeholders 
in the digital education and skills ecosystems. 

The remainder of this section considers, firstly, what actions might be considered at the European level, as 
emerging from the analysis of the SD. This is followed by a set of implications arising from all three information 
sources (RRF, SD, CfE) for consideration transversally (across both Council Recommendation areas) and specific 
to each Council Recommendation. 

5.2 

EU-level actions in relation to enabling factors 

An analysis of the Structured Dialogue indicates that many MS are seeking opportunities to exchange with one 
another on the following enabling factors themes:  

The use of tools and frameworks 

  CPD, content and solutions for digital pedagogies 
 
  Models for the provision of technical support (through the role of and ICT co-ordinator)   
  Higher Education reform initiatives 
  Sharing of solutions to technical challenges (e.g. interoperability). 

Many MS have sought support from the EC in relation to: 

  Awareness-raising  and  use  of  common  language/terminology  and  standards  in  digital  education 

 
 
 

(including alignment in the use of DigComp) 
Support at the EU level in conducting research and gathering evidence in relation to enabling factors 
Funding supports relating to infrastructure and connectivity 
Technical and operational advice or support  concerning data privacy, Higher Education reform, and 
updating of pedagogical content  

193 

 
 
 
 
Further alignment and connections of various initiatives within and across EU institutions  
Stimulation of partnerships with EdTech and regulation of the EdTech industry  
Regulations and supports for interoperability  

 
 
 
  Data privacy policy consolidation. 

5.3 

EU-level actions in relation to digital skills provision 

An analysis of the Structured Dialogue indicates that many MS are seeking opportunities to exchange with one 
another on the following digital skills themes:  

  Reaching remote and vulnerable groups to engage their participation in digital skills training 
  Approaches for increasing the share of women in ICT education and ICT professions 
  Developing policies that are guided or underpinned by data and evidence 
 
 

Responding to rapidly-evolving digital skills needs 
The development of public-private partnerships to support digital skills provision. 

Many MS have sought support from the EC in relation to: 

  Co-ordination of efforts to address digital skills gaps 
 
 
  Clarity in the relationships between the various EU-level digital skills bodies, initiatives  and funding 

Support for multi-country projects on digital skills provision 
Evaluation of digital skills provision initiatives 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

instruments 
Technical and operational support for the adoption, integration and monitoring of digital skills through 
microcredentials 
Support for awareness-raising on digital skills, in particular among employer groups (highlighting the 
need for interaction with labour market actors) 
Support for the implementation of impact assessment in relation to digital skills provision 
Research on, and strategies to tackle the gender gap in ICT 
Support  for  the  development  of  (psychometric/objective)  digital  assessment  tools  for  general  and 
specific populations  
Support for forecasting of digital skills supply and demand 
Support  for  digital  skills  provision  mapping  across  formal  and  non-formal  education  and  training 
systems. 

5.4 

Conclusions and implications 

5.4.1 

Transversal 

  Across both digital skills provision and enabling factors for digital education, there is a high level of 
concern about the digital divide, and efforts are being made to address this both through enabling 
factors and targeted skills provision. Much less is known about the outcomes and impacts of these 
efforts, and the percentage of individuals with below basic digital skills remains high across the EU. It 
is recognised that meaningful and successful engagement with individuals requires sustained human 
resources at the local community level, and the role of intermediate actors should be more strongly 
acknowledged and strengthened in this respect. It is recommended that the EC continues to support 
the gathering and sharing of information and evidence on initiatives to tackle the digital divide, and 
that consideration is given to setting training participation, outcome and impact targets with respect 
to digital skills for specific priority groups at EU level. 
The gender inequity and low share of women in ICT in both education and employment settings is 
another  area  of  widespread  concern,  yet  in  most  MS,  the  approaches  to  address  this  issue  are 
fragmented.  It  is  recommended  that  the  EC  supports  the  gathering  of  evidence  to  understand  the 
barriers to female education and employment in  ICT fields of study and occupations  as well as to 
support the sharing of good, evidence-based practices to increase the share of girls and women in 
ICT-related education and employment.   

 

194 

 
 
 
 
5.4.2  Enabling factors for digital education ecosystems 

  Many MS are moving towards whole-of-government comprehensive approaches to policies for digital 
education. It is recognised that this transition is extremely challenging in terms of complexity, effort, 
political will and national-regional co-ordination efforts. It is recommended that the EC supports the 
identification  and  sharing  of  good  practices  of  MS  on  whole-of-government  approaches  across  a 
diversity of contexts. 

 

  Monitoring and evaluation of enabling factors need to be given a higher priority in digital education 
policies. It is recommended that the EC supports research on enabling factors for digital education and 
works with MS to address some challenges and data gaps in relation to the monitoring and evaluation 
of enabling factors for digital education, including information gaps regarding education system digital 
infrastructure and device usage.  
There has been significant transformation in teaching and learning since the onset of the pandemic. 
However, concern has been expressed with respect to the sustainability of CPD, and information on 
the impacts or outcomes of CPD is lacking in a majority of MS. There is a lower emphasis on CPD in 
VET and Higher Education than in primary and secondary levels of the formal education system. In the 
broader context, significant difficulties with teacher supply are being experienced across the EU. It is 
recommended to reinforce the importance of CPD for both teachers and school leaders in the relevant 
EU Working Groups, and to consider studies on (i) the emerging challenges and needs of teachers and 
school leaders and how these might be addressed, and (ii) a review and identification of strategies to 
tackle the shortage in teacher supply. It is further recommended that the EC supports MS to identify 
ways in which evaluation and impact assessment may be incorporated into CPD ecosystems. 
Several MS have identified a new role to support schools’ digital co-ordinators which play a broader 
role  than  that  of  technical  support  and  maintenance,  also  involving  strategic  guidance  to  school 
leaders, and mentoring and support to teachers on digital pedagogies. It is recommended that the EC 
supports MS exchanges on their experiences with respect to the digital co-ordinator role for schools in 
order to ensure that strategic and pedagogical support needs for digital education, as well as technical 
maintenance  and  support  needs,  are  met.  One  possible  way  to  support  this  could  be  through  the 
establishment of a network or Community of Practice of digital education co-ordinators on the Digital 
Education Hub. 

 

5.4.3  Digital skills provision 

 

 

  Monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision both inside and outside of formal education need 
to be given a higher priority. It is recommended that the EC works with MS to address some challenges 
and data gaps in relation to the monitoring and evaluation of digital skills provision, in particular in 
relation to: data on training offers, on the outcomes and impacts of training, and for short and longer-
term digital skills supply and demand forecasting. 
Individuals with disabilities and learners with special educational needs are widespread across all of 
our communities, yet were not strongly featured in the sources examined. It is recommended that the 
EC supports research on the availability of digital initiatives for these groups to identify any needs for 
specific digital skills actions.  
Emerging trends on curricula on digital skills show that a combination of transversal and separate-
subject approaches is being implemented. MS are moving towards the inclusion of digital skills as a 
dedicated subject in primary and lower secondary settings, with further specialisations offered in upper 
secondary. It is recommended that the EC supports MS exchanges on curricular reform and assessment 
issues,  particularly  with  respect  to  transversal,  separate-subject  and  mixed  approaches,  views  on 
informatics as a separate subject, and the role of assessment in these various scenarios. It would also 
be important to gain a better understanding at the EU level of the needs and priorities of MS with 
respect  to  the  assessment  of  digital  skills  in  formal  and  non-formal  education  settings.  Further 
collaboration  with  international  organisations  involved  in  the  implementation  of  large-scale 
international assessments (such as ICILS, PIAAC and PISA) may be helpful in this regard. 
In some MS, public-private partnerships, notably with EdTech companies, have been implemented in 
innovative ways to help to address a range of digital skills challenges, including the provision of digital 
skills training; on-the-job training programmes; and improved estimation of digital skills demand and 
supply.  It  is  recommended  that  the  EC  further  explore  with  MS  the  potential  of  public-private 
partnerships  for  addressing  the  most  acute  digital  skills  needs,  and  consider  regulatory  and  data 
privacy aspects of these partnerships. 

 

195 

 
 
 
 
List of acronyms and abbreviations  

AI 

CEDEFOP  

CfE 

CPD 

DG CNECT 

DG EAC 

DG EMPL  

DESI 

DigComp  

DigCompEdu 

DigCompOrg 

DS 

E&T 

EC 

ECFIN 

EF 

ESHA 

ESSIE2 

ETM 

EU 

GDPR 

HEI 

ICT 

ICILS 

IT  

ITE 

JRC 

MS 

PISA 

RDI 

RF EMF 

RRF 

SD 

SG 

Artificial Intelligence 

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training 

Call for Evidence 

Continuing Professional Development 

Directorate‑General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

Directorate‑General for Education and Culture 

Directorate‑General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
Digital Economy and Society Index 

Digital competence framework of the EU 

Digital competence framework for teachers of the EU 

Digital competence framework for education institutions of the EU 

Digital Skills (provision) 

Education and Training 

European Commission 

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs 

Enabling factors (for the digital education ecosystem) 

European School Heads Association 
2nd ICT Survey of Schools in Education (of the EC) 
European Training monitor 

European Union 

General Data Protection Regulation 

Higher Education Institution 

Information and Communications Technologies 

International Computer Information and Literacy Study (of the IEA) 

Information Technologies 

Initial Teacher Education 

Joint Research Centre (of the EC) 

Member State(s) of the European Union 

Programme for International Student Assessment (of the OECD) 

Research, Development and Innovation 

RadioFrequency ElectroMagnetic Fields 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Structured Dialogue 

Secretariat-General 

SG RECOVER 

Recovery and Resilience Task Force 

SWD 

SELFIE 

Staff Working Document 

Self-reflection  on  Effective  Learning  by  Fostering  the  use  of  Innovative  Educational 
technologies 

SELFIEforTEACHERS 

Self-reflection  on  Effective  Learning  by  Fostering  the  use  of  Innovative  Educational 
technologies, for Teachers 

TALIS 

VET 

Teaching and Learning International Survey (of the OECD) 

Vocational Education and Training 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is  available  on  the  Europa  website  (european-
union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  can  be  obtained  by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-
lex.europa.eu). 

Open data from the EU 

197 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded 
and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from 
European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

TERM 

DEFINITION 

Adaptive learning and 
teaching 

Educational approach that uses digital technology and data to deliver 
customised learning experiences that address the unique needs of an 
individual through just-in-time feedback, pathways, and resources505. 

Artificial Intelligence 
(AI), including 
generative AI 

Information  technology  systems,  either  software  or  hardware  based, 
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  (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.)506. Traditional AI systems are designed to recognize 
patterns  and  make  predictions,  whereas  generative  AI  is  able  to 
generate new content based on the data they have been trained on507. 

Assistive Technologies 
(AT) 

Technologies, either advanced (e.g. Braille applications, smart canes, 
haptic computers) or relatively low-tech (e.g. glasses, crutches, hearing 
aids), designed to support people with disabilities508. 

Blended learning 

Critical infrastructures 

Computational 
Thinking  

Pedagogical  approach  mixing  face-to-face  and  online  learning,  with 
some element of learner control over time, place, path, and pace509. In 
the formal education sector, the term refers to when a school, educator 
or learner takes more than one approach to the learning process510. 

Include power  grids,  the  transport  network  and  information  and 
communication systems. Protection of these infrastructures is vital for 
the security of the EU and the well-being of its citizens511. 

Shorthand for ‘thinking as a computer scientist’, the tem refers to the 
ability to understand the underlying notions and mechanisms of digital 
technologies to formulate and solve problems512.  

Computer Science 

See Informatics. 

Connectivity (fibre, 5G, 
satellite) 

The ability of a computer, program, device, or system to connect with 
one  or  more  others.  There  are  different  connection  types  that  use 
different technologies, such as fibre, 5G and satellite. Each technology 

505 Graf S., Fuhua L., Kinshuk, McGreal R. (2011) Intelligent and Adaptive Learning Systems: Technology Enhanced 
Support for Learners and Teachers. 
506 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: Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM(2018) 237 
final. 
507 Technopedia (2022). Generative AI. Avaiable at : https://www.techopedia.com/definition/34633/generative-ai 
508 European Parliamentary Research Service - Scientific Foresight Unit (2018). Assistive technologies for people with 
disabilities. 
509 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon. Available at http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/  
510 Council Recommendation on blended learning approaches for high-quality and inclusive primary and secondary 
education - 2021/C 504/03. 
511 EU Science Hub (2022). Critical infrastructure protection. 
512 European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. JRC Science for Policy 
Report. 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
offers a different level of speed or bandwidth (e.g. the speed that data 
is transferred between a device and the internet)513.  

Cybersecurity                 Measures  adopted  to  defend  information  systems  from  external 
unauthorized  access  as  well  as  user  actions  that  compromise  the 
confidentiality,  integrity  and  availability  of  both  information  and 
systems514. 

Data protection 

Data standards  

Deep Tech 

Digital capacity/ 
preparedness/readiness  

Digital citizenship 

Digital competence 

The processes and mechanisms designed to protect individual privacy 
rights regarding the collection, storing, handling, processing and the 
dissemination of data515. 

A  technical  specification  that  describes  how  data  should  be  stored, 
managed and/or exchanged to ensure the accessibility, retrievability, 
accessibility,  sustainability  and  interoperability  of  these  data  across 
different systems, tools, platforms, etc. 516. 

An  institution,  an  organisation  or  a  start-up  company,  with  the 
expressed  objective  of  providing  disruptive  solutions  built  around 
unique,  protected  or  hard-to-reproduce  technological  or  scientific 
advances.  These  solutions  are  defined  by  their  complexity,  both  in 
terms of the science that underpins them and the IP they generate, often 
having a long development time, significant capital requirements and 
challenging regulatory barriers to overcome517. 

Ability  to  integrate,  optimise  and  transform  digital  technologies  in 
different processes and activities, including planning for organisational 
change,  ongoing  monitoring  and  adaptation,  and  a  strong  focus  on 
learning driven pedagogy518.  

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  positively  with 
them.  He/she  participates  actively  and  responsibly  in  both  on-  and 
offline communities at all levels519. 

Ability to confidently, critically and responsibly use and engage with 
digital technologies for learning, work, and participation in society520. 
The European Digital Competence Framework has identified the key 
components of digital competence in five areas: information and data 

513 European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the 
European Union. 
514 ENISA (2018). Cybersecurity culture guidelines: behavioural aspects of cybersecurity.  
515 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 
persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 
95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016. 
516  Common Education Data Standards 
517 Romasanta A., Ahmadova G., Wareham J. D., Pujol Priego L. (2021). Deep tech: Unveiling the foundations. For further 
details see also: What is Deep Tech? 
518 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027- SWD(2020) 209 
final. 
519 Council of Europe (2019). Digital Citizenship Education Handbook.  
520 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning - 2018/C 189/01. 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Digital divide/gap  

Digital education 

Digital education 
content 

Digital Education 
Hackathon 
(DigiEduHack) 

Digital Education Hub 

Digital education 
solutions 

Digital inclusion 

literacy;  communication  and  collaboration;  digital  content  creation; 
safety; and problem solving521. 

Differences  between 
individuals,  households,  businesses  and 
geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard to both 
access  and  use  of  technology522.    The  term  is  also  used  to  indicate 
differences in the level of digital skills and the mismatch between the 
demand-supply of digital skills523. 

Digital  education  comprises  of  two  different  but  complementary 
perspectives: 1) the pedagogical use of digital technologies to support 
and enhance teaching, learning and assessment and 2) the development 
of digital competences by learners and education and training staff524. 

Pedagogical  content  created,  produced  and  delivered  in  different 
digital formats and by using digital tools with the explicit intention of 
supporting learners and teachers’ educational activities525. 

One of the flagship initiatives of the European Commission on digital 
education. DigiEduHack engages educational institutions and other 
organisations working in the education field in a ‘contest’ to identify 
key challenges and co-create solutions across disciplines and 
organisations on digital education matters526. 

Open online collaborative community on digital education for 
stakeholders from all levels and sectors of education and training in 
Europe and beyond. It is part of the Digital Education Action Plan 
2021-2027 and aims for reinforced cooperation and dialogue between 
stakeholders in the area of digital education527. 

 A system that considers both social and technical aspects to solve a 
real-world [educational] problem with digital means528. 

the  digital 

Activities  necessary  to  ensure  that  all  individuals  and  communities, 
including the most disadvantaged ones, can contribute to and benefit 
transformation529.  It  requires  strategies  and 
from 
investments  to  reduce  and  eliminate  historical,  institutional  and 
structural  barriers  to  access  and  use  of  technology530.  Concerning 
digital  education,  it  centres  around  leveraging  digital  tools  to  widen 

521 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. 
522 OECD (2006). Understanding the digital divide. Available at https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=4719 
523 Centeno C., Karpinski Z., M.C. Urzi Brancati (2022). Supporting policies addressing the digital skills gap. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 
524 European Commission (2019) Digital Education at School in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
525 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027- SWD(2020) 209 
final. 
526 DigiEduHack 
527 European Education Area: European Digital Education Hub 
528 Glinz M., Lauenroth K. (2021). A Glossary of the Terminology for the Digital Design Professional. 
529 Digital strategy on digital inclusion  
530 European Commisssion (2019). Digital Inclusion & Web Accessibility in the European Union: Essential for some, useful 
for all. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Digital infrastructure 

access and enhance the quality of teaching and learning for the purpose 
of delivering a fair and equitable education531. 

Digital infrastructure refers to the structures (physical or virtual) that 
act  as  enablers  for  technological  developments  and  access  to  ICT. 
Includes hardware, software as well as digital equipment532.  

Digital integrators 

Term  used  to  describe  a  wide  range  of  professionals  and  sector 
specialists with advanced digital skills533. 

Digital literacy  

Digital Pedagogy 

The  ability  to  access,  manage,  understand,  integrate,  communicate, 
evaluate, create, and disseminate information safely and appropriately 
through  digital  technologies.  It  includes  competences  that  are 
variously referred to as information literacy, media literacy, computer, 
and ICT literacy. Digital literacy involves a dimension of  active and 
civic engagement with the digital world, promotes active citizenship534 
and is part of being digitally competent.535 

The meaningful use of digital technologies in the teaching and learning 
practices with the intent to support personalised learning, contribute to 
the  design  of  new  modes  of  learning,  enrich  existing  learning 
experiences and improve learning outcomes536. 

Digital skills (basic, 
advanced, specialist) 

Set of skills that enable individuals to understand how technology 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  digital  devices  and 
online  applications  (for  instance  to  access,  filter  and  manage 
information, create and share content, communicate and collaborate), 
and are considered a critical component of a new set of literacy skills 
in the digital era, with reading, writing, and numeracy skills537.  

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 ICT538. 
Advanced digital skills are specialised 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 above539. 

531 European Commission (2021). Enhancing learning through digital tools and practices: how digital technology in 
compulsory education can help promote inclusion : final report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
532 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade - COM(2021) 118 final.  
533 Kompetence Barometer  
534 European Commission (2022). Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital 
literacy through education and training, Publications Office of the European Union.  
535 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. 
536 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027- SWD(2020) 209 
final 
537 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01. 
538 UNESCO (2018) Digital skills critical for jobs and social inclusion. 
539 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. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Digital Skills and Jobs 
Coalition (DSJC) and 
Platform (DSJP) 

The DSJC is  an  EU  initiative  bringing  together  Member  States, 
companies,  social  partners,  non-profit  organisations  and  education 
providers,  who  work  to  address  the  lack  of  digital  skills  in  Europe. 
DSJP is the platform where members meet, exchange and keep up to 
date with European initiatives and policy actions on digital skills540. 

Digital transition/  
transformation  

Digital well-being 

Disinformation/misinfo
rmation 

Educational 
Technology (EdTech)  

to  digital 

The terms are often used as synonymous. However, digital transition 
(digitisation)  refers  to  the  conversion  of  information  or  data  from 
analogue 
transformation 
(digitalisation)  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 
society541.  

format,  whereas  digital 

Digital  well-being  refers  to  the  overall  well-being  in  digital 
environments,  with  the  aim  to  safeguard  and  ensure  a  culture  of  a 
meaningful and ethical use of digital tools with a view to ensure that 
technology is used in a positive way and also with the aim to act safely 
and responsibly in digital environments542. 

Disinformation  is  verifiably  false  or  misleading  information  that  is 
created,  presented,  and  disseminated  for  economic  gain  or  to 
intentionally  deceive  the  public.  Misinformation  is  verifiably  false 
information that is spread without the intention to mislead, and often 
shared because the user believes it to be true543.  

The industry that combines education and technological advances as 
well  as  the  scientific  field,  which  involves  the  interdisciplinary 
knowledge  informing  the  use  of  digital  tools  and  devices,  processes 
and  procedures,  resources  and  strategies  to  improve  learning 
experiences in a variety of learning settings544. 

Education and Training 
Monitor 

A comparative report that presents the European Commission’s annual 
analysis  of  how  education  and  training  systems  evolve  across  the 
EU545. 

Enabling Factors 

EU Code Week  

The  term  is  used  to  reference  elements  that  are  necessary  for  the 
development of a high-performing and inclusive digital education and 
training ecosystem that serves the needs of all learners. They include 
elements  of  technological  capacity,  human  resources,  as  well  as 
strategies and policies. 

Initiative  supported  by  the  European  Commission  that  encourages 
citizens (students, teachers, young adults, parents, etc.) to learn about 
technology and coding546. 

540 Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition I Digital Skills and Jobs Platform (europa.eu) 
541 OECD (2017). Going Digital: Making the Transformation Work for Growth and Well-Being. Paris: OECD publishing. 
542 Council conclusions on supporting well-being in digital education, 2022 O.J. (C 469/04) 
543 European Commission (2022). Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital 
literacy through education and training. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  
544 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. 
545 European and Training Monitor 
546 Europe Code Week 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Formal, non-formal 
and informal education      

Formal  education  is  education  that  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 support547. 

Educational  approach  where  students  can  choose  how  to  attend  a 
specific class or learning opportunity, either in-person. Educators teach 
remote and in-person students at the same time using tools like video 
conferencing hardware and software548. 

Professionals  that  deal  with  developing,  operating  and  maintaining 
information technology systems549. A narrower definition include only 
those  whose  jobs  solely  concern  ICTs  (programmers,  software 
engineers, etc.)550. 

Hybrid learning 

ICT specialist 

Individual learning 
accounts 

Virtual individual accounts in which training rights are accumulated 
over  time  They  can  be  used  for  further  training,  guidance  or 
validation551. 

Informatics/computer 
science 

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 society552.  

Information and 
Communication 
Technology (ICT)      

Interoperability 

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 telephony553. 

include  computers, 

internet, 

the 

The ability of two or more distinct systems or components to exchange 
information  and  to  use  the  information  that  has  been  exchanged 
seamlessly, securely and in a controlled manner554. 

547 Erasmus + Programme Guide (2020). Annex III- Glossary of terms. 
548 E-learning industry (2022). Hybrid learning in education. Available: https://elearningindustry.com/hybrid-learning-in-
education 
549 Eurostat (2022): Statistic explained - Eurostat (europa.eu): ICT specialists in employment. 
550 OECD (2004). OECD Information Technology Outlook. Paris: OECD publications 
551 Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on individual learning accounts - 2022/C 243/03    
552 CECE (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the Same Boat?  
553 UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020). Glossary. 
554 Bates DW, Samal L. (2018). Interoperability: What Is It, How Can We Make It Work for Clinicians, and How Should We 
Measure It in the Future? Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct;53(5):3270-3277. 

203 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
International Standard 
Classification of 
Education (ISCED) 

Learning analytics 

Learning Management 
System (LMS) 

Learning outcomes 
(including learning 
objectives) 

Lifelong learning 

Metaverse 

Micro-credentials 

A statistical framework for organising 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 level555. 

The  measurement,  collection,  analysis  and  reporting  of  data  about 
learners  and  their  contexts,  for  purposes  of  understanding  and 
optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs556.  

A  web-based  software  platform  made  for  delivering,  tracking  and 
managing  online  and  blended  learning.  Its  main  features  allow 
handling all aspects  of the learning process  beyond content delivery 
(e.g. course management, learners’ enrolment, online activity tracking, 
etc.)557. 

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 levels, while 
learning objectives define the competences to be developed in general 
terms558. 

All  activities  undertaken  throughout  life,  with  the  aim  of  improving 
knowledge, skills  and competences  for personal,  civic, social and/or 
professional reasons559. It covers education and training across all ages 
and in all areas of life - be it formal, non-formal or informal560.  

A  conceptual  term  that  captures  a  mix  of  virtual  reality  and  other 
technologies.  It  is  a  world  of  interconnected  physical  and  virtual 
communities  where  users  can  develop  professionally,  socialise, 
entertain, commerce and trade with virtual properties561. 

The  record  of  the  learning  outcomes  that  a  learner  has  acquired 
following a small volume of learning. Learning experiences leading to 
micro-credentials  are  designed  to  provide  the  learner  with  specific 
knowledge, skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, 
and cultural or labour market needs. Micro-credentials can be used to 
complement  and  enhance  education,  training,  lifelong  learning  and 
employability ecosystems562. 

555 UNESCO (2011). International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 2011.  
556 Joint Research Center (2016). Research Evidence on the Use of Learning Analytics - Implications for Education Policy. 
Hilbig R., Renz A., Schildhauer T. (2019). Data Analytics: The Future of Innovative Teaching and Learning 
557 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.  
558 European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
559 CEDEFOP (2003). Quality in education and training. Glossary. Paris: OECD publishing.  
560 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon available at http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/ 
561 O’Brien, M. & Chan, K. (2021). Explainer: What is the metaverse and how will it work? Los Angeles Times.  
562 Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability.  

204 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Online learning           

Also known as ICT-based learning, virtual learning and e-learning, the 
term indicates a methodology involving the use of ICTs to support both 
teaching and learning563. 

Play-based Learning 

Pedagogical  approaches  where  children  can  explore,  experiment, 
discover, and solve problems in imaginative and playful way564. 

Reality: Augmented  
(AR) - Virtual (VR) - 
Mixed (MR) – 
Extended (XR) 

AR  is  an  interactive  experience  where  real-world  environments  and 
objects  are  supplemented  by  computer-generated  3D  models  and 
animated sequences, which are displayed as if they are in a real-world 
environment565.  

VR  is  a  computer-generated  scenario  that  simulates  a  real-world 
experience  that  can  be  experienced  by  using  special  electronic 
equipment, such as a VR headset or gloves fitted with sensors.  

MR features elements of both AR and VR. Its key characteristic is that 
the objects and content from both the virtual and real-world are able to 
react to each other in real time566.  

XR is  a catch-all term  for Virtual  Reality  (VR), Augmented Reality 
(AR) and Mixed Reality (MR)567. 

Method  of  delivery,  which  involves  teaching  and  learning  activities 
where educators and learners are not physically present in one location 
at the same time. Learning happens instead away from the physical site 
of an educational provider with educators and learners using different 
means to engage with a programme, course or educational activity568. 

Remote or distance 
education 

Student information 
system 

A software that enables education and training institutions to digitize 
and  consequently  manage  student  information  more  efficiently, 
including but not limited to grades, attendance records, and more569. 

Technological 
sovereignty 

The  ability  of  a  country  (or  a  group  of  countries)  to  generate 
autonomously  technological  and  scientific  knowledge  or  to  use 
technological  capabilities  developed  outside  by  using  reliable 
partnerships570. 

Unplugged Digital 
Education Activities 

Educational  activities  that  promote  the  development  of  digital  skills 
without using digital devices571. 

563 Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon, available at http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon / 
564 Parker, R., Thomsen, B. S., & Berry, A. (2022). Learning Through Play at School: A Framework for Policy and Practice. 
565 European Commission (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence and data in teaching and learning for 
educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  
566 European Commission (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence and data in teaching and learning for 
educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  
567 ECORYS (2021). XR and its potential for Europe. Available at https://xreuropepotential.com/assets/pdf/ecorys-xr-2021-
report.pdf 
568 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  
569 EDUCASE (2022). Student Information Systems.  
570 Crespi F., Caravella S., Menghini M., Salvatori C. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An emerging framework 
for policy strategy. Intereconomics, 56(6), 348-354. 
571 Poulakis, E., & Politis, P. (2020). Teaching Computational Thinking Unplugged: A Review of Tools and 
Methodologies. Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education, 200-236. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Virtual 
administration/manage
ment system  

Web-based software that interfaces with virtual environments and the 
underlying  physical  hardware  to  simplify  resource  administration, 
enhance data analyses, and streamline operations572.  

Upskilling/reskilling 

Virtual Learning 
Environment (VLE)  

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 
activities573. 

A learning situation that is supported by Internet-enabled technologies 
to  provide  virtual  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 students574. 

572 Sutherland L., Janene-Nelson K. et al. (2018). Work Together Anywhere: A Handbook on Working Remotely Successfully 
for Individuals, Teams, and Managers. 
573 CEDEFOP (2008). Terminology of European education and training policy. A selection of 100 key terms. 
574  Spector J. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications. 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
List of abbreviations and acronyms 

  ACVT - Advisory Committee on Vocational Training  
  AI – Artificial Intelligence 
  AMS - Administrative Management Systems 
  AR – Augmented Reality 
  AT - Assistive Technologies 
  CAD - Computer-Aided Design  
  CAM - Computer-Aided Manufacturing 
  CDP - Continuous Professional Development 
  CfE - Call for Evidence 
  CR - Council Recommendation 
  DELTA - Working Group on Digital Education: Learning Teaching and Assessment 
  DESI - Digital Economy and Society Index  
  DG CNECT - Directorate-General Communications Networks, Content and 

Technology 

ICILS - International Computer and Information Literacy Study  
ICT - Information and Communication Technology 
ISCED - International Standard Classification of Education 
ITE - Initial Teacher Education  
IVET - Initial Vocational Education and Training 

  DG EAC - Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture  
  DG EMPL - Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
  DGVT - Directors General for Vocational Training  
  DSJC - Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition 
  DSJP - Digital Skills and Jobs Platform 
  ECEC - Early Childhood Education and Care 
  EQAVET - European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training 
  GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation 
 
 
 
 
 
  JRC - Joint Research Centre 
  KPIs - Key Performance Indicators 
  LMS - Learning Management Systems 
  MR – Mixed Reality 
  OPC - Open Public Consultation   
  PIAAC- Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies 
  PISA – Programme for International Student Assessment 
  SMEs- Small and Medium Enterprises 
  TALIS - Teaching and Learning International Survey  
  TSI - Technical Support Instrument 
  VET - Vocational Education and Training 
  VLE - Virtual Learning Environment 
  VR – Virtual Reality 
  XR – Extended Reality 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: LITERATURE AND SOURCES 
The  present  Annex  presents  recent  research  reports  and  literature  on  digital  education  and 
skills. The full list of resources used to write the Staff Working Document is provided in the 
document’s footnotes.  

Beblavý M., Bačová B. (2022). Literature review on the provision of digital skills for adults. 
EENEE report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Bejaković P., Mrnjavac Ž. (2020). The importance of digital literacy on the labour market. 
Employee Relations: The International Journal. 

Ben Youssef A., Dahmani M., Ragni L. (2022). ICT use, digital skills and students’ academic 
performance: Exploring the digital divide. Information, 13(3), 129. 

Bocconi S., Chioccariello A., Kampylis P., Dagienė V., Wastiau P., Engelhardt K., Earp J., 
Horvath M.A., Jasutė E., Malagoli C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė V., Stupurienė G. (2022). 
Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

Boeren E., Roumell E.A., Roessger K.M. (2020). COVID-19 and the future of adult 
education: An editorial. Adult Education Quarterly, 70, 3. 

Cachia, R., Velicu, A., Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R. and Vuorikari, R. (2021). Emergency 
remote schooling during COVID-19, EUR 30866 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 

Castaño Muñoz, J., Pokropek A. and Weikert García L. (2022). For to all those who have, 
will more be given? Evidence from the adoption of the SELFIE tool for the digital capacity of 
schools in Spain. 

Cateté V., Alvarez L., Isvik A., Milliken A., Hill M., Barnes T. (2020). Aligning Theory and 
Practice in Teacher Professional Development for Computer Science. Proceedings of the 20th 
Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '20). 
New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 

CEDEFOP (2022). Teachers and trainers in a changing world: building up competences for 
inclusive, green and digitalised vocational education and training (VET): synthesis report. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

CEDEFOP (2022). Evidence supporting the upcoming proposal for a Council 
Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training. Draft 
working paper. 

CEDEFOP (2021). Digital skills: challenges and opportunities during the pandemic. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

CEDEFOP (2020). Empowering adults through upskilling and reskilling pathways. Volume 
1: adult population with potential for upskilling and reskilling. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
CEDEFOP (2020). Key competences in initial vocational education and training: digital, 
multilingual and literacy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

CEDEFOP (2020). Challenging digital myths: first findings from Cedefop’s second European 
skills and jobs survey. Policy brief. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. 

Centeno C., Karpinski Z., Urzi Brancati C. (2022).  Supporting policies addressing the digital 
skills gap. Identifying priority groups in the context of employment. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

Clancy S., Studená I., Vatrella S. (2020). The Upskilling Pathway. In Europe's Lifelong 
Learning Markets, Governance and Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Codagnone, C., Liva, G., Gunderson, L., Misuraca, G., Rebesco, E., (2021). Europe’s Digital 
Decade and Autonomy. Luxembourg: European Parliament. 

Costa, P., Castaño-Muñoz, J. and Kampylis P. (2021), Capturing schools’ digital capacity: 
Psychometric analyses of the SELFIE self-reflection tool. 

Di Pietro G., Karpiński Z. (2021). Covid-19 and online adult learning. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

Di Pietro G., Biagi, F., Dinis Mota Da Costa P., Karpinski Z. Mazza, J. (2020). The likely 
impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent 
international datasets. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Dimitrova A. (2021). COVID-19 showed us that adapting education and training to the 
digital age is a task for the whole society. TheMayor.eu.   

Engelhardt K. (2021). The future of school beyond COVID-19, 2020-21. Brussels: European 
Schoolnet. 

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. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, (2022). Inclusive Digital 
Education. Odense: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2022). Informatics education at school in Europe. 
Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

European Commission (2022) Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling 
disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

European Commission (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence and data 
in teaching and learning for educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. 

European Commission (2020). Innovation & digitalisation: a report of the ET 2020 Working 
Group on Vocational Education and Training (VET): EIGHT insights for pioneering new 
approaches. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

209 

 
 
 
 
European Commission (2022) Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 - Digital 
Infrastructure. 

European Commission (2022). Investing in our future: quality investment in education and 
training, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  

European Commission (2022). Education and Training Monitor 2022. Comparative report. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

European Commission (2021). Enhancing Learning through Digital Tools and Practices: 
How Digital Technology in Compulsory Education Can Help Promote Inclusion. 

European Commission (2020). Workforce skills and innovation diffusion: trends and policy 
implications. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T. Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for Life in 
a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International 
Report. Amsterdam: Springer International Publishing. 

Gaebel M., Zhang T., Stoeber H., Morrisroe A. (2021). Digitally enhanced learning and 
teaching in European higher education institutions. Survey report. 

Ganimian A., Vegas E., Hess F. (2020). Realizing the Promise: How Can Education 
Technology Improve Learning for All? Washington: The Brookings Institution. 

Gierten, D., Lesher, M. (2022), Assessing National Digital Strategies and their Governance, 
OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 234, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

Hillman V. (2022). Bringing in the technological, ethical, educational and social-structural 
for a new education data governance. Learning, Media and Technology. 

International Telecommunications Union (2020) Digital Skills Assessment Guidebook. 

Informatics for All coalition (2022) Informatics reference framework for school. 

Kardefelt-Winther D., Day E., Berman G., Witting S.K., Bose, A. (2020). Encryption, 
Privacy and Children’s Right to Protection from Harm. Innocenti Working Paper 2020-14. 
Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. 

Karpiński, Z., Biagi, F., & G. Di Pietro (2021). Computational thinking, socioeconomic gaps, 
and policy implications. IEA Compass: Briefs in Education No. 12. Amsterdam: IEA. 

Lockee, B.B. (2021). Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics, 4, 1. 

Martin F., Polly D., Coles S., Wang C. (2020). Examining higher education faculty use of 
current digital technologies: importance, competence, and motivation. 

Minea-Pic A. (2020). Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies, 
OECD Education Working Papers, No. 237, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2023/forthcoming). Shaping the future of digital education: enabling factors for 
quality, equity and efficiency. Paris: OECD. 

210 

 
 
 
 
OECD (2021) Teachers and Leaders in Vocational Education and Training, OECD Reviews 
of Vocational Education and Training. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2021) OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial 
Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

OECD (2021) Adult learning and COVID-19: how much informal and non-formal learning 
are workers missing? Paris: OECD Publishing 

OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. In 
PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.  

OECD (2020). Digital strategies in education - Exploring education policies on digital 
technologies. Paris: OECD Publishing 

OECD (2020). Protecting children online: An overview of recent developments in legal 
frameworks and policies. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 295, Paris: OECD Publishing. 

Pellegrini M., Vivanet, G. (2021). Evidence-Based Policies in Education: Initiatives and 
Challenges in Europe. ECNU Review of Education, 4(1): 25–45. 

Pouliakas K., Wruuck I.P. (2022). Corporate training and skill gaps. Did Covid-19 stem EU 
convergence in training investments? European Investment Bank – Working papers 2022/07. 

Righi R., Lopez Cobo M., Papazoglou M., Samoili S., Cardona M., Vazquez-Prada Baillet 
M., De Prato G. (2022). Academic Offer of Advanced Digital Skills in 2020-21. International 
Comparison, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Ruohonen, J. and Hjerppe, K. (2022). The GDPR enforcement fines at glance, Information 
Systems, 106, 101876. 

Sanchis-Guarner, R., Montalbán, J., & Weinhardt, F. (2021). Home Broadband and Human 
Capital Formation. SSRN Electronic Journal.  

Schleicher A. (2020). TALIS 2018, Insights and interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing 

School Education Gateway (2020). Survey on online and distance learning – Results, 
Available at https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/viewpoints/surveys/survey-on-
online-teaching.htm  

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. 

Stovell, C., Lionello, L., Rossetti, F., Charafeddine, R., Nugent, S., Still, A.,Tanwar & J., 
Tzanakou, C. (2022) RESISTIRE D3.2 - Summary report on mapping quantitative indicators 
– cycle 2. Zenodo. 

Ulferts, H. (ed.) (2021). Teaching as a Knowledge Profession: Studying Pedagogical 
Knowledge across Education Systems. Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD 
Publishing. 

211 

 
 
 
 
UNICEF (2020). What have we learnt? Overview of findings from a survey of ministries of 
education on national responses to COVID-19. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization 

UNESCO (2022). Guidelines for ICT in education policies and masterplans. Paris: UNESCO. 

UNESCO (2020). The digital transformation of education: connecting schools, empowering 
learners. Geneva: Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. 

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2022). Smart Education Technology: How It Might Transform Teaching 
(and Learning). New England Journal of Public Policy: 34(1): 5. 

Van der Vlies, R. (2020). Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring 
education policies on digital technologies. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 226, Paris: 
OECD Publishing. 

Vuorikari R., Kluzer S., Punie Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework 
for Citizens - With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: 
digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, 
Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. 

212