Innovation through the implementation of technology in the context of school education: a systematic review

Publication year

The year with most studies within our search is 2020, with a total of seven. This is closely followed by six studies in both 2017 and 2019, demonstrating some balance in distribution over the five-year period of analysis. What really stands out is the publication of only two studies in 2022, which could be an effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, when schools may have been less able to invest in innovative approaches beyond emergency resources (Ulla and Perales, 2021). The identification of two articles originating from the same project is noteworthy (Genlott et al., 2019, 2021). Since these articles comprise different methodological approaches and involve different study participants, they were acknowledged as two studies and not two reports of a single study (Page et al., 2021). Table 2 presents a description of all studies included in our review.

Geography of studies

Regarding the country where the studies were conducted, Spain has a clear lead, with a total of six articles. Studies involving Spanish schools are varied in nature, including discussion about integration of ICT (Romeu-Fontanillas et al., 2020) and the problematisation of organisational cultures in schools (Baldoví and Alonso, 2020). This lead seems to be related to a vast implementation of regional/national policies in the country aimed at strengthening the digital dimension of teaching practices (Llorent-Vaquero et al., 2023; Prieto, 2016). Singapore (n = 4), the USA (n = 3) and the UK (n = 3) follow closely. In the case of one record, schools from Singapore and the USA are addressed simultaneously by a cross-country study comparing the evolution of innovative initiatives (Hatch et al., 2022). Similarly, schools in the UK are targeted by a quantitative study focused on the sustainability of innovation in digitally enhanced schools involving 12 other countries (Jeladze and Pata, 2018). Then, there is broad dispersion across countries and regions, suggesting that the approach to educational innovation through technology resources is a worldwide issue. Schools from different continents are addressed, with studies taking place in Brazil, Estonia, India and Australia, for example. A full report of countries is available in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Geographical location where studies were conducted 

Innovation as quality education

Studies involving innovation as quality education are generally concerned with enhancement of students’ achievements, and to a greater extent discuss notions of school improvement (for example, Crawford, 2017), meaningful learning (for example, Martínez, 2019) and teacher effectiveness (for example, Sias et al., 2017). As Nicolete et al. (2017) state, we are now living in new circumstances that demand that new teaching methodologies be found to connect to the environment shaping the landscape outside schools, and there is, therefore, a consistent turn to different emerging technologies. Crawford (2017) exploits the concept of Web 2.0 and its incorporation into formal education, which the author refers to as School 2.0, for instance.

Creativity is referred to as a key factor when innovation is aligned with the broad goal of improving education quality (Hutchison et al., 2020). In this sense, active methodologies acquire centrality in pedagogical practices due to their potential to globally foster the participation of those involved in teaching/learning activities (for example, Santos and Moura, 2021; Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021). By enabling such practices, learning results are considered to be more meaningful (for example, Wang et al., 2019). Yet added responsibility is placed on teachers, who should be prepared to cultivate their students’ motivation to learn (Pérez and Garcia, 2019). When committed to innovation, teachers become vectors of further innovative action (Romeu-Fontanillas et al., 2020). Much of the rationale in this theme concerns the idea that learners are not simply consumers of ICT, but creative producers of related artefacts, and therefore of their own learning and cultural expression (Charania et al., 2021).

Innovation as change

The rationale of innovation as change considers in depth how the school culture works, focusing on the relationship of the different actors involved (Hung et al., 2017) and embracing the importance of context and history as important elements for the process of transformation (Skaftun et al., 2018). Therefore, the particularities of location are examined and assessed as pivotal in understanding the processes of change (Blanco-García et al., 2018). For the studies which take this perspective, quality education is obviously also understood as an end to achieve (Baldoví and Alonso, 2020), although their conception of innovation revolves more strongly around the idea of change. It is thus important to state that the different rationales proposed in this analysis are closely connected. Studies are placed into one subcategory or another according to the weight attributed to the elements that support each rationale.

Considering innovation as processes of change means that the complexity of environments in which education operates (Jeladze and Pata, 2018) and the role technology plays need to be acknowledged, prompting the emergence of new practices and approaches in terms of teaching and learning (for example, Laya et al., 2020). This happens regardless of the fact that what matters is how pedagogy is shaped rather than the instruments it incorporates (Cranmer and Lewin, 2017). Within this topic, the issue of educational reforms as a catalyst for change is raised (Baldoví and Alonso, 2020) in light of the incorporated means of operation, that is, action on a continuum from an empirical rationale to coercive-power strategies (Thumlert et al., 2018). The various modus operandi of change imply differences in the way practices are transformed; the diffusion of innovation can be perceived as a process of becoming in the context of lateral and vertical moves (Hung et al., 2017).

Successful innovation in the dimension of change is rooted in deep reflection on beliefs and practices (Thumlert et al., 2018), with professional identity being altered (Baldoví and Alonso, 2020), including that of leadership (Laya et al., 2020). The nature of innovation is context-oriented, although dialogically related to global history, and contained within a timescale that is likewise locally experienced (Skaftun et al., 2018) and presupposes a movement of becoming for which the character of the transition is forged among subjects, rather than aimed at them or their relationships (Hung et al., 2017). Adaptation is a key feature of the process (Jeladze and Pata, 2018), with innovation being understood not as a product, but as a new way to do things (Laya et al., 2020). This is why pedagogies are seen as fundamental for sustainable innovation (Cranmer and Lewin, 2017).

Innovation as sustainability

A group of six other studies approach innovation as sustainability, problematising aspects of scale, diffusion and transformation of practices. They are strongly informed by Rogers’s (2003) diffusion of innovation theory and they highlight aspects concerning the characteristics of innovation (Genlott et al., 2021) and the complexity involved in the adoption of new teaching and learning practices (for example, Law and Liang, 2019), as well as discussing how agendas mediate the incorporation and scaling of innovation (Leoste et al., 2020). According to Leoste et al. (2020), introducing technological innovations in education requires novel teaching and learning practices, which can only be achieved if teachers show readiness to implement technology-enhanced learning. Only then does the issue of sustainability emerge, a dimension which has been less targeted by research (Clark-Wilson and Hoyles, 2019).

On the grounds of sustainability, Genlott et al. (2019) recall that innovations are not necessarily fixed entities, but proposals for change that are susceptible to evolving and transforming in related processes of diffusion. Accordingly, Law and Liang (2019) add that the plastic nature of innovation is somehow shaped by the pedagogical practices of teachers and is ultimately the result of teachers’ engagement in processes such as technology-enhanced pedagogical innovation. This means that human agency is at the core of technological transitions (Law and Liang, 2019). The locale, as observed in the rationale of innovation as change, plays a special role in the way in which novelty is translated. In this regard, Tan and Hung (2020) affirm that schools adapt innovation given their needs and contexts (agendas), investing in a theoretical framework that reveals language as having multiple, contested meanings, while sustaining the diverse character of innovation.

The processes of scaling and diffusion in innovation must be considered in light of the different powers guiding the agendas, with the assumption that more common models of scaling work as top-down cascades (Clark-Wilson and Hoyles, 2019), a trend which some of the practices discussed in these studies seem to contradict. Conditions for scaling up innovation are mentioned, with consideration given to aspects such as change in work processes, investment in technical devices and the need for applied leadership (Genlott et al., 2021). While Tan and Hung (2020) point out that scaling innovations involve different levels of education – micro (teachers), meso (school) and macro (structural) – Law and Liang (2019) corroborate the fact that methodologies which favour the active engagement of all stakeholders who are part of teaching and learning activities can increase the challenge of achieving innovation effectiveness.

Innovation as technology

Finally, a set of three studies focus on innovation as technology, meaning that they conceive novelty as resulting from the direct implementation of technology in educational practices. There is a recognised divide in the use of technology in school, justified by a sense of students’ intense exposure to digital devices (Vaughan and Beers, 2017). Nevertheless, digital technologies, such as tablets, are understood in these studies as tools to foster meaningful learning environments and potentially restructure traditional teaching styles (Baltodano-Enríquez, 2018). This literature is sensitive to an over-problematisation of technology as tools. It places ICT as mechanisms which are useful for transforming social practices, with schools having an important role in promoting change regarding these experiences (Jiménez-Becerra and Segovia-Cifuentes, 2020). The general rationale seems to revolve around professional development as being purposefully focused on the resource of targeted tools, thus moving beyond simply envisioning change in pedagogy (Vaughan and Beers, 2017).

Context of activities

The targeted interventions or research projects carried out are plural in character, with a range of initiatives or research, from small-scale action focused on one school only (for example, Pérez and Garcia, 2019) to transnational projects involving more than 10 countries (Cranmer and Lewin, 2017). Moreover, studies were identified for which the innovative projects under analysis encompassed more than one initiative (Hung et al., 2017), with a few instances of a cross-country perspective (for example, Hatch et al., 2022). In one very specific case, the innovation investigated was enabled by a central actor, the teacher, as they were recognised as outstanding (Romeu-Fontanillas et al., 2020).

Most of the innovation initiatives targeted by the studies included in our review involved practices in more than one school setting (n = 24), either at the municipal level (for example, Skaftun et al., 2018) or the regional/national level (for example, Jiménez-Becerra and Segovia-Cifuentes, 2020). This means that only four studies were based on a single school, with a notable common interest in innovation – implementing technology in order to enhance student outcomes (for example, Santos and Moura, 2021).

Regarding the (content) area of projects/research under focus, primary education seems to be the preferred field for experimentation (n = 8). Interventions often include embedding technology into pedagogical strategies, especially ICT, under the assumption that it can transform practices and improve student outcomes. There are actions which target specific content learning, such as literacy (for example, Genlott et al., 2021), while other projects approached cross-disciplinary learning involving, for example, English, literacy, ICT, and critical and creative thinking (Hutchison et al., 2020).

Attention across disciplines is also at the core of identified innovative projects that take place during basic education (primary and lower secondary education, that is, ISCED 1 and 2) (n = 7). In this case, a number of tools and strategies are set up: implementation of a 1:1 iPad to transform learning of Grades 4 through 8 via new pedagogical practices (Thumlert et al., 2018); the inception of a network of schools whose educational activities include programming and robotics in teaching practices (Laya et al., 2020); and professional development focused on leveraging innovation by showcasing ongoing practices (Sias et al., 2017), among others.

Four studies report on research centred on action involving both basic and secondary education (ISCED 1, 2 and 3). They share analysis of innovation deriving from external programmes, meaning that the authors were not directly involved in any of the projects or interventions, which may explain the broad cross-level approach. Two of these studies analyse initiatives with the purpose of reflecting on possible new school models, while being focused on processes of replication and scaling of innovation (Hatch et al., 2022; Tan and Hung, 2020), although the reason for change seems to be the focus for one of them (Hatch et al., 2022). Likewise, Law and Liang (2019), after exploring the character of change in fostering innovative educational action for a network of 10 special education schools, concentrate on the identification of regime-level changes to examine insights concerning the scalability of technology-enhanced learning innovations. Finally, Jeladze and Pata’s (2018) work thoroughly explores the response of school leaders, teachers and students from 13 countries to improvements needed regarding the use of technologies for teaching and learning.

When specific disciplines are at the core of explored innovation projects, mathematics stands out, with three instances (for example, Nicolete et al., 2017). Action centred on content is driven by the purpose of transforming learning into something more meaningful with the mediation of technology. Different projects foresee the relevance of collaborative work, with teachers’ professional development being a central aim for successful and sustainable initiatives. Other discipline-oriented innovation action involves the teaching of Portuguese (Santos and Moura, 2021), music (Crawford, 2017), history (Pérez and Garcia, 2019) and physical education (Martínez, 2019). They all consistently rely on a view of innovation as quality education, whereby these actions aim to improve the overall school culture. A full description of the projects/research area of the interventions (content area, or level of education, if referring to multiple disciplines) is given in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Projects/research area of intervention 

Technological tools used in activities

An analysis of the technological component underpinning innovation interventions in schools within the included studies reveals a generalist discourse around ICT (n = 13). Studies tend to corroborate ICT as a tool that enables (for example, Cranmer and Lewin, 2017), assists (for example, Skaftun et al., 2018) and, less frequently, fully integrates strategies that nurture change in learning environments (for example, Baltodano-Enríquez, 2018). Together, they reaffirm the role of technology as a pedagogical means rather than an end. These studies value the way technology can promote personalised education (Hatch et al., 2022) and insist on the potential of participatory or active methodologies (Pérez and Garcia, 2019), while acknowledging that innovation comes up against a level of resistance to change (Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021) and that success requires a context-oriented adaptation (Tan and Hung, 2020).

Digital technology is the preferred discourse of another seven cases, the reasoning of which is not dissimilar to the general reports mentioning ICT. Digital technologies are also tackled regarding their potential for personalised and student-centred approaches (Law and Liang, 2019; Skaftun et al., 2018); time is understood as a necessary component in the assimilation of innovation (Vaughan and Beers, 2017); and professional development remains as a full dimension (Clark-Wilson and Hoyles, 2019), impacting the possibility of rethinking pedagogy to enable effective integration of technology (Genlott et al., 2019, 2021).

The remaining 10 studies reference technology by way of mobile devices (n = 3) (for example, Hung et al., 2017), with another two specifying the use of iPads (for example, Vaughan and Beers, 2017). Robotics (Laya et al., 2020; Leoste et al., 2020) is the core of innovation of two other studies. Finally, one study reports on technology in a broad sense (Sias et al., 2017), one discusses Web 2.0 technologies (Crawford, 2017) and a final case annotates a strategy rather than a tool – the escape room, as in gamification learning (Santos and Moura, 2021). A full view of the core reference of technology in the studies is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Technology core reference in the reviewed studies 

Technology-led innovation: a word on drivers

The studies covered in this systematic review suggest three key drivers of innovation via the implementation of technology: leadership, support networks and professional development.

The debate on leadership is a central one, and it has distinct aspects in light of the interventions under focus. According to Genlott et al. (2021), when innovation is at stake, sustained leadership requires going beyond individuals’ leadership skills to create and nurture shared goals throughout developmental processes (see also Ortega-Rodríguez and Estrada, 2022). Top management needs to be motivated (Genlott et al., 2019) and confident in the quality of the adopted methods, and must commit to all stages of implementation (Genlott et al., 2021; Law and Liang, 2019). Wang et al. (2019) call attention to leadership playing a role, not only concerning the provision of resources, but also providing room for experimentation, considering issues of time and teachers’ autonomy. Finally, Hung et al. (2017) associate the diffusion of innovation with the identity projected by a particular innovation and the leaders in charge of it, who, together with teachers, are responsible for enacting it.

Support networks make up another distinct aspect of sustainable innovation. These networks are depicted as groups with whom teachers can discuss ongoing practices, exchange ideas and obtain feedback and support, both in terms of pedagogy and technical issues (for example, Leoste et al., 2020; Thumlert et al., 2018). These networks are forged within working groups, and they include key figures such as the school’s technologist (Leoste et al., 2020), initiative champions (Thumlert et al., 2018) or ultimately other teachers, who together engage in movements of collegiality, sharing experiences (Vaughan and Beers, 2017) and safe spaces for experimentation (Tan and Hung, 2020). These networks support professional development, which is believed to favour teachers’ engagement in innovative practices, through building agency and competences (for example, Wang et al., 2019). As Crawford (2017) puts it, the provision of professional development, such as continuing training, can help teachers increase their skills and confidence to apply changes in their work culture.

Technology-led innovation: a word on constraints and challenges

As regards constraints and challenges concerning the implementation of innovation in education, the core barrier concerns infrastructure issues. Poor internet connection (for example, Charania et al., 2021), insufficient devices (for example, Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021) and insufficient technological infrastructure (Hung et al., 2017; Nicolete et al., 2017) are some of the examples. Following this sense of precarity, a possible lack of expertise (technical and pedagogical) comprises yet another issue. Baltodano-Enríquez (2018) states that both teachers and students have a mismatch between their regular use of technology and its appropriation in learning, while Law and Liang (2019) mention participants having difficulty in solving emerging problems concerning the tools used in implementing innovation. Notwithstanding the technological dimension, there are reports of innovation being overdue because of pedagogical difficulties in applying student-centred approaches (Hatch et al., 2022), or in literally embedding technology into pedagogy (Wang et al., 2019).

Considering that innovation takes time, this is pointed out as another major dimension of challenge. Genlott et al. (2021) refer to teachers’ hesitation to join an innovation initiative due to being concerned about time/workload. The time-consuming aspect of transformation in teaching is also found in reports of teachers limiting experimentation in favour of faster testing (Leoste et al., 2020), and that without addressing a different distribution of activities in space and time, changing methodologies becomes harder (Blanco-García et al., 2018). The problem of time may even be extrapolated to the school environment when other agents, such as parents, are targeted to become more engaged in the learning processes too, with frustration arising in terms of participation (Hutchison et al., 2020).

Overall, the literature addressing innovation in schools via the implementation of technology seems to present a certain balance between first-order (tools infrastructure, technical support and so on) and second-order barriers (beliefs, pedagogical practices and so on) to integrating technology (Genlott et al., 2019). These barriers are felt differently in each context – as discussed, innovation is forged in situ (Hung et al., 2017). Being aware of their existence and variety might support further innovative intervention, with a contingency plan in place. Moreover, an awareness of global factors is critical to achieve innovation as desired. Rather than resistance to change (Sias et al., 2017), there is evidence that the meaningful transformation of practices involves apprehending how local change can be achieved without compromising systemic policies and pressures concerning curriculum and evaluation regulations (Blanco-García et al., 2018; Hatch et al., 2022; Hung et al., 2017; Thumlert et al., 2018). Without perceiving technology-led innovation as added value to quality education, it is very unlikely that teachers and other stakeholders will adhere to the paradigm of change, with all its nuances (Jiménez-Becerra and Segovia-Cifuentes, 2020; Leoste et al., 2020; Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021).