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    

Structured Dialogue with Member States on digital education and skills    

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

Findings from the Structured Dialogue concerning digital skills    

Part I: Enabling factors for digital education and training    

1. Enabling factors: an overview of terms and origins    

2. Capacity for digital education and training in European countries    

2.1. Digital education infrastructure    

Connectivity and digital equipment    

Digital education content, platforms and tools    

Digital divide    

2.2. Institutional and human capacity    

Institutional strategies, evaluation and support    

Leadership and non-teaching staff    

Teachers’ digital pedagogy skills    

3. Digital education policy    

3.1. Development and implementation    

Digital education and training strategies    

Coordination across sectors and levels of government    

Involvement of stakeholders    

Relationship with the private sector    

3.2. Monitoring and evaluation    

National level evidence    

EU-level evidence    

Part II: Digital skills and competences    

1. Digital skills: an overview of terms and concepts    

Digital skills and their relevance today    

Defining digital skills    

Digital skills and related terms    

Levels of digital skills    

2. Existing digital skills gaps    

2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU    

2.2 ICT specialists and emerging skills needs    

2.3 Further challenges to address    

3. Digital skills in education and training    

3.1 The provision of digital skills from early age to adults    

3.1.1 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)    

3.1.2 Primary and secondary education    

The cross-curricular approach    

Digital skills as part of a dedicated subject    

Digital skills within another subject    

Digital competence assessment and quality teaching    

3.1.3 Vocational education and training    

3.1.4 Higher education    

3.1.5 Adult learning    

3.2 The role of informatics    

Key competences and pedagogical approach    

Informatics in formal education    

Addressing the gender and representation gaps in informatics    

Teachers in Informatics    

3.3 Structural challenges and emerging needs    

Annex 1: Procedural information    

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report    

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

Annex 4: Glossary and list of abbreviations/acronyms    

Annex 5: Literature and sources    

Introduction

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

In 2020, the European Commission adopted the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 1 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 Area 2 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 Age 3 and Next Generation EU 4 (with its centrepiece the Recovery and Resilience Facility 5 ), 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 Agenda 6 , the European Social Pillar Action Plan 7  and the 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade 8 .

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.

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 Decade 9  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 Area 10 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 societies 11 , 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 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 development 12 . 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 Dialogue 13 , 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 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 below 14 , 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 resources to provide technical support and maintenance to schools, refurbishment/recycling, and in obtaining Finance Ministry support for investment in connectivity for schools).

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 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.

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 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).

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.

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 2021-2027 16 , 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 societies 17 . 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 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 skills 18 . 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 systems 19 . Connectivity can be a contributing factor to better learning outcomes 20 and especially in higher education it can prove beneficial in supporting online learning 21 . By extension, access to digital equipment and the internet constitute fundamental prerequisites towards the provision of effective and inclusive digital education 22 .

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 countries 23 . 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 of some students’ learning during the pandemic 24 . 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 two 26 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 connection 30 . 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 .

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

Source: 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education 33  

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 connection 34 , 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 respectively 35 . The availability of school computers with internet connection for teachers varies across countries 36 . 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 crisis 38 .

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 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 operational 39 . Additionally, PISA 2018 results on the level of adequacy of digital technologies at the schools of 15-year-old students as perceived by their principals 40 (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

Source: OECD analysis based on PISA 2018 41  

Raising the availability of digital infrastructure has been at the forefront of most digital strategies in OECD countries, including EU Member States 42 . For many countries in Europe investments in infrastructure constitute a specific objective of their digital education strategy 43 . The Structured Dialogue and the national recovery and resilience plans show 44 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 billion 45 is dedicated for investments in providing and enhancing their overall connectivity 46  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 point 48 . 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 provided 49 . 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 needs 50 .

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 personal digital devices through the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) strategy 51 . 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 institution 52 . 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 strategy 53 . Besides the provision of digital devices to students, catering for teachers’ access to digital equipment is also essential 54 , 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 upgrading 55 . 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 infrastructure 56 . 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 institutions 57 . 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 over 58 .

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 them 59 . 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 outcomes 60 .

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 students 61 . 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 needs 62 . 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.

Educational systems in Europe have developed policies towards the improvement of availability and development of digital learning resources 63 . 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 aspect 64 “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 practice 65 . 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 process 66 . The involvement of end-users in the design is thus a critical factor for the development of digital education resources that can potentially be impactful 67 .

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 common 68 . UNESCO’s report on the digital transformation of education 69 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 local EdTech providers should be involved in the identification of high-quality digital education content, enabling them to internalise quality and build on it 70 .

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 standards 71 . 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 data 73 , however its implementation has likely varied across Member States 74 . 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 rights 75   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 platforms 77 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 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 France 78 ) 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 standards 79 . 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 practices 80 .

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 schools 82 . 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 learners – was at risk of exclusion from distance learning 83 . This was also indicated by a study 84 based on EU data and conducted in the context of the RESISTIRÉ project 85 , 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 data 86   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 them 88 .

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 strategies 89 . 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 need 90 . 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 needs 91 . 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 Harmonised European Standards 92 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 opportunities 93 . User-adapted digital education resources can further facilitate the learning of vulnerable groups of learners 94 .

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 barriers 95 . 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’ learning 96 by making it more personalised and enhancing learners’ engagement 97 . 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 learning 98 . Moreover, the Commission is expanding the scope of the EU-funded Safer Internet Centres 99 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

Available evidence shows that infrastructural improvements are not always integrated and pedagogically used by schools across Europe 100 . 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 never 101 using a computer for learning 102 . 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 schools 103 . 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 practice 104 . A whole-school approach can therefore be considered essential towards promoting innovative teaching and learning practices 105 that can have a lasting impact 106 . 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 learning 107 . 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 incentives, such as funds for digital infrastructure 108 . More recent evidence 109 indicates that there has been no major change in such requirements in recent years 110 , 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 sectors 111 . 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 technologies 112 . 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 used 113 . 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 leadership 114 , 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 maturity 115 . 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 (DigComp 116 ), for schools (DigCompOrg 117 ) and one for educators (DigCompEdu 118 ). 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 level 119 .

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 process 120 . 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. SELFIE 122 ) or teachers (e.g. SELFIEforTEACHERS 123 ) 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 learning 124 . 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 school 125 . During the Structured Dialogue Member States raised concerns about the ability of schools and other educational institutions to meet GDPR 126 obligations (considering the large amounts of data that stand under the responsibility 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 Germany 127 or in France 128 . 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 education 129 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 process 130 . Teachers’ attitudes towards digital education constitute a significant indicator of the application of digital technologies in teaching and learning 131 . 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 training 132 . 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 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 leaders 133 . 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 learning 134 . Teachers’ feedback 135 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 schools 136 . 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 schools 137 .

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 schools 138 , while more recent data from the Education and Training Monitor 2022 139 show that in only 10 EU education systems appointing digital coordinators in schools constitutes a top-level requirement 140 . 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 hours 141 . The responsibilities of ICT coordinators vary across Member States and between schools of the same country, but usually they are responsible both for the provision of technical and pedagogical support in their school 142 . 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 process 143 and take advantage of their possibilities to transform and enrich their teaching 144 . 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 effectively 146 and develop “digital pedagogies” that support learning 147 . 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 teachers 148   149 . It is noteworthy that if not used appropriately, digital tools may even cause distraction to students, and thus negatively affect the teaching process 150 . To be able to deploy appropriate pedagogical strategies when using digital resources, teachers need to have sufficient Technological 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 learning 152 . 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 countries 154 . 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 schools 157 . 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 secondary VET teachers of six OECD countries and regions that provided available data 158 , 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 teachers 160 . 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 most 161 . 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 research 162 , implies that they have a low motivation to take part in relevant training 163 .

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 teachers 164 . 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 standards 165 . 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 graduating 166 . 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 development 167 . 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)

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.5.24 169 .

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 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 mandatory 171 , however the decision on the subject matter of the training usually lies with the schools 172 . 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 countries 173 . 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 take 174 .

Figure 5: Methods of supporting the continued development of teacher-specific digital competences, primary and general secondary education (ISCED 1-3), 2018/19 175

Source: Eurydice report (European Commission, 2019) 176

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 providers 177 . 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 online 178 . In most of the cases where digital competences form part of the teacher competence frameworks, educational systems promote their use, while also providing CPD opportunities 179 . 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 priority 180 . 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 academics 181 , 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 teaching 182 .

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’ learning 184 . 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 skills 187 .

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 tools 188 . It is noteworthy that even though digital technologies and platforms facilitate some elements of teachers’ work, navigation of the available resources and planning for lessons that embrace digital pedagogy requires time 189 . 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 years 190 . 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-Twinning 191 , 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 environment 193 . A proactive and pedagogically skilled leadership is essential for promoting a school culture that stimulates teacher collaboration and professional development 194 .

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 period of time usually have a low impact on educational outcomes 195   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 technologies 197 . 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 countries 198 . While the majority of EU countries had already included digital education elements in their policy orientations even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic 199 , 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 recently 200 . 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 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 aspects 201 , for example by focussing only on digital skills acquisition 202 . Such an approach largely restricts the scope of digital education, as the use of digital technologies has the potential to advance educational outcomes more broadly 203 .

Most commonly digital education strategies are not supported by concrete implementation plans 204 . 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 majority 205 .

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 objectives 206 . In the majority of OECD countries, more advanced digital technologies (e.g. AI, Blockchain, etc.) are rarely mentioned in digital education strategies 207 . 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 Cooperation and Development 208 and the European Training Foundation 209 . 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 levels 210 . 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 them 211 . In the 2022 EU Week of 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 policies 212 . In cases where digital education is included in broader digital strategies, allocation and coordination of responsibilities is likely to be more fragmented 213 . 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 policies 214 . 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 agency 215 .

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 sector 216 . 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 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 phases 217 . 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 stage 218 , 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 solutions should be assessed on the basis of humanistic values and educational needs 219 . Governments could boost quality assurance through the encouragement of collaboration between the education sector and education technology providers 220 . 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 dimension 221 and alignment of digital content to the real needs of learners and teachers 222 .

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 approaches 223 . 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 strategies 224 . 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.

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 countries 227 , 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 concern school education, while the majority of countries still find it difficult to monitor digitalisation of HEIs in a consistent way 228 .

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 entities 229 . Teachers’ use of digital technologies for example can be assessed through both internal and external evaluation practices 230 . However, according to the Education and Training Monitor 2022, external evaluations of schools do not usually include digital education criteria 231 . Only 13 232 out of the 23 233 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 WBL 235 ) or teachers (e.g. SELFIEforTEACHERS 236 ) 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. 

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 time 237 . Building an effective monitoring and evaluation framework for the digitalisation of education and training entails rigorous planning and long-term investment 238 , 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 evolving 239 . 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 indicators 240 .

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 Dialogue 241 . 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 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 infrastructure 242 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 infrastructure 243 . 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 level 244 . 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 data 245 . 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 capacity 246 . 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 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 institutions 248 , as well as through national and international cooperation platforms that facilitate exchange and better use of evidence 249 . 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 data 250 .

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.

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 Plan 254 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 Study 255 , 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 responsibly use and engage with digital technologies for learning, work, and participation in society 258 .

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 solving 259 . 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 ones 261 . 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 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 years 266 , 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 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 curricula 271 .

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 citizens 272 . While there are clear regulatory aspects to tackle disinformation 273 , 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 deepfake 275 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  

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 problems 277 . 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 evidence 278 ; collecting, analysing and representing data, decomposing problems 279 ; abstraction and debugging 280 . 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 ICT 282 .

In Eurostat, an example of an indicator for measuring digital skills is the Digital Skills Indicator 2.0 283 , 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.

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 task 286 . 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 emerging 287 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 play 288 .

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 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 show 290 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 EU 291 . Further 2030 goals 292 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

* 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 2018 297 .

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 gaps 299 .

Results from the public consultation run in preparation of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 300 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 skills 301 (Figure 7). Change over time has been limited. Between 2015 and 2019 (first and last year with available comparable data) the share of adults with basic digital skills increased by only 2 percentage points 302 .

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

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 2014-2019 303 (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.

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

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 them 304  . 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. Research 305 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 companies (i.e. a ratio three times lower) 306 . In this respect, a recent report 307 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 survey 308 show that 46% of the adult population in the EU lacks even basic digital skills 309 . This means that many workers use ICT every day at work without having the skills to do so effectively 310 , an element long considered to have a negative effect on workplace performance 311 . 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 technology 312 . 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 skills 313 .

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  

However, in 9 out of 14 Member States 315 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 level 317 in digital skills 318 .

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 poll 319 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

Source: ICILS 2018

At a young age, girls outperform boys in computer and information literacy 320 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 field 323 . However with age and at higher levels of education, girls tend to steer away from some STEM 324 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 countries 325 , in 2020 women represented only 18% of students enrolled in ICT studies and one in five ICT specialists 326 . Geographical and socioeconomic background, including migrant status and language spoken at home, are identified as having a statistically significant effect on students’ achievement 327 .

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 organisation 328 . 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 2019 329 reported that 53% of EU companies had difficulties filling vacancies for ICT 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 2022 330 .

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 260,000 331 and 500,000 332 , while studies estimate the Union’s needs at 883,000 professionals 333 . 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 rise 334 .

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 .

Figure 10: ICT specialists (% of work force)

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

Source: Eurostat 2021

The vast majority of ICT specialists in the EU are men (81%) confirming a trend that has been there for a decade 337 . Women’s underrepresentation occurs at all levels of the digital economy and has multifaceted roots. In cybersecurity, for example, women represent only 20% of cybersecurity graduates 338 . 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-field 339 .

Figure 12: Distribution of ICT specialists by sex

Source: Eurostat 2021

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 respectively 340 .

Figure 13: Women ICT specialists

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 specialists 341 , 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

Source: Eurostat 2021

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 education 343 - 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 employability 345 . The low number of ICT graduates and the growing number of ICT vacancies 346 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 2020 347 , and nearly 49 000 in post-secondary non-tertiary education 348 [Note: 885k enrolled in tertiary in the same field, of whom 91k in short cycle tertiary VET 349 ].

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 enterprises 351 . Despite a slow upward trend in training investments observed in recent years, supported by labour market recovery, differences across enterprises and countries persist 352 . 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 employees 353 .

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 stakeholders 354 , additional support is needed to target specific learning needs and specific priority groups 355 .

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 targets 357 . 

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 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 services 358 .

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 graduates 359 . However addressing the underlying causes of gender disparities in the digital and STEM fields requires targeted interventions early on, to raise awareness and interest 360 , provide role models and tackle gender stereotypes 361 .

In addition, the main findings of a recent study show that, despite the widespread use of the European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 362 , 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 collection 363 , 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.

As highlighted by the stakeholders consulted in preparation of this initiative 364 , 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.

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 tools 366 . 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 awareness 367 . 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 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 mediation 368 , 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 Dialogue 369 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 skills 370 . 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.

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 education 371 , 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 strategy 372 .

When looking at the provision, three main educational approaches currently exist 373 . 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 Europe 374 . 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 initiative 375 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 them 376  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 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.

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 consultation 378 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 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 assessment 379 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 achievement 380 . 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 level 381 . 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 capabilities 382 .

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 level 383 . Some countries never test digital competences, while others only assess them in secondary education. Despite the cross-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 students 384 .

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+ countries 385 adopted and started implementing policies to promote digital competence in initial VET (IVET) 386 , commenced in lower secondary education. The 2020 VET Council Recommendation 387 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 States 388 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 Declaration 389 , 18 EU-27+ countries cover reviewing and modernising VET standards, curricula, programmes and training courses in 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 education 391 . 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 subject 392 . 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 students 393 .

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.

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 targets 394 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 specific 395 . 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-institution 396 ) approach – making use of their whole educational and organisational structures – in adapting their offer to be both general and specialised 397 . 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 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

Source: Eurostat

As confirmed by the Structured Dialogue 401 , 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  

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 other 404 , 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 Europe 405 , 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 Plan 406 ), specialised education and training programmes (Digital Europe Programme 407 ), PhD programmes and AI excellence centres (Horizon Europe 408 ), doctoral and postdoctoral networks in AI (Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions 409 ).

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 specialisation 410 . In addition, skills mismatches between education and training and the needs of the labour market, aggravated by the lack of a common language on cybersecurity skills, complicates career pathways in cybersecurity. Important policy initiatives such as the NIS2 Directive 411 , the European Cybersecurity Act 412 and the new EU Cyber Resilience Act 413 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 masters 414 and short term training courses 415 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 Programme 416  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.

The low participation of women in the ICT higher education sector was raised as a common challenge and concern in the Structured Dialogue 417 , 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 EU27 418 . 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 adults 419 .

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 recovery 420 , upskilling and reskilling on digital skills play a central role 421 . The 60% EU headline target 422 can help boosting adult participation in learning, including on digital skills, which currently remains low across EU countries 423 .

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 groups 424 ) 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 forces 425 . Beyond the digital inclusion dimension, raising awareness of new realities and skills demands in the world of work plays a key role in adult learning 426 .

Concerns have been expressed about the negative short and long-term impact of the pandemic on participation in adult learning and inequalities in accessing it 427 . 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 percent 428 . 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 2021 429 . 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 before 430 . Results also indicate that the increase of online adult learning has been especially pronounced among women, individuals aged 55 to 64, and less educated adults 431 . 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 so 432 . In a nutshell, evidence shows that in most EU countries the pandemic was associated with a higher proportion of adults taking online courses. 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 continue 433 , any further increase in the future depends very much on how many people will actually develop at least basic digital skills 434 .

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 accounts 436 and on the European approach to micro-credentials 437 . The development of basic skills including digital competences for low-skilled adults was also underpinned by the Council Recommendation on Upskilling Pathways 438 . 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 policies 440 .

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.

A recent literature review on adults’ digital skills 442 , reveals that policies on the topic are usually articulated through generic strategic documents on digitalisation 443 , 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 Ireland 444 . In some countries, however, adult learning is not a priority and remains underfunded 445 . 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 interventions 446 .

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 training 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 coordinated 447 .

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 skills 448 .

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 have started to address this challenge of accessibility through the creation of aggregators 449 and/or virtual providers 450 that, however, have limited effectiveness, especially among those lacking basic digital skills 451 . 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 outreach 453 .

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 significant 454 and the correlation between the share of GDP invested in adult learning and the adult learning participation rate is strong 455 . 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 skills 456 .

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 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 beneficial 458 . 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 teaching 459 . 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 informatics 461 . Most European countries are implementing or developing curricular reforms to informatics teaching, often as part of the recovery and resilience plans developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic 462 . 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 informatics 463 . 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

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 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 Education 465 , 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 show 466 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 experiences 467 , 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 show 468 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 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 ICT 469 , 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-efficacy 470 , which prevents them from pursuing ICT studies in tertiary education 471 . 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  

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 Portal 473 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 research 474 .

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 territorially 475 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.

Research 476 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 education 477 , for instance, showed that male teachers report much higher self-stated confidence levels compared to female teachers 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 schools 478 . Participants to the stakeholder consultation confirmed the teaching staff shortage in this area 479 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 requesting additional training certifications. In all education systems in Europe 480 , 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 show 481 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 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 staff 482 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.

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 the enabling factors for digital education and training) and PLAN/2021/11209 (proposal for Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training).

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 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.

·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.

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 tool 483 . 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 .

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

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 Inclusion (DG EMPL) and Directorate-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT), including:

·Expert Group of EU Associations of VET providers 485 (22 March 2022)

·Working Group on Adult Learning 486 (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).

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-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 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 tools 489 (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.

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 Evidence 490

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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 Evidence 491

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 (%)

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contents

Abstract    

Acknowledgements    

Executive summary    

1    Introduction    

1.1    Purpose of the report    

1.2    Structure of the report    

2    Aims, Method and Caveats    

2.1    Aims    

2.2    Methods    

2.2.1    Definitions    

2.2.2    Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) national plans    

2.2.3    Structured Dialogue process and documentation    

2.2.4    Submissions to the Calls for Evidence    

2.2.5    Analysis    

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 2.6. Topics emerging from the analysis of the submissions to the Calls for Evidence    

2.3    Caveats    

3    Enabling factors for successful digital education    

3.1    Enabling factors in RRF national plans    

3.1.1    Topic analysis overview    

3.1.2    Themes emerging from the RRF analysis    

3.1.3    Summary of RRF national report findings    

3.2    Enabling factors in the Structured Dialogue    

3.2.1    Topic analysis overview    

3.2.2    Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis    

3.2.3    Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue    

3.3    Enabling factors in the submissions to the Call for Evidence    

3.3.1    Topic analysis overview    

3.3.2    Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis    

3.3.3    Summary of Call for Evidence findings    

4    Improving the provision of digital skills in education and training    

4.1    Provision of digital skills in RRF national plans    

4.1.1    Topic analysis overview    

4.1.2    Themes emerging from the RRF analysis    

4.1.3    Summary of findings from the RRF analysis    

4.2    Provision of digital skills in the Structured Dialogue    

4.2.1    Topic analysis overview    

4.2.2    Themes emerging from the Structured Dialogue analysis    

4.2.3    Summary of findings from the Structured Dialogue    

4.3    Submissions to the Call for Evidence on digital skills provision    

4.3.1    Topic analysis overview    

4.3.2    Themes emerging from the Call for Evidence analysis    

4.3.3    Summary of findings from the submissions to the Call for Evidence    

5    Conclusions and implications    

5.1    Comparisons across the three sources of information    

5.2    EU-level actions in relation to enabling factors    

5.3    EU-level actions in relation to digital skills provision    

5.4    Conclusions and implications    

5.4.1    Transversal    

5.4.2    Enabling factors for digital education ecosystems    

5.4.3    Digital skills provision    

List of acronyms and abbreviations    

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.

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.

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;

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.

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 coordination 492 . 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 approach 493 .

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.

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 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).

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 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 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; 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.

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 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.

1Introduction 

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 2020 495 , 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.

1.1Purpose 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)

·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 policies 496 .

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.

1.2Structure 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.

2Aims, 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.

2.1Aims

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.

2.2Methods

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.

2.2.1Definitions 

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 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.

2.2.2Recovery 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 under the European Semester framework of economic and social policy coordination 497 . 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 facility 498 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).

2.2.3Structured 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 Dashboard 500 , Eurydice’s comparative review of digital education 501 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).

2.2.4Submissions 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 (third) sector. Academic/research 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.

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

Table 2.2. Summary of submissions to the Calls for Evidence by Country