This chapter reviews Greece’s ongoing efforts to advance the use of digital technologies in school education. While important steps have been taken, such as the development of a national digital strategy and investments in platforms and devices, evidence suggests that digital tools are not yet fully and systematically embedded in teaching and learning practices. Drawing on international data and examples, the chapter highlights areas where further progress could strengthen implementation, including teacher preparation, system coherence, and equitable access. It outlines key policy directions to support Greece’s digital transformation, focussing on enhancing teacher competences, improving infrastructure use, and aligning governance and support structures. Realising the full potential of digital education will require coordinated leadership, sustained investment, and a focus on pedagogical effectiveness.
Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece
Abstract
Digital education can be defined as the innovative use of digital tools and technologies during teaching and learning, including blended and fully online learning, to enhance students’ educational experiences and outcomes (Redecker, 2017[1]). This definition highlights the significance of both the learning process and its outcomes that could be positively affected by the meaningful application of digital technologies. It also clarifies the primary beneficiaries (i.e. students) while recognising the central role of teachers as pedagogical agents guiding this process. Finally, it highlights that the use of digital tools and technologies should be innovative.
In view of the aforementioned definition, OECD reports on the matter stresses that digital transition alone is insufficient; what is needed is a deeper digital transformation (OECD, 2023[2]). Transition refers to the adoption of student information systems, online learning platforms, and the use of digital devices in classrooms. However, this may not be sufficiently innovative to ensure a meaningful learning process or to positively impact both cognitive and non-cognitive learning outcomes. In contrast, digital transformation entails fundamental changes in educational processes, integrating technology not just as a tool, but as a driver to reshape teaching methodologies, learning processes, and the educational ecosystem at large to make it more effective (OECD, 2023[2]). Greece’s Digital Education Transformation Initiative highlights the importance of transformation, yet it does not clearly define the concept. The initiative primarily focusses on the digitalisation of educational content and the development of interactive learning systems across all levels of education. Recent OECD work on shaping digital education underscores that such transformation relies on key enabling conditions. These conditions include coherent governance, adequate and well-targeted resourcing, robust infrastructure and data systems, and sustained support for educators’ digital competences, which together form a set of enabling indicators for quality, equity and efficiency in digital education (OECD, 2023[3]). While significant progress has been made in areas such as digitising resources, integrating applications in teaching, and the emergence of advanced AI-powered platforms (including new developments like the Kaleduscope system), the operationalisation of “digitalisation” in Greece may still differ in scope and depth from some international conceptualisations of full digital transformation. Consequently, digital education in Greece could benefit from adopting a digital transformation framework that unfolds across three stages (Luo and Wee, 2021[4]), that could be explicitly linked to these enabling conditions for system-level change (OECD, 2023[3]):
Stage I. Digitisation: the conversion of non-digital records into digital format, for example, turning printed books into digital learning material.
Stage II. Digitalisation: the conversion of processes or interactions into digital equivalents, such as using a mathematics application on a tablet to learn multiplication and division.
Stage III. Digital transformation: an innovative and disruptive reconfiguration of education, for instance, using educational data analytics and Artificial Intelligence to support pedagogical decision-making.
Greece is taking steps across all three stages of digital development, but progress is most visible in digitisation, with considerable efforts made to expand opportunities for digital education in different learning environments. Digitalisation is supported through teacher training; however, based on the evidence available, it is not yet consistently reflected in everyday classroom practice. Teachers could more fully move beyond traditional pedagogies and adopt digitally supported collaborative approaches. Digital transformation, by contrast, is a deeper process that should become evident in how teachers and students work. It depends not only on access to tools but also on shifts in mindset and practice, including decisions about what to discontinue. It requires teachers to augment, modify, and redefine learning goals, monitor learning processes in new ways, and support students in collaborating effectively through digital technologies.
Therefore, meaningful and impactful digital education should not merely substitute traditional teaching and learning methods in digital environments. It should support the augmentation, modification, and redefinition of pedagogical methods at the level of both teachers and students in alignment with learning objectives (Puentedura, 2006[5]) as follows:
Augmentation replaces a traditional practice with a functional improvement made possible by the digital environment.
Modification enables learners and teachers to significantly redesign tasks, for example, through real-time collaborative creation of online documents.
Redefinition allows for the design of entirely new learning activities that would otherwise be impossible, such as exploring molecular processes or evolution at a visible scale or within an observable timeframe.
In addition. the purposes of using digital technologies in education can be categorised into three areas (Kirkwood and Price, 2013[6]):
Operational improvement – e.g. automated grading and feedback, or content navigation.
Quantitative change – e.g. increasing engagement and motivation through enhanced interaction.
Qualitative change – e.g. using visualisations or simulations to enable inquiry-based learning.
Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools for teaching and learning have ushered in a completely new era in which digital education requires redefinition, and learning processes can no longer remain unchanged. Even if the use of AI tools is somewhat restricted in formal educational settings, their use in the wider society cannot be limited. If students are expected to use AI tools as adults, schools must prepare them to do so responsibly. Therefore, it is crucial to initiate a discussion of the meaningful and ethical use of AI in the context of digital education.
In conclusion, Greece has the potential to benefit from a meaningful and impactful form of AI-supported digital education that goes beyond basic digitisation to support deeper transformation. Such a transformation involves the augmentation, modification and redefinition of learning processes and outcomes, with a focus not only on operational or quantitative improvements, but more importantly on qualitative pedagogical change. The full benefits of digital education can only be realised if the broader educational ecosystem, including policy, infrastructure, leadership and pedagogy, provides all actors, especially students and teachers, with the appropriate tools, guidance and support. Against this backdrop, this chapter examines the state of digital education in Greece's school system, focussing on compulsory levels (primary and lower secondary education), while excluding pre-primary education. It explores three interrelated themes: the use of technology in schools, the digital competences of teachers and students, and the role of teacher training in enhancing the meaningful integration of digital technologies into classroom practice.
Finally, while this review focusses on developments up to early 2025, it is worth noting that Greece has recently adopted a new Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education (2025–2027). This plan places significant emphasis on digital transformation, including the development of digital content, inclusive learning tools, AI integration in schools, and improved monitoring of digital investments (MERAS, 2025[7]). These forward-looking objectives align with several of the recommendations in this chapter, although their implementation falls outside the period reviewed.
Digital education in Greece
Greece has adopted a national strategy to guide digital education in the country (Digital Transformation Bible). The strategy was developed by the Ministry of Digital Governance and sets out seven objectives, some of which are also relevant to the education sector (see Box 5.1). The education section of the strategy was developed by the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports and it aims at strengthening the digital experience across all levels of the education system. A key objective of the strategy is to ensure equal participation for all in education. Furthermore, the strategy highlights the importance of digital infrastructure, and the collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Safe, fast and reliable access to the internet for all.
The development of digital skills of all citizens.
The support and strengthening of digital innovation.
The productive use of public data.
The integration of modern technologies in all sectors of the economy.
The facilitation of the transformation of every Greek business into a digital business.
A digital state, which offers better digital services to citizens, in all the events of their lives.
This chapter focusses on two core objectives for advancing digital education in Greece: (1) ensuring access to technology, and (2) developing digital competences among students and teachers. It aims to support Greek stakeholders by offering: (1) concrete suggestions for achieving these objectives; (2) research-based reasoning to underpin the proposals; and (3) international examples highlighting both successful approaches worth emulating and less effective practices to be avoided. The analysis draws on the OECD Review Team’s understanding of the Greek context, informed by meetings and school visits conducted during the February 2025 country mission, as well as materials provided by national authorities. However, this input offers only a partial view of current developments. As such, the recommendations should be interpreted with caution and adapted as needed to reflect local conditions and perspectives that may not be fully captured in this review.
Digital education can be viewed as a vehicle for driving the digital transformation of Greek society. However, to be effective, it must be embedded within the wider national context and informed by international benchmarks. According to the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Greece ranked 25th out of 27 European Union countries in 2022 (see Figure 5.1). Within the education sector, the most notable component of the DESI is what is referred as “human capital”, which refers to internet user skills as well as advanced digital skills and development. These competencies are crucial not only for teachers but also for school principals to ensure the effective adoption of meaningful digital education. In line with the Digital Transformation Bible, such skills are needed to foster digital innovation and to enable the productive use of available data in designing learning processes. More specifically, the DESI 2022 analysis identified persistent challenges in basic digital skills and digital content creation. Even so, Greece ranked somewhat higher in these domains (at 18th place) suggesting a foundation on which to build. According to Eurostat data from 2023, 52% of individuals in Greece have at least a basic level of digital skills. This is below the European Union average (56%) and has not changed in Greece compared with 2021 (Eurostat, 2024[8]). However, good improvement is seen in the age group 16–24 where 78% Greek youth have basic digital skills, which is higher than the EU average (70%). It shows that Greek students have good potential to apply digital technologies in learning if schools provide relevant meaningful opportunities for digital education. These patterns are consistent with recent OECD work showing that the impact of digital technologies on learning depends less on access alone and more on how technology use is embedded within coherent pedagogical strategies and enabling system conditions (OECD, 2025[9]; OECD, 2023[3]; Forsström et al., 2025[10]; Forsström et al., 2025[11]).
Note: Data from 27 countries participating in the DESI analysis.
Source European Commission. (2022[12]). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 composite index. Shaping Europe’s digital future. Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi
In addition, digital education practices in Greece can be analysed using PISA data comparing 36 countries. Among these, Greece reports the lowest average time that students spend learning with digital devices during school hours (see Figure 5.2). In contrast, the amount of time spent using digital devices before and after school, as well as on weekends, is broadly in line with international patterns, with Greece ranking 9th out of 36. This might suggest that Greek students are expected to develop their ability to use digital devices meaningfully in the learning process largely on their own. Introducing policies that allow more frequent use of digital devices for learning in schools could be considered as a strategy to support the development of digital skills in both students and teachers, a goal explicitly stated in the Greek Digital Transformation Bible. Moreover, increased use of digital devices in schools could offer educational policymakers richer data to inform decisions on the effective integration of technologies, as also anticipated by the national strategy. Currently, however, a misalignment remains between strategic goals and school-level implementation according to international comparisons and to the evidence collected during the visits of the OECD Review Team. This is limiting the potential for a successful digital transformation.
Note: Data from 36 countries participating in the PISA
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
This misalignment is also evident from the general association between time spent on digital devices and mathematics performance. According to PISA data, there is a negative association between mathematics performance and the time spent on learning activities using digital devices at school, before and after school, and on weekends (see Figure 5.3). This trend is common across participating countries with Australia and New Zealand being the only exceptions where all three associations are positive. Positive associations between device use during school learning activities and mathematics performance are also observed in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. One of the key questions for this report (see the chapter on the teaching profession) is how to support teachers in acquiring the competences needed to enable the purposeful and effective use of digital devices in ways that also improve subject-specific outcomes.
In contrast, the use of digital devices for leisure activities (before and after school and on weekends) is positively associated with mathematics performance in most countries, including Greece. This highlights the need for both teachers and students to develop competences that support the purposeful use of digital technologies in ways that clearly enhance learning outcomes. A more nuanced analysis of students’ practices and competences is therefore necessary to inform sound policy recommendations and enabling teachers to act as change agents who can guide students towards more meaningful and impactful use of technology.
Note: Data from 35 countries participating in the PISA
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
The challenge of developing digital competences among teachers and students in Greece is particularly evident when examining differences in the time students spend learning with digital devices. As shown in Figure 5.4 mathematics performance in Greece increases when students use digital devices for learning activities for 6 to 10 hours per week—surpassing the performance of students who report using them less. However, unlike the OECD average, where performance continues to improve with increased device use (up to 21 hours), student performance in Greece declines steadily beyond the 10-hour mark. This pattern may reflect limitations in the effectiveness of digital pedagogical practices or students’ ability to engage productively with digital tools for learning.
Note: Data from 35 countries participating in the PISA
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
While associations between the use of digital devices and positive educational outcomes exist, these do not establish causal relationships: in Greece, PISA data shows time spent on digital devices in school is positively related to several factors, including digital self-efficacy and school device infrastructure. International evidence suggests, however, that effective integration depends on substantive policy, sufficient resources, and alignment with national context. Importantly, although some systems have pursued Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies to bridge access gaps, such approaches require robust equity safeguards, such as device provision, subsidies, and technical support, to avoid exacerbating digital divides (OECD, 2023[13]). In Australia and New Zealand, BYOD has supported digital learning, but its success depends on existing digital cultures, formal device requirements, and strong system-level support for disadvantaged students. Even where BYOD policies are well established, persistent challenges remain, including issues of compatibility, technical support, and ensuring that digital access does not depend on household resources alone (OECD, 2024[14]).
Greece has adopted a comprehensive policy restricting the use of mobile phones on school premises, a measure that has been reinforced since the 2024–2025 school year (MERAS, 2025[7]). This approach aligns with strong support from parents, teachers and school leaders, and reflects broader international debates about how to balance digital opportunities with wellbeing and safety concerns. According to PISA 2022, 95% of Greek school principals reported limiting mobile phone use, compared with an OECD average of 34% (OECD, 2023[13]). From an international perspective, such policies vary widely across countries, depending on national priorities, school culture and societal expectations. The Greek approach emphasises focus, safety and a structured learning environment, while other countries allow broader use of student devices within regulated frameworks. The aim of this discussion is not to suggest a preferred model but to situate Greece within the diversity of international practices.
In addition, according to the PISA student questionnaire, around one fifth of language, mathematics, and science teachers in Greece report using digital devices in more than half of their lessons, one of the lowest proportions among OECD countries participating in the study (see Figure 5.5). In contrast, about half of Greek students report that digital devices are never, or almost never used in these core subjects, highlighting a significant gap in students’ exposure to technology during instructional time.
Note: Data from 35 countries participating in the PISA
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
At the same time, Greek students’ digital competences have been assessed through the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) (https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/national-reports-iea-studies/icils-2023-research-results-report-greece). According to this survey, Greek students demonstrate relatively low levels of digital competence (see Figure 5.6), with an average score of 459.9 points — significantly below the EU average of 496.8 points. This measure is particularly relevant, as there is a strong observed correlation between underachievement in ICILS 2023 and underachievement in mathematics in PISA 2022 (see Figure 5.7). A similar pattern is observed among high-performing students, where strong performance in ICILS aligns with top performance in mathematics in PISA, suggesting a link between digital competence and broader academic success.
Source: European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) in Europe, 2023 – Main findings and educational policy implications, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5221263
Source: European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) in Europe, 2023 – Main findings and educational policy implications, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5221263
In summary, while Greece has taken important steps to expand access to digital technologies and develop strategic plans, digital education remains in an early phase of implementation relative to national aspirations and international benchmarks. Key areas for further development include the effective integration of digital tools in classroom practice, the strengthening of digital competences, and closer alignment between policy goals and day-to-day realities in schools. These findings echo broader OECD analyses of PISA data, which caution that increases in digital device use do not automatically translate into better learning outcomes and highlight the importance of purposefully designed digital learning activities (OECD, 2025[9]; Forsström et al., 2025[11]; Forsström et al., 2025[10]). The following section explores emerging strengths in the Greek digital education landscape, highlighting promising initiatives and areas of progress that can serve as a foundation for sustained improvement.
Despite persistent challenges in digital education, Greece has developed a number of strengths that can support more effective and equitable digital learning across the system. This section identifies five key areas where positive developments are evident: updated digital infrastructure in schools, the provision of curriculum-aligned digital resources, access to professional development opportunities for teachers, the potential of the experimental school network, and the evolving role of education advisers. Recognising and building on these strengths is critical to advancing digital transformation in education in a sustainable and inclusive way.
Investment in digital infrastructure has expanded access to updated digital tools but it may seem to remain underused
Greece has made significant investments, using EU funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, to equip all classrooms for students aged 10 and above with interactive digital boards — large touchscreens that can be used by teachers and students to engage with interactive resources aligned with the national curriculum. According to information provided by the Ministry of Education, 87% of these classrooms are now equipped with digital boards. Visits by the OECD Review Team confirmed that digital boards are actively used; however, their use was primarily teachers-led and mostly with the purpose of showing content — such as materials from the Digital Educational Platform “e-me” or YouTube videos — with students largely remaining passive in the learning process. While in some cases students were observed interacting with the digital board, this still left most of the class in a passive role.
In addition, many schools have been supplied with robotics kits, which offer opportunities for active and constructive learning to enhance students’ computational thinking skills. However, in the schools visited by the OECD Review Team, some of these kits seemed not in regular use and were stored away in cupboards. One possible reason for the limited use of robotics kits may relate to teachers’ competences and their beliefs about the value of applying them. Empirical studies show that personal factors — such as ease of use, confidence, openness to new tools, participation in social networks, and experience with using multiple technologies — are stronger predictors of teachers’ use of technology than contextual factors such as classroom equipment, students’ access to devices, school infrastructure, curriculum support, or peer influence (Lucas et al., 2021[15]). These challenges are explored further in the following section.
Curriculum-aligned digital platforms offer universal access, but usage is uneven
Greece has made substantial investments in developing educational digital platforms and curriculum-aligned digital textbooks that incorporate interactive learning objects. The central digital platform, Digital School, serves as a portal for all public digital education services for teachers, students, and parents. Among other features, it will include until mid-2026 an on-demand video library with courses for a wide range of classes and subjects. The platform also enables live-streamed tutoring sessions in the afternoons, featuring interactive question-and-answer segments for students. The videos are concise—typically three or nine minutes long—and focus on specific curriculum topics. Live-streamed tutoring is supported by Moodle and targets senior secondary school subjects through 90-minute sessions offered in the afternoons. These sessions are widely used by final-year students. To promote equity, the platform also provides soon a remote classroom solution that combines on-site teaching with live online instruction.
A notable initiative within this ecosystem is the Digital Tutorial Platform (Ψηφιακό Φροντιστήριο), which offers curriculum-aligned video lessons beginning in the fifth grade of primary school and extending across all lower- and upper-secondary subjects that are assessed through written examinations. For general lower- and upper-secondary education, the platform delivers structured video lessons that comprehensively cover the curriculum, allowing students to consolidate their learning at their own pace. In the final year of upper-secondary education, lessons are delivered live, recorded, and made available on demand, ensuring continuous access for students preparing for high-stakes national examinations.
While the platform was designed primarily to support students, it also indirectly contributes to teachers’ professional development by modelling alternative approaches to presenting curriculum content and demonstrating diverse teaching practices. The platform thus combines flexibility with high-quality instruction, helping to democratise access to educational resources nationwide. Its design promotes equitable access for specific groups—for instance, students with visual or hearing impairments—while also reducing geographical disparities by reaching learners in remote or under-resourced areas.
The online textbooks developed by Photodentro are freely available to all students and teachers, ensuring equitable access to educational content. Greece has also established an extensive digital educational repository infrastructure for the organisation, hosting, and distribution of open digital learning objects and resources. The Photodentro educational repositories provide open access to around 15,000 digital learning objects, including interactive simulations, visualisations, exercises, educational games, interactive maps, and videos. The National Aggregator for Educational Content (https://photodentro.edu.gr) collects educational resources from various repositories and sources, serving as a central access portal to approximately 19,000 resources. The Photodentro repositories, along with related systems and services for educational content (accessible via https://dschool.edu.gr), are widely used by the educational community. They have been developed, maintained, and operated by CTI “Diophantus”. However, the development of Photodentro stopped in 2020 and a new repository, Kaleduscope, is underway.
In addition to the Photodentro repositories, the collaborative Digital Educational Platform “e-me” (https://e-me.edu.gr) has been developed. This platform serves primarily as a digital workspace and collaboration environment for pupils and teachers. Currently, plans are being implemented to upgrade the infrastructure and services of the platform, advance the digital transformation of education, and promote related initiatives at the Ministry of Education level. For example, a study has been launched to improve the Digital Educational Platform “e-me”, aiming to develop it further into a collaborative, AI-powered Next-Generation Learning Environment (e-me NextGen). At present, the platform functions primarily as a repository of educational content and supports the creation of new materials and “hives” — collaborative learning spaces (MERAS, 2025[7]). The platform is freely accessible to all teachers and students, thereby ensuring equal access regardless of a school’s or family’s financial situation. More than 560,000 students and over 138,000 teachers are registered users over the years (MERAS, 2025[7]). However, more active and pedagogically meaningful use of the platform depends on students’ access to personal digital devices — both at school and at home — as well as teachers’ competences to guide students, and students’ skills for self-regulated learning with digital tools. The integration of AI-powered tools into the platform also holds promise for improving digital learning. These tools aim to facilitate students’ collaborative inquiry and knowledge construction, foster creativity, and develop critical thinking, while also empowering and supporting educators in the effective integration and use of Artificial Intelligence in teaching and learning.
Professional development opportunities are widespread but weakly integrated
The MERAS and the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) in Greece provide distance-learning opportunities focussed on digital education, and digital tutorials have been developed to support both teachers and students across several topics at the national level. However, teachers need to be better informed about the value of these tutorials and of the Digital Tutorial Platform, which offers students numerous learning opportunities. Teachers’ motivation to engage in distance learning should also be examined to improve participation rates. Furthermore, a critical and independent review of the available professional development opportunities—including how the Digital Tutorial Platform can be integrated into teachers’ practice—is warranted.
During the country visit by the OECD Review Team, it became evident that teachers participate in both compulsory training provided by authorities and additional school-organised activities. The compulsory courses are delivered during working hours — two days per academic year — but their total duration is limited, and they do not specifically focus on the digital competences required for more meaningful and effective digital education. In the case of school-based courses, participation depends on individual teacher motivation, which may be reduced by the need to invest personal time outside of the regular school day.
Another potential strength for advancing digital education in Greece lies in the availability of a range of professional learning opportunities focussed on digital teaching and learning. Nationally offered distance-learning programmes and online tutorials provide teachers with access to digital education resources, regardless of their geographic location. However, as highlighted in Chapter 3 on the teaching profession, teacher participation in professional development overall remains limited, reflecting systemic barriers that affect not only digital education but all areas of continuous professional learning. In recent years, the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) has offered asynchronous distance-learning programmes on Universal Design and the Development of Accessible Digital Educational Material to almost 30,000 primary, secondary, and special education teachers, as well as education coordinators and other professionals involved in special education, during 2022–2023. In addition, short four-hour courses have been provided to around 2,500 teachers on Artificial Intelligence in Education, alongside longer 50-hour programmes on Generative AI for Educators. However, when compared to the total number of teachers in Greece, these efforts remain insufficient to achieve the goals set for digital transformation in education. The barriers for engaging in professional development activities include limited mandatory training time, relatively weak incentives for voluntary engagement in professional learning, and constrained opportunities for sustained, school-based collaboration. Moreover, as described in Chapter 2 on school autonomy, Greece’s centralised governance model historically limits schools’ flexibility to organise professional development tailored to their specific needs and priorities. Despite these challenges, the existence of national frameworks for professional learning, combined with growing digital infrastructure and school self-evaluation processes, offers a platform from which Greece could strengthen teacher engagement with digital education initiatives in the future.
An additional strength of Greece’s digital education landscape is the existence of a national framework for school internal evaluation, which offers a structured mechanism through which schools can reflect on and improve their educational practices. As discussed in Chapter 2, internal evaluation processes require schools to set annual priorities and action plans in key domains such as teaching quality, student engagement, and professional development. This framework provides a ready-made opportunity for schools to integrate digital education goals into their improvement planning. While Chapter 3 highlights that current teacher appraisal processes place limited emphasis on digital pedagogical competences, the school-level internal evaluation cycle could be more actively used to identify teachers' professional learning needs in digital education and to monitor progress in the meaningful use of digital technologies. Strengthening the capacity of school leaders and education advisers to guide these processes presents an opportunity to embed digital transformation objectives more fully into school improvement efforts.
Experimental schools could drive innovation, but impact is limited by fragmentation
Greece has developed an extensive framework of experimental schools — public institutions that serve as hubs for educational innovation, research, and teacher training. The Greek Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports plans to establish 13 Innovation Centres during the 2025–2026 school year, one in each Regional Directorate of Education across the country. These centres aim to promote digital transformation and strengthen STEM education in primary and secondary schools, but these will be open to the community as well. The Innovation Centres will host experiential workshops featuring advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and virtual reality. The overarching goal is to enhance 21st-century skills, foster educational equity, and encourage community collaboration. This initiative is funded through the “Greece 2.0” Recovery and Resilience Plan.
These schools hold strong potential as platforms for testing new educational technologies, particularly pedagogical approaches that leverage digital tools to enhance learning outcomes. However, this potential is not yet fully realised. Research activities within formerly established experimental schools or the Innovation Centres would benefit from more strategic planning, and the findings from their studies should be more effectively disseminated to schools nationwide. Another key challenge is the need to build system-wide trust in the relevance and value of experimental schools and Innovation Centres and their research activities.
A promising international example of empowering experimental schools through collaboration with universities comes from the Estonian context (Pedaste et al., 2014[16]). The Estonian Innovation Schools model defines four dimensions of collaboration between schools and universities: traineeship, professional development, team teaching, and research and development. Together, these dimensions promote synergy and support scalable innovation grounded in collaborative research.
Another Europe-wide example (Sotiriou et al., 2016[17]) presents empirical evidence on how stimulating teacher engagement, embedding innovation within school environments, and accelerating implementation processes can lead to the successful adoption of innovative learning approaches. The study also highlights the importance of systematic trials in testing and refining education innovations before large-scale implementation. Drawing on these insights, Greece could develop a more coherent strategy for planning, piloting, and scaling innovation in digital education. Strengthening collaboration among experimental schools, innovation and testing centres, and universities acting as research and development hubs would enable the effective translation of innovative practices into mainstream education.
Several national initiatives demonstrate Greece’s emerging capacity in this field. The EDUCONTACT project (2025–2026) supports the educational community by leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) through a comprehensive citizen support system. The “AI in Schools” programme, implemented with OpenAI and the Onassis Foundation, promotes the responsible and creative use of AI in teaching and learning. Complementary initiatives such as the “Critical Readers” project, which enhances students’ digital literacy and critical thinking, and the Universal Design and Development of Accessible Digital Educational Material programme, which ensures inclusive access to learning resources, further illustrate the growing institutional commitment to educational innovation. Collectively, these projects represent important steps aiming at building a structured ecosystem that supports innovation, experimentation, and evidence-based improvement in Greece’s digital education sector (MERAS, 2025[7]).
Education advisers can support digital change but face capacity constraints
A distinctive strength of the Greek education system, as discussed in Chapter 2 on school autonomy, is the presence of a nationwide network of education advisers. These professionals play a central role in providing pedagogical guidance, supporting teacher professional development, and facilitating the implementation of national education policies at the school level. With responsibilities that include mentoring teachers, guiding the use of curriculum resources, supporting inclusive education, and contributing to school internal evaluation processes, education advisers represent an important institutional mechanism for driving change in schools—including in the area of digital education.
From the perspective of digital education, education advisers offer schools a key point of contact for expert advice on integrating digital tools into teaching and learning. Their subject-specific expertise and pedagogical experience position them well to help teachers navigate emerging digital pedagogies, especially when combined with their role in reviewing school internal evaluation reports and supporting school-based action planning. Their involvement in the external school evaluation process also enables them to observe patterns across schools and identify promising practices for wider dissemination.
Furthermore, as described in Chapter 2, the recent expansion of the education counsellor role—following the adoption of Law 4823/2021—has increased their potential contribution to system-wide improvement efforts. The alignment between their pedagogical advisory functions and their responsibilities in school evaluation creates an opportunity for education advisers to support more coherent and context-sensitive professional development related to digital education. This dual role enables them to act as both evaluators and facilitators of improvement, making them well-positioned to help schools translate evaluation findings into targeted actions for enhancing digital teaching and learning practices.
Although their capacity to fully engage with digital education varies across regions and specialisations, the national presence of education advisers offers Greece a valuable infrastructure for building teacher capacity in digital education. Their existing connections with schools, experience in leading professional development activities, and formal responsibilities in school evaluation provide a strong foundation for further strengthening their role as catalysts for digital transformation at the school level.
Greece has achieved considerable progress in its ongoing digital transformation of education; however, challenges remain that limit the effective integration of technology into classroom teaching and learning. The primary obstacles include an absence of robust evaluation mechanisms for digital education policies and the need for systematic development and assessment of teachers’ digital pedagogical competences. Addressing these persistent challenges through evidence-based evaluation and targeted professional development is essential to ensure that digital education continues to advance student learning and support sustainable improvements across Greek schools.
There is insufficient systematic evaluation of the impact of policy decisions intended to support digital education
Rigorous evaluation of the impact of digital learning on student outcomes is a prerequisite for evidence-based policymaking in digital education. Establishing both school-level monitoring mechanisms and a coherent national evaluation framework is essential to ensure systematic measurement of progress and impact. At the school level, tools should be designed to help teachers assess how digital tools and pedagogical practices influence student learning outcomes. These instruments could be developed and validated nationally in collaboration with universities and research institutions, accompanied by clear implementation and interpretation guidelines to support context-specific improvement at the school and classroom levels.
The ongoing Smart Schools initiative under the Technical Support Instrument of the EU (TSI) provides a valuable foundation for this work. However, effective evaluation requires the involvement of specialists in educational assessment, psychology, and psychometrics, in addition to experts in digital learning technologies. The formation of a national Scientific Committee by the MERAS, composed of university members, educational officials, and practitioners, represents an important step towards strengthening institutional coordination. To ensure validity and relevance, this Committee’s work could be broadened to include experts in digital competence assessment, as well as researchers focussing on student attitudes, beliefs, and self-regulation competencies. This multidimensional approach would align national evaluation efforts with international quality standards and create a robust evidence base to inform future digital education policies (MERAS, 2025[7]).
When designing impact evaluations, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of surveys in producing valid conclusions. Surveys may elicit socially desirable responses, and previous research has shown that survey data often does not strongly correlate with data collected through observations, tests, data logs, or other methods that are less reliant on respondents’ willingness to present themselves in a positive light (Parry et al., 2021[18]). During the site visits, we observed little evidence of evaluation regarding the impact of digital technology use on student learning outcomes. A systematic approach is needed to evaluate both outcomes and the quality of the quality of the learning process — including how technology is used in classrooms and for homework.
As part of the planned update to the Greek Digital Educational Platform “e-me”, research is expected to focus on existing AI-powered educational platforms and the applications they offer, alongside proposals for technological and functional extensions to “e-me”. However, there are currently no plans to evaluate the impact of either the existing content and features or the new developments that will be introduced. Such evaluation will be essential to support informed policy development and continuous improvement.
Teachers’ digital pedagogical competences need to be systematically assessed
The assessment of teachers’ digital pedagogical competences is a crucial starting point for understanding how to effectively support digital education in Greece. Digitally competent teachers are key to the meaningful and impactful integration of technology into teaching and learning. Currently, there is insufficient evidence of a systematic framework that evaluates the full spectrum of teachers’ digital pedagogical competences. Such a framework should incorporate not only technical skills, but also pedagogical knowledge, values, attitudes, and the capacity to design and implement effective learning scenarios, as well as evidence of impact on student outcomes. Existing assessments, such as those conducted as part of the B-Level teacher training programmes, involve digital examinations with both knowledge-based and practical tasks. Although these initiatives are important, they remain narrow in scope and do not adequately capture the complex, multidimensional nature of teachers’ digital competences required for transformative teaching practices. To be effective, any future evaluation framework should place particular emphasis on formative assessment, offering tailored feedback and supporting teachers’ ongoing professional learning. This is essential to ensure that assessment serves as a catalyst for continuous improvement, rather than as a purely summative judgement. To ensure professional development is tailored to real needs, Greece would benefit from establishing a comprehensive national framework for evaluating teachers’ digital pedagogical competences, which would employ multiple forms of assessment and emphasise observable improvements in teaching quality and learning outcomes.
As discussed in Chapter 3, teacher appraisal in Greece has recently been reformed through the introduction of a new appraisal framework in 2023. This new system includes assessment of pedagogical skills but currently places limited emphasis on teachers’ digital pedagogical competences. Expanding the evaluation framework to include digital competences could provide important feedback and professional learning triggers for teachers.
The Greek national digital transformation strategy for 2020–2025 defined seven actions to promote the development of digital skills among all citizens. Two of these actions focus specifically on general education. The first involves the integration of innovative technologies into the teaching and learning processes of primary and secondary education, with the aim of enhancing students' creativity, problem-solving abilities, and collaboration skills. The second action proposes the institutionalisation of weekly IT lessons across all grades of secondary education, with clearly defined educational content and teaching methods tailored to each grade level.
It is not yet clear whether these actions have been successful. During interviews conducted as part of the study visit to Greece by the OECD Review Team, it was noted that digital skills are a requirement for those aspiring to become school principals. Greek authorities offer a free training programme to support this goal, and as a result, an increasing number of teachers are gradually enrolling. However, many of the teachers interviewed still reported discomfort with using technology. For this reason, the authorities have initially focussed its efforts on targeting younger teachers, who may be more open to adopting digital tools in their professional practice.
Teachers are also subjected to appraisal mechanisms within the Greek education system (see the chapter on the teaching profession). However, this appraisal does not place strong emphasis on assessing their digital pedagogical competences. While the use of digital boards and digital learning resources is included in the evaluation, the criteria remain limited in scope. The “Selfie” tools are employed to help schools assess whether teachers are using technology.
The assessment of teaching methodology and practices includes reference to the appropriate use of teaching aids and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Each aspect, including ICT use, is assessed on a four-level scale:
1. Unsatisfactory: technology use is not mentioned in the assessment rubrics.
2. Satisfactory: adequate and functional integration of ICT into the teaching process.
3. Very Good: extensive use of participatory teaching strategies in processing lesson content, with an emphasis on dialogical or hands-on activities, as well as the use of visual and digital media (ICT).
4. Excellent: technology use is not mentioned in the assessment rubrics.
A systematic framework is needed to assess and improve teachers’ digital pedagogical competences
A central challenge for Greece’s digital education agenda lies in the absence of a comprehensive and systematic framework for assessing teachers’ digital pedagogical competences. While teachers are subject to appraisal processes within the broader quality assurance system described in Chapter 2 on school autonomy, the current focus remains general and does not sufficiently address the specific pedagogical skills needed for effective digital teaching and learning. As outlined in Chapter 2, the national framework for teacher appraisal involves education advisers conducting assessments of teaching practices, including elements related to the use of educational resources and ICT. However, digital education is treated as only one among many aspects of teaching quality, and assessments rarely delve into how teachers design, deliver, and assess learning activities using digital tools. Furthermore, schools’ internal evaluations, while focussing on multiple domains of school functioning, also lack specific indicators that track teachers’ digital pedagogical growth. This limitation is compounded by the centralised governance structure of Greece’s education system. As discussed in Chapter 2, the design and implementation of teacher appraisal instruments remain under tight national control, leaving little space for schools to tailor evaluation tools to local needs—including those related to digital education. Schools do not currently have the authority to conduct targeted assessments of teachers' digital competences or to use evaluation results as a basis for school-level professional development planning in this area.
In view of this situation, a more comprehensive and structured approach is offered by the DigCompEdu framework (see Figure 5.8). The DigCompEdu framework (Redecker, 2017[1]) distinguishes three key dimensions for evaluation: educators’ professional competences, pedagogical competences, and their role in supporting learners’ digital competences. In the context of the B-Level training programmes in Greece, the TET-SAT self-assessment tool, based on the DigCompEdu framework, is used both at the beginning and at the end of the training. However, it is not employed to systematically capture the professional development needs of all teachers. Within the B-Level programmes, educators receive feedback derived from the collected data—initially, to help them better plan and organise their teaching (pre-training results), and subsequently, to evaluate the effectiveness of the training and the learning outcomes (post-training results). A similar structured approach could be extended more broadly to identify teachers’ professional development needs across Greece.
According to the DigCompEdu framework teachers’ professional competences are defined in terms of professional engagement, including organisational communication, collaboration, reflective practice, and continuous digital professional development. Pedagogical competences are organised into four areas: digital resources, teaching and learning, assessment, and empowering learners. Finally, learners’ digital competences are assessed in line with the DigCompEdu framework (Vuorikari, Kluzer and Punie, 2022[19]). Teachers are expected to support students in developing competence across five domains: information and media literacy, communication, digital content creation, responsible use, and problem-solving.
Source: The Digital Competence Framework (European Commission, 2025[20]).
This DigCompEdu framework has been further developed in a revised model for describing digital competence among professionals, including teachers (Pedaste and Bardone, 2023[21]). This has resulted in a Framework for Digital Competence for Learning and Teaching that incorporates elements of the DigCompEdu framework but also integrates key elements from earlier conceptual models by Martin’s (Martin, 2009[22]) and Krumsvik’s (Krumsvik, 2011[23]) frameworks to better address contemporary societal needs — with a focus on collaboration, the creative adaptation of digital technologies in professional settings, and their ethical and critically reflective use, in line with UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.unesco.org/en/sdgs).
More broadly, this new framework (see Figure 5.9) highlights the importance of three types of digital competence: generic, contextual, and transformative.
Generic competence encompasses not only abilities and knowledge, but also beliefs, values, emotions, and motivation related to the general use of digital technologies.
Contextual competence refers to the competence to apply digital technologies in educational settings, both individually and collaboratively.
Transformative competence focusses on innovation through the creative, ethical, and responsible adaptation of digital technologies.
Source: Pedaste, M., & Bardone, E. (2023). Trends and Issues of Digital Learning in Estonia. Trends and Issues of Promoting Digital Learning in High-Digital-Competitiveness Countries: Country Reports and International Comparison.
These frameworks could support Greece in developing a more systematic approach to assess those teachers’ competences required for implementing meaningful and impactful digital education. Several countries have already created self-assessment tools to evaluate teachers’ digital competences. More recently, however, there have been efforts to combine self-assessment with test-based assessment methods in order to improve the validity of results. One example of this is the 360-degree assessment approach developed through the European project Upgrading Higher Education Teachers’ and Students’ Hybrid Learning Competences. This initiative, involving partners from Finland, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal, aims to design assessment instruments and tools that empower teachers’ digital competences in hybrid learning environments. Within this context, a psychometrically validated instrument has been developed that can be used with both teachers and students to assess ten digital competences, grounded in twelve theoretical models (see Table 5.1).
Note: *Students and teachers had a different number of tasks/items – teachers had more tasks/items in a few cases.
Source: Pedaste, M., Saks, K. Leijen, Ä., Nakata, A., Järvenoja, H., Santos, P. J. M., Guerra, C., Balula, A., Moreira, A., Krejins, K., & Weinberger, A. (submitted). Assessment of higher education teachers’ and students’ readiness for hybrid teaching and learning using a novel framework of digital competence.
Improving teachers’ digital competences requires more systematic and sustained training opportunities
Fewer than half of Greek principals (46%) reported that their school schedules time for teachers to meet and share, evaluate, or develop instructional materials and approaches that incorporate digital devices (OECD, 2023[13]). The OECD average for this practice is 58%, and some countries consider it an important strategy for improving digital education — with 99% of principals in Singapore and 91% in Iceland reporting such opportunities for collaborative planning (OECD, 2023[13]).
Systematic training is essential to equip teachers with the competences required for the meaningful and impactful use of digital technologies in education. Such training should not only enhance their ability to integrate technology into teaching and learning but also foster motivation to do so. In Greece, the current provision of only two days of state-guided professional development per academic year may be insufficient. It does not nudge teachers towards more advanced B-Level training programmes (see for details below) that could potentially serve the needs. Given the rapid pace of change in the digital education landscape, significantly more time is needed to develop teachers’ digital competences. Moreover, these two days are intended to cover a wide range of professional development areas — not exclusively digital education — further limiting the focus and depth of training in this critical domain.
Training should focus not only on delivering theoretical knowledge but also on changing teaching practices and evaluating the impact of these changes on learning outcomes. For example, longer-term training programmes involving multiple sessions — where teachers are expected to apply what they have learned between meetings and collect data on its impact — could adopt an action research model. In Greece, that approach is somewhat implemented in the design of B2-Level training programmes, but these have been provided to a limited number of teachers. During site visits to Greek schools by the OECD Review Team, it became apparent that teachers often support one another in addressing digital education challenges. However, this support is primarily limited to technical issues rather than pedagogical ones. Furthermore, teachers demonstrated limited awareness of Ministry-coordinated training opportunities, suggesting a need for improved communication and outreach.
In Greece, two levels of ICT Teacher Training certification are currently specified: the A-Level and B-Level certificates. The A-Level certificate is obtained through digital examinations and confirms that a teacher possesses basic ICT skills. However, training for the A-Level has not been offered since 2008. The focus has since shifted towards more advanced B-Level training, which places greater emphasis on contextualising ICT use for teaching and learning. This shift can be seen as a constructive development in the professional training of educators.
The A- and B-Level ICT Teacher Training programmes and certification activities have been continuously implemented since the early 2000s by the Computer Technology Institute and Press “DIOPHANTUS” (CTI), in accordance with its institutional responsibilities and in collaboration with the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP). These initiatives have been carried out through successive projects funded under the National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRF). In 2015, the B-Level programme was updated, expanded, and made available to teachers of all specialities. Since 2017, B-Level ICT Teacher Training has been structured into two sequential, distinct training programmes:
1. B1-Level ICT Teacher Training – Introductory training on the educational use of ICT (36 hours).
2. B2-Level ICT Teacher Training – Advanced training on the integration and application of ICT in teaching practice (60 hours, including activities for preparing and delivering in-class practice).
Both programmes are implemented across 13 distinct “clusters” of related teacher specialisations, covering all disciplines: Literature, Science, Mathematics, Informatics, Primary Education, Kindergarten Teachers, Foreign Languages, Fine Arts, Physical Education and Health, Educational Engineers, Economics, Management and Social Sciences, Land Professions, and Special Education. Educators who deliver B-Level ICT training are highly qualified teachers drawn from the teaching profession itself, selected through an open competitive process. They must complete an intensive and specialised training programme of 380 hours at universities and are subsequently certified as B-Level ICT Teacher Trainers following rigorous examinations.
However, while this system supports the professional development of a selected group of trainers, it does not directly ensure the development of digital competences among all teachers. Between 2008 and 2014, approximately 27,000 teachers participated in B-Level ICT Teacher Training. A further 30,000 were trained from 2017 to 2019, and 5,800 between 2020 and 2022. The current plan for 2023 to 2027 aims to train 12,600 teachers at the B1 level and 15,000 at the B2 level. In addition, training programmes for teacher-trainers were conducted, with 640 graduates between 2007 and 2012 and a further 300 in 2019. Given the rapid evolution of digital education, the competences required for training other teachers are also changing quickly.
Therefore, a more flexible and responsive approach is needed—one that ensures regular upskilling and annual professional development for both trainers and teachers. A promising initiative to support continuous professional learning in the field of digital education has been introduced within the framework of the B-Level training programmes. Online Learning Communities have been established for both teachers and trainers to promote peer collaboration and ongoing professional exchange on the pedagogical use of digital technologies. These communities provide participants with opportunities to share expertise and educational materials, and to stay informed about emerging technologies and related pedagogical approaches. However, better coordination of collaborative learning activities and formal recognition of these efforts within teachers’ daily professional responsibilities are still needed. The forthcoming Teacher Training Register (described in Chapter 3) presents a significant opportunity to improve the coordination, quality assurance, and needs-responsiveness of digital education training for teachers. Aligning digital training offers with the broader professional learning system reforms discussed in Chapter 3 would help ensure greater relevance and teacher engagement.
Another challenge relates to the content and structure of the training. The B1-Level ICT Teacher Training consists of 36 teaching hours over approximately 12 weeks — typically one session per week (2–3 teaching hours), supplemented by asynchronous activities. These asynchronous activities are a core component of the programme. Between training sessions, participants complete small tasks assigned by their trainers, intended to reinforce learning and support practical application. The training content includes: an introduction to the educational use of ICT; open-source tools and environments that foster collaboration and participation in the learning process; digital platforms that support the school community; educational social networks; presentation tools; modern general-purpose software; emerging technologies (e.g. AI, VR/AR, IoT); internet safety; and digital citizenship. Activities are designed to leverage these tools and technologies. However, the main limitation of the B1-Level training appears to be its relatively narrow focus. While it raises awareness among teachers about the tools available to them, the limited duration (36 hours) and the emphasis on tools rather than pedagogy, along with a lack of extended opportunities to test new methods in practice, restrict its impact. Furthermore, there has been no systematic assessment in Greece of the training’s effect on either teaching practices or student learning outcomes.
The B2-Level ICT Teacher Training is a 60-hour programme delivered over 20 weeks and serves as a continuation of the B1-level course. It focusses on the advanced use and integration of ICT into teaching practice and places slightly more emphasis on pedagogical aspects. Among the stated objectives of this training are to enable participants “to understand the principles of designing an educational scenario or activity in their field of expertise, to be able to design activities themselves in their specialty and include them in the teaching process”, and “be able to reorganise the classroom accordingly so that their teaching is in line with modern teaching requirements of their specific area of expertise and that the new digital technologies fit in the educational process in the most productive way”. Another key aim is to support teachers in reorganising their classroom environments so that their teaching aligns with contemporary pedagogical requirements, and digital technologies are used in the most productive way possible. However, the main emphasis still appears to be on the use of digital educational resources within specific subject areas. One notable strength of the B2-level training is the inclusion of “in-class application of ICT”, which provides opportunities for teachers to implement what they have learned in real classroom settings. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how, or whether, the impact of these revised teaching practices is systematically assessed.
A strong example of a training model aimed at changing teachers’ practices can be found in the Estonian context. This half-year, school-based approach is designed to foster a professional community in which teachers collaboratively address contextual challenges and support one another throughout the learning and implementation process. A key feature of the programme is that teachers work in teams to design and carry out action research projects. These projects aim to gather evidence on how their changes in practice influence specific target outcomes. The model strongly emphasises teacher agency and collaborative inquiry. Research shows that this approach positively impacts teacher practices, regardless of whether participants are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to engage in the training (Leijen, Pedaste and Lepp, 2024[24]). Further details can be found in Box 5.2.
Source: Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., & Lepp, L. (2024). Supporting teacher agency during a collaborative inquiry-based in-service teacher education course. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 769–786.
According to a comparison of countries with high levels of digital transformation (Lee and Lee, 2023[25]), digital education is most meaningful and impactful when it is evidence-informed, ensures access to digital technologies and resources, and equips both students—and especially teachers—with the digital competence required to act as autonomous agents of change in the learning process. At both the national and local government levels, there is a pressing need to support digital education through the provision of adequate resources and enabling regulatory frameworks.
Greece’s potential for successful digital transformation in education hinges on three interrelated enablers: 1) the development of digital competences among students and teachers; 2) effective teacher training and professional learning systems; and 3) the use of high-quality data to inform ongoing decision-making. While the affordances of educational technologies offer promising opportunities for personalised learning, students and teachers must retain agency. Technology should support—not replace—collaborative and socially shared learning practices.
Building on these insights and drawing from international experience and the analysis in this chapter, four policy recommendations are proposed to support Greece in strengthening its digital education ecosystem: 1) ensuring equitable student access to digital technologies by enabling school-level agency and system-wide coordination; 2) strengthening evidence-based policymaking through improved evaluation of digital education technologies; 3) reinforcing teacher digital competences through targeted evaluation, professional development and school-based learning structures; and 4) strengthening governance, leadership and school capacity to support meaningful digital transformation.
Policy recommendation 1: Ensuring equitable student access to digital technologies by enabling school-level agency and system-wide coordination
Ensuring equitable access to digital technologies is a foundational condition for achieving meaningful and inclusive digital education in Greece. Without adequate access, the benefits of digital tools and resources cannot be realised, especially for disadvantaged students, rural communities, and those in under-resourced schools. Evidence from high-performing education systems shows that effective digital transformation requires the convergence of national strategy, robust infrastructure, and inclusive implementation. Greece should adopt a proactive and systemic approach that combines a clear access strategy (including personal devices, school connectivity, and open digital content) with targeted support for underserved learners. System-wide initiatives, such as the digital transformation and upgrading of Centres for Educational and Counselling Support (KEDASY), investment in assistive technology for students with special educational needs, and contributions from public-private partnerships like the COSMOTE TELEKOM donation for remote schools, are advancing equitable provision. This policy recommendation outlines key actions to promote equitable access by integrating personal devices in classrooms, supporting low-income families, investing in school infrastructure and open resources, and expanding digital provision in remote areas. Furthermore, while central coordination through upgraded digital infrastructure and newly developed tools for KEDASY is promising, it is essential that future planning also prioritises increasing school-level agency and fostering bottom-up innovation. Such an approach would maximise the potential for local solutions, ensure responsiveness to diverse educational needs, and enhance the sustainability of digital transformation in Greek schools. Also, it is important to note that, according to Greece’s new Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education (2025–2027), which falls outside the timeframe of this review, further investments are planned to upgrade school infrastructure, including the procurement of interactive systems, STEM kits, assistive technologies, and inclusive digital content based on Universal Design for Learning principles (MERAS, 2025[26]). If fully implemented, these initiatives may help to address some of the current access disparities and support more inclusive digital learning environments
Clarify the rationale and objectives underpinning the use of digital technology in Greek schools
The use of digital technology should not be an aim in itself, but rather a means to more effectively achieve the learning objectives set out in the curriculum. Consequently, the evaluation of digital education should be closely linked to the assessment of learning outcomes. For example, in the Australian context, the national curriculum mandates technology and digital literacy education for all students, ensuring consistent exposure from Foundation to Year 8 or 10 (Cameron and Gulzar, 2023[27]). A strong emphasis is placed on online safety and digital citizenship education to protect students from online harm and to foster responsible technology use. This foundational competence appears to be a prerequisite for both students and teachers to effectively engage with digital technologies. The rationale for digital education must be aligned with its objectives and supported by appropriate resources for schools, clear criteria for selecting and implementing technologies, and a coherent policy framework.
Support inclusive and reliable access to digital technology through school-level provision and targeted national investment
To strengthen equitable access to digital technologies, Greece could focus on expanding classroom access through school-provided devices, shared digital resources, and targeted support for disadvantaged learners. International examples highlight the importance of clear device specifications, robust infrastructure, and strong technical and pedagogical support for teachers. Comparative evidence from countries that allow students to use personal devices shows potential benefits, but these approaches require extensive regulatory, infrastructural and pedagogical frameworks. The Greek context, including the national policy restricting mobile phone use, calls for alternative forms of access that align with national priorities while still ensuring that students can engage with digital tools meaningfully under teacher guidance
Establish partnerships to provide subsidised or donated devices to disadvantaged students from socio-economically weaker backgrounds.
Inclusive education and the prevention of a digital divide are internationally recognised goals, and they are equally relevant in Greece. Corporate partnerships with technology companies could help ensure affordable access to devices that meet the technical requirements for high-quality learning. As demonstrated in the Australian example (Meyerkort, 2025[28]), device requirements may vary by educational level: more advanced devices may be needed for secondary education, whereas simpler models—such as second-hand computers no longer in use—may be sufficient for primary schools. Such devices could be donated to schools to promote equity and inclusion.
Promote a public discourse on the meaningful use of technology in education
Many societies face challenges in recognising the educational value of technology, often due to limited exposure to its positive impact on learning outcomes (Navarro-Martinez and Peña-Acuña, 2022[29]). However, more nuanced research indicates that educational technologies can enhance learning when used to support constructive and interactive pedagogies (Pedaste and Bardone, 2023[21]). Therefore, public discussion in Greece should aim to raise awareness of the responsible, informed, and effective use of digital technologies in education, fostering a shared understanding of their role in enhancing teaching and learning. For example, in Australian context students are expected to develop the capacity to make ethical and moral decisions regarding emerging technologies, and to modify these technologies to meet their needs — becoming confident producers, not just users, of technology. Students explore a range of technologies through project-based learning, including activities in coding and robotics (Cameron, 2020[30]).
Prioritise digital access in remote areas of Greece, such as the islands, where a shortage of qualified teachers might be a challenge
In remote areas of Greece, online and hybrid learning models—successfully implemented during Covid-19-related school closures—can offer viable solutions. Promising practices from countries such as Estonia, Finland, and New Zealand show that remote teaching and inclusion of students from geographically isolated areas in larger, on-site classrooms can help bridge access gaps. Additionally, the example of fully online schools (virtual school) in Ontario, Canada, provides valuable insights into both the opportunities and limitations of virtual education in terms of personalisation and equitable access to high-quality learning (Farhadi and Winton, 2024[31]). Greece could explore similar models, adapted to the local context, to enhance educational provision in underserved areas.
Policy recommendation 2: Strengthening evidence-based policymaking through improved evaluation of digital education technologies
Strengthening evidence-informed policymaking is a cornerstone of effective digital education systems. High-performing countries prioritise not only the provision of digital infrastructure and training, but also the systematic evaluation of what works, for whom, and under what conditions. Greece has already taken important steps by participating in international studies such as PISA and ICILS, and by developing national digital education strategies. However, to ensure continuous improvement and the scalability of digital innovations, greater emphasis must be placed on rigorous data collection, impact evaluation, and the integration of evidence into policymaking. This includes not only large-scale assessments and national monitoring systems, but also school-level tools for tracking progress and enabling local adaptation. This recommendation identifies key levers to strengthen Greece’s digital education system through robust evaluation and the use of evidence, and is closely aligned with recent OECD analyses of how digital technologies affect student learning and what kinds of evidence are needed to inform policy and practice (OECD, 2023[3]; OECD, 2025[9]; Forsström et al., 2025[11]; Forsström et al., 2025[10]).
In the Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education 2025–2027, developed by the MERAS, focus is also set on recording and assessing the results of digital transformation actions in education. However, the examples of related key performance indicators (KPIs) list only quantitative measures (frequency of use, participation, and utilisation of resources). The KPSs should mainly focus on quality of use that could be assessed through qualitative added value in the learning process. In this regard, Greece’s new 2025–2027 Strategic Plan introduces a methodology to monitor the digital transformation of education, linked to investments under Measure 16676. This includes key performance indicators (KPIs) across four pillars—digital content, equipment, teacher training, and digital services—and proposes annual data collection and stakeholder feedback (MERAS, 2025[26]). While the implementation of this system lies beyond the timeline of this review, it could serve as a foundational step toward a robust national monitoring framework.
Continue active participation in international comparative studies that assess students’ digital competence and broader learning outcomes
Notable examples include the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which incorporates optional questionnaires on digital technology use, and the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS). While Greece has taken part in both, the impact of participation could be enhanced by conducting national-level secondary analyses of the data. Combining international datasets with locally collected data would allow for more nuanced, context-sensitive interpretations. These insights could, in turn, inform more targeted and evidence-informed decisions regarding digital education policy.
Initiate national research programmes to evaluate the impact of digital technology use on student learning outcomes
Such initiatives should aim to go beyond surface-level correlations and explore how different patterns of technology use influence various domains of student development. An illustrative example is Estonia’s DigiEfekt study (Pedaste, Raave and Baucal, 2023[32]), which examined the relationship between students’ learning practices, teachers’ teaching practices, and outcomes such as academic achievement, learning competence, digital competence, and socio-emotional skills. The study revealed that the positive impact of digital technology depends heavily on how it is used—specifically, interactive, constructive, and personalised digital activities are more beneficial than passive or unstructured use. Comparable conclusions emerge from recent OECD reviews of international evidence, which underline that technology tends to support learning when it is embedded in well-designed tasks, explicit instructional goals and supportive learning environments (Forsström et al., 2025[11]; Forsström et al., 2025[10]). Greece could benefit from similar research initiatives to guide policy and pedagogical strategies that maximise the effectiveness of digital education. For example, in Australian context digital competence is assessed as an ability to use digital technologies appropriately and safely, apply computational and design thinking, develop new understandings, collaborate and communicate, and engage with emerging technologies. Results of these evaluations are publicly available (ACARA, 2022[33]).
Develop and implement national instruments for monitoring the long-term impact of digital learning
Such tools should enable systematic evaluation of how digital practices affect student outcomes across various subjects and contexts. For instance, Estonia conducts triennial national assessments in mathematics, science, and language at key stages of schooling. These assessments are combined with background questionnaires and other studies to analyse the influence of digital education practices and digital competence on learning outcomes, while accounting for contextual variables. A similar longitudinal monitoring framework in Greece would allow for evidence-informed policy adjustments and ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of digital learning initiatives.
Ensure digital tools and resources are freely accessible and supported through national digital infrastructure
The Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) serves as a valuable body for coordinating existing platforms, and for implementing strategies aimed at enhancing these platforms. This includes ensuring the provision of high-quality digital resources that promote accessibility and inclusion for all learners.
Policy recommendation 3: Reinforcing teacher digital competences through targeted appraisal, professional development and school-based learning structures
Teachers play a pivotal role in determining the success of digital education reforms. Their capacity to use digital technologies in meaningful, inclusive, and pedagogically sound ways depends not only on access to tools, but also on the development of specific competences. These include technical proficiency, instructional design skills, and the ability to foster student engagement in digital environments. In high-performing systems, the digital competence of teachers is clearly defined, embedded in qualification frameworks, and regularly assessed through structured appraisal processes. Greece has laid the groundwork for strengthening teacher competence—particularly through its B-Level ICT training—but further progress requires targeted reforms. These include the creation of valid assessment instruments, the integration of digital competences into professional standards, and the design of extended, practice-oriented training programmes. This recommendation proposes key actions to ensure that teachers are fully supported to lead digital transformation in the classroom and beyond. The Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education 2025–2027, developed by the Ministry of Education Religious Affairs and Sports, also needs to focus on assessing student and teacher digital competences. Finally, it is worth noting that the 2025–2027 Strategic Plan signals a renewed policy focus on digital literacy as part of continuous teacher training (MERAS, 2025[7]). Planned initiatives include the integration of AI competencies into training programmes, partnerships with organisations such as OpenAI and the Onassis Foundation and expanded teacher participation in national certification and upskilling efforts. While this strategic plan falls beyond the timeline of this review, these future-oriented initiatives could provide a basis for embedding digital competence more firmly into teacher professional standards and qualification systems.
Develop instruments to assess teachers’ digital pedagogical competences using validated self-assessment and peer-assessment frameworks
A 360-degree approach (Toegel and Conger, 2003[34]) may serve as a valuable methodology for enhancing the validity of those instruments to assess teachers’ digital pedagogical competences. Notably, international models such as the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, and the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model offer structured and validated approaches that could inform the design of Greek assessment systems. Research initiatives such as the Estonian DigiEfekt project (Pedaste, Raave and Baucal, 2023[32]) have designed and validated various instruments that could be reused or adapted for the Greek context while maintaining their core structure. However, it is important to note that teacher appraisal is a sensitive undertaking and should be structured in a way that offers personal benefit and reward to participating teachers. Sensitivity can be improved by integrating both formative and summative elements. In line with OECD guidance and international best practice, it is crucial to emphasise the formative purpose of such systems: assessments should provide feedback for reflection and improvement, rather than serving as basis for high-stakes summative judgements or punitive measures. In particular, formative assessment should focus not solely on quantitative metrics but also on qualitative insights helping teachers identify strengths and areas for further professional growth. In developing these instruments, Greece could draw on recent teacher appraisal reforms described in Chapter 3, ensuring that digital pedagogical competences become an explicit and systematically assessed component within the broader teacher appraisal framework. This approach would support capacity building while fostering a culture of trust and continuous improvement.
Incorporate digital competences in teacher standards
Digital competences should be integrated as a formal component of teacher qualification requirements and professional standards, so that both initial teacher education and continuous professional development systematically build teachers’ capacity to use technology in pedagogically meaningful ways. In doing so, the Greek qualification system could benefit from alignment with established European frameworks, such as the European Qualifications Framework, which defines teacher competences more broadly, and the DigCompEdu framework (Redecker, 2017[1]), which outlines specific dimensions of digital competence for educators. This should be closely linked with the broader development of teacher professional standards currently under discussion in Greece (see Chapter 3), which aim to create an integrated competency framework guiding initial education, professional learning, and appraisal. Additionally, recent scholarship on redefining digital competence for professionals (Pedaste and Bardone, 2023[21]) offers a contemporary perspective that may be useful for shaping competence profiles in line with current societal and technological demands. Given that only 63% of Greek students perceive their teachers as willing to use digital resources for teaching — one of the lowest rates in the OECD — there is a clear need to focus not only on technical skills but also on attitudes and confidence in digital pedagogy. This shows a need for teachers’ continuous professional development. It is an ongoing long-term need. For example, while 92% of Australian teachers believe digital learning is important for their students, 83% report needing more professional development in this area (ACER, 2018[35]), mainly in integration of digital technologies in teaching and learning activities; development of digital learning resources; assessment of digital learning; management of digital learning environments; and ethical use of digital technologies in schools.
Expanding in‑service training on digital pedagogy
Extended, quality‑assured in‑service training programmes should focus on the pedagogical integration of digital technologies, drawing on insights from research on teacher learning. In designing these programmes, insights from research on teacher learning should be considered—particularly the framework proposed by Shulman and Shulman (Shulman and Shulman, 2004[36]), which emphasises that effective teacher learning occurs within professional learning communities, through the development of a shared vision, a robust knowledge base, and collaborative practices for designing, testing, evaluating, and reflecting on educational tools and methodologies. These training programmes should also be integrated with the broader CPD reforms outlined in Chapter 3, with greater emphasis on school-based, collaborative learning approaches and the involvement of mentors and co-ordinators in supporting digital competences at the school level. Collaborative, inquiry-based action research models—such as those implemented successfully in Estonia (Leijen, Pedaste and Lepp, 2024[24]) and Finland (Antinluoma, Lahti-Nuuttila and Toom, 2018[37])—can serve as exemplary practices. Similarly, the Lesson Study approach, originally developed in Japan, has been widely adopted in many countries as a meaningful, in-depth collaborative method of teacher professional learning (Cheung and Wong, 2014[38]). Effective implementation of these models requires organisational support at the school level. For example, in Estonia, state-level resources are provided to enable schools to design and implement their own in-house professional development initiatives.
Policy recommendation 4: Strengthening governance, leadership and school capacity to support meaningful digital transformation
The successful digital transformation of education requires more than devices and training—it depends on a well-coordinated and coherent ecosystem that brings together governance structures, infrastructure platforms, and support roles across all levels of the system. In Greece, various components of this ecosystem already exist, including national digital platforms, education advisers, and experimental schools. However, their integration remains limited, and responsibilities are often fragmented across different actors. High-performing education systems demonstrate the importance of clearly defined roles, consistent communication channels, and coordinated implementation strategies. To build a resilient and scalable digital ecosystem, Greece must clarify responsibilities, strengthen horizontal and vertical coordination, and ensure that all digital education initiatives are supported by sustained political commitment and robust evaluation mechanisms. This recommendation outlines concrete steps to help align platforms, actors, and policies around shared goals for impactful and inclusive digital learning. Looking ahead, several initiatives outlined in Greece’s 2025–2027 Strategic Plan demonstrate a growing commitment to strengthening system‑level governance and support structures for digital education (MERAS, 2025[26]). These include the planned expansion of digital services such as eSchools, eUniversity and eParents, as well as the development of new platforms like EDUCONTACT, an AI‑enabled helpdesk designed to improve communication and service provision for schools, students, parents, and educators. In parallel, announced forthcoming investments in tools such as Eduplan.ai are intended to support evidence‑based human‑resource planning and may eventually contribute to clearer delineation of roles and more efficient deployment of digital support functions across the system. While these future initiatives fall outside the timeframe of this review, they signal increased attention to creating a more coherent digital ecosystem and could, once fully implemented, strengthen the enabling environment described in this recommendation
Strengthening the digital education ecosystem
The national digital education ecosystem should be strengthened to align tools, platforms and stakeholder roles around supporting students’ learning. In a digital education ecosystem, students should be placed at the centre, supported by a coordinated network of actors and resources. The process begins with policy formulation at the state and local government levels. These policies are then implemented by educational technology companies/organisations (public or private) and other providers, who supply platforms, services, and digital content to schools. Education advisers (operating at both school and regional or national levels) should act as intermediaries between policymakers and schools, helping translate strategic objectives into school-level action. Experimental schools can also play a pivotal role by piloting innovations prior to broader implementation.
At the school level, teachers and school leaders are responsible for integrating digital tools into both administrative and instructional practices, while guiding students in the meaningful and responsible use of technology. Parents contribute by supporting students’ learning at home in alignment with school objectives, and broader community stakeholders help define shared goals and reinforce a culture of innovation. The success of this ecosystem depends on coherence, sustained investment, and effective collaboration across all levels of the education system.
Establish dedicated roles for digital education advisers (educational technologists) at the school or school-cluster level to support the implementation and innovation of digital practices
Drawing on the Estonian model, digital education advisers could undertake a range of responsibilities, including staying abreast of current trends in digital education and disseminating this knowledge within the school community; participating in educational technology projects to broaden learning opportunities; delivering in-house teacher training; co-teaching alongside classroom teachers; and assisting in the preparation and assessment of digital learning practices (Lorenz, Kikkas and Laanpere, 2014[39]).
While Greece currently employs education advisers at the regional level, their responsibilities span multiple thematic areas and a large number of schools. This breadth of duties may prevent them from developing deep expertise in digital education, thereby limiting their impact. To address this, Greece could consider the introduction of a new, specialised role—digital learning counsellor or educational technologist—focussed exclusively on enhancing teachers’ digital pedagogical competence. As demonstrated in Estonia, such roles can be successfully established even at the individual school level.
Ensure all digital education initiatives are supported by sustained funding, strong political commitment, and comprehensive assessment frameworks
To guide and monitor progress effectively, a national coordination body or taskforce should be established. This entity or taskforce (a group of professional from relevant institutions) would be responsible for overseeing implementation, assessing impact, and initiating adjustments as necessary to ensure the long-term success and scalability of digital education reforms. The evaluation of digital education initiatives should include systematic assessment of the outcomes of teacher training programmes and technology integration efforts, using both quantitative and qualitative data; evaluation of the effects of regulatory measures on learning environments and student outcomes; and development of data collection and analysis strategies to inform continuous policy refinement and evidence-based decision-making. For example, some countries also advocate for evaluating digital learning environments through testbeds, recognising that research shows mixed results regarding the effectiveness of various educational technologies (Escueta et al., 2017[40]). Indeed, some of these countries also report a lack of external evaluation of EdTech innovations, with research capturing only a small portion of this rapidly growing sector (Vegas, Ziegler and Zerbino, 2019[41]). In sum, effective evaluation might enable policymakers to identify what works, for whom, and under what conditions, ensuring that digital education initiatives are responsive, scalable, and sustainable.
References
[33] ACARA (2022), National report on schooling in Australia, https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/nap-sampleassessments.
[35] ACER (2018), The teaching and learning international survey, https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=talis.
[37] Antinluoma, M., P. Lahti-Nuuttila and A. Toom (2018), “Schools as professional learning communities”, Journal of Education and Learning, Vol. 7/5, pp. 76-91, https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n5p76.
[30] Cameron, L. (2020), “A robot took my job! How STEM education might prepare students for a rapidly changing world”, Curriculum Perspectives, Vol. 40, pp. 233-239, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00109-1.
[27] Cameron, L. and R. Gulzar (2023), Trends and Issues of Digital Learning in Australia, Trends and Issues of Promoting Digital Learning in High-Digital-Competitiveness Countries: Country Reports and International Comparison.
[38] Cheung, W. and W. Wong (2014), “Does Lesson Study work?: A systematic review on the effects of Lesson Study and Learning Study on teachers and students”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 3/2, pp. 137-149, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-05-2013-0024.
[40] Escueta, M. et al. (2017), Education technology: An evidence-based review (Working Paper No. 23744), National Bureau of Economic Research, https://doi.org/10.3386/w23744.
[20] European Commission (2025), The Digital Competence Framework (DigComp), https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/actions/european-initiatives/digital-competence-framework-digcomp (accessed on 1 July 2025).
[12] European Commission (2022), Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 composite index, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[31] Farhadi, B. and S. Winton (2024), “E-Learning for the Public Good? The Policy Trajectory of Online Education in Ontario, Canada”, Educational Policy, Vol. 38/7, pp. 1676-1712, https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048241267953.
[10] Forsström, S. et al. (2025), “The impact of digital technologies on students’ learning: Results from a literature review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 335, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9997e7b3-en.
[11] Forsström, S. et al. (2025), “Key findings and integration strategies on the impact of digital technologies on students’ learning: Results from a literature review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 336, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ab309c32-en.
[42] Hall, C. et al. (2021), En dator per elev I mellanstadiet. Hur påverkas undervisningen och studieresultaten?, IFAU - Institutetet för Arbetsmarknads- och Utbildningspolitisk Utvärdering.
[6] Kirkwood, A. and L. Price (2013), “Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know?”, Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 38/1, pp. 1-20.
[23] Krumsvik, R. (2011), “Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and schools”, Högre utbildning, Vol. 1/1, pp. 39-51.
[25] Lee, E. and E. Lee (2023), Trends and Issues of Promoting Digital Learning in High-Digital-Competitiveness Countries: Country Reports and International Comparison.
[24] Leijen, Ä., M. Pedaste and L. Lepp (2024), “Supporting teacher agency during a collaborative inquiry-based in-service teacher education course”, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 47/4, pp. 769-786.
[39] Lorenz, B., K. Kikkas and M. Laanpere (2014), The role of educational technologist in implementing new technologies at school, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[15] Lucas, M. et al. (2021), “The relation between in-service teachers’ digital competence and personal and contextual factors: What matters most?”, Computers & Education, Vol. 160/104052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104052.
[4] Luo, E. and K. Wee (2021), “3 Stages of Digital Transformation: Where Are You Now?”, Binomial, https://www.binomialconsulting.com/post/3-stages-of-digital-transformation-where-are-you-now.
[22] Martin, A. (2009), “Digital literacy for the third age: Sustaining identity in an uncertain wo”, eLearning Papers, Vol. 12, pp. 1-15.
[44] Masiello, I. (2023), Trends and Issues of Digital Learning in Sweden.
[43] McLachlan, C. (2018), “Te Whāriki revisited: How approaches to assessment can make valued learning visible.”, He Kupu, Vol. 5/3, pp. 45-56, https://hdl.handle.net/10289/11854.
[26] MERAS (2025), Education Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education 2025–2027.
[7] MERAS (2025), OECD Background Questionnaire: Education Policy Review of Greece, Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
[28] Meyerkort, S. (2025), The evolution of the BYOD programme in Australian schools, https://www.school-news.com.au/news/the-evolution-of-the-byod-program/.
[9] OECD (2025), “The impact of digital technologies on students’ learning in Ireland: Key considerations from peers’ experience”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 125, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38f23920-en.
[14] OECD (2024), Students, digital devices and success, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/05/students-digital-devices-and-success_621829ff/9e4c0624-en.pdf.
[2] OECD (2023), Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[13] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[3] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[18] Parry, D. et al. (2021), “A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use.”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 5/11, pp. 1535-1547, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5.
[21] Pedaste, M. and E. Bardone (2023), Trends and Issues of Digital Learning in Estonia.
[16] Pedaste, M. et al. (2014), “A model of Innovation Schools: Estonian case-study”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 112, pp. 418-427.
[32] Pedaste, M., D. Raave and A. Baucal (2023), Digitaalsete õppematerjalide kasutamise efekt õpilaste õpitulemustele. [The effect of using digital learning materials on student learning outcomes].
[5] Puentedura, R. (2006), Transformation, technology, and education., http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf.
[45] Rahali, M., B. Kidron and S. Livingstone (2024), Smartphone policies in schools: What does the evidence say?, https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125554/1/Smartphone_policies_in_schools_Rahali_et_al_2024_002_.pdf.
[1] Redecker, C. (2017), European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.2760/159770.
[36] Shulman, L. and J. Shulman (2004), “How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 36/2, pp. 257-271, https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000148298.
[17] Sotiriou, S. et al. (2016), “Introducing large-scale innovation in schools”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 541–549, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9611-y.
[46] Stavert, B. (2013), Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Schools 2013. Literature Review., https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/policy-library/public/related-documents/BYOD_2013_Literature_Review.pdf.
[34] Toegel, G. and J. Conger (2003), “360-degree assessment: Time for reinvention”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 2/3, pp. 297-311.
[8] Union, E. (ed.) (2024), Individuals’ level of digital skills (from 2021 onwards), https://doi.org/10.2908/isoc_sk_dskl_i21.
[41] Vegas, E., L. Ziegler and N. Zerbino (2019), How ed-tech can help leapfrog progress in education, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602936.
[19] Vuorikari, R., S. Kluzer and Y. Punie (2022), DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2760/115376.