Bridging the Gap: A Debate on Sustainability Aspects of Digital Media in Education

Abstract

While there has been some progress in addressing ethical questions within current digital media integration frameworks, such as the TPACK model, insufficient research exists regarding the meaningful integration of digital media into education while considering its impact on sustainability in terms of its ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Hence, this article aims to bridge these two critical research streams and examines the current debate on how these sustainability aspects have been considered in the complex debate on efficient digital media integration in the context of education. Besides potentially significant differences regarding digital sufficiency and the life cycle assessment of digital media, there may be further ecological, economic, and social dimensions of media in education specific to the context of sustainable development. By discussing the impact of digital media on the three dimensions of sustainability using three examples (virtual field trips, smartboards, and large language models), we further categorize our findings from the early stages of a systematic literature review (SLR) into a taxonomy on the consideration of sustainability regarding digital media in education. Initially aiming at an SLR involving the screening of 2099 articles to provide deeper insights into how technology integration frameworks consider all three pillars of sustainable development, none of the articles completely met our inclusion criteria. Instead, we found research on certain sustainability aspects of digital media in education, such as learning objectives, life cycle assessment, and pedagogical approaches, combined with various interpretations of the term sustainability. Based on our findings, we developed a taxonomy on sustainability regarding digital media in education, and argue in favor of a comprehensive view and meaningful measurability of the sustainability dimensions when integrating digital media into education. For the promotion of sustainability regarding digital media in education, we suggest the development of an assessment framework for guiding the practical application of digital media in line with the dimensions of sustainability.

1. Introduction

While conducting research for over a decade on the question of how digital media can foster learning objectives in line with education for sustainable development, we have frequently encountered inquiries regarding the impact of emerging educational technologies on sustainability. This question was mostly based on the high electricity consumption and waste of non-eco-friendly materials of digital devices, which are mainly made out of plastic and need a lot of power to run. This critique is mirrored by research regarding the concern on the environmental impact of digital devices (Bull & Kozak, 2014; Hilty et al., 2006; Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019; Peters et al., 2024), e.g., in the form of high energy consumption or rebound effects—both of which amplify the negative environmental impact due to the consumption of resources (Azevedo, 2014; Lange et al., 2023). This question has become even more urgent in times when digital media such as tablets, smartboards, and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming more common in educational institutions. For instance, with the emergence of AI, educators and researchers consider the use of this technology for learning (Urban et al., 2024). However, the server costs are still high (Henriksen et al., 2024) and the use of renewable energies to power these servers is not guaranteed.

Despite these urgent concerns, research over recent decades has shown that digital media can improve teaching and learning under certain conditions (Backfisch et al., 2021; Fütterer et al., 2022; Hammer et al., 2021; Moreno & Mayer, 2007). Several approaches to the successful integration of digital media in general have been described, and competencies have been identified that are necessary for educators to achieve learning efficiency when implementing digital media in teaching settings, such as the European Framework for Digital Competence of Educators (Redecker, 2017). As pointed out by Scheiter (2021), learning efficiency can be ensured by (a) aligning learning content and the use of digital media with learning objectives, (b) ensuring transformative use and high teaching quality, and (c) orchestrating digital and analog learning methods meaningfully in classroom settings. Moreover, the meaningful use of digital media can promote affective, cognitive, and behavioral learning objectives in the context of education for sustainable development (Midden & Ham, 2018; Peters et al., 2024; Ramírez-Verdugo & García De La Vega, 2021).

Accordingly, we are now confronted with two streams. While research obtains increasing evidence for digital media as a promising asset for learning (e.g., see Henriksen et al. (2024) for sustainability education), research on the impact on our climate from using such digital media for learning is critically discussed (Bull & Kozak, 2014; Hilty et al., 2006; Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019; Peters et al., 2024). While there has been some progress in addressing ethical questions within the TPACK model (Deng & Zhang, 2023), insufficient research exists regarding the meaningful integration of digital media into education while measuring its impact on sustainability in terms of its ecological, economic, and social dimensions (Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019). Hence, we aim to bridge these two critical research streams and examine the current debate on which aspects should be considered to ensure the sustainable use of digital media technologies when embedding them into a learning setting. Both fields emphasize the need for clear guidelines for educators and researchers on sustainability considerations to ensure the responsible integration of emerging technologies such as AI, digital whiteboards, or VR headsets in educational settings. By referring to the key dimensions of sustainability—ecological, economic, or social—this study seeks to examine how these sustainability dimensions have been considered in the complex debate on efficient digital media integration in the context of education. Therefore, in the following sections, we briefly describe the current understanding of sustainability and its dimensions in the context of education for sustainable development. Building on this foundation, we outline the impact of digital media on the three pillars of sustainability using three examples (virtual field trips, smartboards, and LLM-based AI). Then, we reference the current state of the art by presenting the results of an initial review and discuss how aspects of sustainability have been incorporated into the complex debate on efficient digital media integration into education by drawing a taxonomy of related research fields.

2. Understanding Sustainability

The term “sustainability” has been interpreted in many different ways and is sometimes used in an inflationary manner (Tikly et al., 2020; Wals & Jickling, 2002). Originally, the term “sustainability” in the context of education for sustainable development (ESD) was based on the understanding of Hans C. Carlowitz (Carlowitz, 1713), a Saxon cameralist of the German region Erzgebirge, who was responsible for the supply of wood. In his book titled Sylvicultura oeconomica, he stressed that the need for wood by cutting trees from the forest should be limited by the need for wood for the coming generations (Grober, 2014). Picking up on this first idea, the term “sustainable development” was defined in the Brundtland Report in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development as a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future: A/42/427, 1987). The United Nations proposed an understanding of sustainable development that aims at “ensuring the integration of ecological, economic and social considerations in decision-making at all levels.” (United Nations, 1992, p. 65). This definition was followed by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 (United Nations, 2015), which provide a framework for action to “achieve for all, now and in the future, sustainable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable life for all” (Rieckmann, 2018, S. 4). The three-pillar concept of sustainability divides sustainability into the three dimensions addressed by the United Nations, which should be harmonized (ecological, economic, and social) and that are connected to each other (Purvis et al., 2019). To use the three-pillar system as a basic concept for sustainable development, Purvis et al. (2019) stress that it requires an explicit description of the three-pillar concept in the relevant content.

With a long historical path dating back to 1987, the concept of sustainable development has been widely discussed and criticized (Purvis et al., 2019). For instance, Tikly et al. (2020) stress that the understanding of sustainability and sustainable development is “being most closely articulate with a Western, modernist view of development” (Tikly et al., 2020, S. 12). Raworth (2017) again emphasizes that the ecological and social dimensions should be a priority. Displayed in the form of a doughnut, her Doughnut Economy model approach is to set human action within planetary boundaries and a social foundation. This concept integrates the idea of nine planetary boundaries from Rockström et al. (2009) and has been revised several times since then (Richardson et al., 2023).

Consequently, we use the term “sustainability” and “sustainable development” interchangeably in this article for the achievement of ecological, economic, and social needs for living beings on planet Earth today and in the future. We also understand the ecological dimension as the leading dimension in line with the approach of planetary boundaries, stressed as a priority by Raworth (2017). Moreover, we also further describe the operationalization of each dimension relevant for our examples, as pointed out by Purvis et al. (2019) and presented in the following sections.

3. Why Digital Media in Education Matter

• Impact on learning

Digital media has become an integral part of our everyday lives. Work processes are increasingly being digitalized, and digital media have evolved into integral components of leisure activities and communication. Educational institutions are tasked with addressing this situation, and digital media education takes on an essential role in this matter. As expressed by Bruce and Levin (1997), in the context of education, we understand digital media as a particular form of technology. The term “suggests the mediational function of technologies, which link the student to other learners, educators, other technologies, ideas, and the physical world” (Bruce & Levin, 1997, p. 83). Thus, we refer to the understanding of digital media integration as described by Backfisch et al. (2021), based on the report of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): “Technology integration refers to teachers’ use of technologies during teaching in school which can a) facilitate teaching and learning processes with digital media, and b) support students’ domain-general digital literacy to participate in a digitalized society” (OECD, 2015). Research on the integration of digital media in the classroom has led to a discussion of the advantages (e.g., learning efficiency, media literacy, participation) and a wide range of disadvantages (e.g., difficulties in concentration, ethical concerns, addictive behaviors) as well as the question of how to assess successful integration in the context of learning (Consoli et al., 2023).

Regarding the advantages of digital media for learning, research provides a continuing discussion on how digital media can be integrated in education in a manner that enhances learning benefits and minimizes risks. For instance, research has observed that using visual displays (Renkl & Scheiter, 2017), computer-supported cognitive tutors (Aleven, 2002), computer-based feedback (Lachner et al., 2017), digital serious games (Wouters et al., 2017), augmented reality (Koumpouros, 2024), and virtual reality applications (Hamilton et al., 2021) in fitting circumstances can positively impact learning outcomes (Fütterer et al., 2022). Moreover, further positive social impacts such as participation (Boulianne, 2020; Bruce & Levin, 1997) have been observed. With regard to its disadvantages, risks such as cyberbullying (Kowalski et al., 2014), health (Orben & Przybylski, 2019), obesity (Marshall et al., 2004), or fear of missing out (Przybylski et al., 2013) have been addressed.

b.

Impact on sustainability-related education

In the context of sustainability, the potential of digital media for different areas of sustainability (e.g., health, communication, education, emission reduction) has been pointed out, and the negative environmental impact of its materiality has also been discussed (Hamadi & El-Den, 2023; Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019). In the review by Kuntsman and Rattle (2019), which examined controversies regarding how digital media is beneficial for environmental sustainability and how environmental damage might be ignored in this discussion, the authors stress that, in research on the benefits of digital media for sustainability-related education, the negative environmental impact of digital tools on the environment has been omitted. The authors attribute to these studies a rather “celebratory” approach to the use of digital media in education that overlooks negative environmental impacts (Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019, S. 573) and call for a “paradigmatic shift in the field of sustainability studies, from digital solutionism to critical accountability” (Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019, S. 579) to address the “the prevalence of the material blind spot in ICT [(information and communications technology)]and communication research” (Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019, S. 579).

In their conceptual research framework for sustainable learning environments in higher education, Hamadi and El-Den (2023) argue that a more holistic approach is necessary to examine the relevant interactions and relationships at the micro- (classroom), mezzo- (administration), and macro-level (public policy impact) to achieve a digital media use in line with sustainable development. They refer to five dimensions of sustainability (social, economic, environmental, technical, and human) as well as the challenges of digitalization that must be considered. As challenges that must be minimized during this process, the authors address the resistance of educators to use digital tools, the negative environmental impact of the material and energy consumption, and a possible ignorance of the diversity of users.

Hamadi and El-Den (2023) point out that in the debate on successful media integration into educational settings, a holistic approach considering all three sustainability aspects seems to be scarce, particularly in computing education. Therefore, illustrating the extent of sustainability aspects, we will describe examples of digital media integration in education with regard to the three pillars of sustainability: virtual field trips using head-mounted displays (HMDs), smartboards, and large language models (LLMs). In the following sections, we assume that the affordances of a digital media when using them at the classroom level are considered, aiming to foster learning processes and promote digital literacy (Fütterer et al., 2022).

3.1. Example Virtual Field Trip

Virtual field trips (VFTs) serve as a prominent example of emerging digital media currently discussed in the context of education (Rosendahl & Wagner, 2024; Shinde et al., 2023). Field trips (FTs) enable memorable learning experiences on real sites (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Orion & Hofstein, 1994). However, they are time-consuming and expensive, and visiting real sites often involves long journeys. As an alternative, VFTs have been discussed. The use of 360°VR technology, which has been available for some years, facilitates the production of digital visualizations, sometimes with audio augmentation, that enable VFTs (Klippel et al., 2020; Shadiev et al., 2022; Wehking et al., 2022). Such VFTs are low-threshold activities that allow participants to use them at any time and from any location with little effort. By eliminating the location dependency, VFTs are available to larger target groups. They are also available to learners for whom an actual FT would not be possible due to the distance to be traveled. By eliminating the time dependency and synchronicity, additional learning scenarios are possible; for example, VFTs—unlike FTs—can be completed several times or even only partially (Wolf et al., 2023). Burgschweiger (2023) describes a scenario in which an offshore wind turbine is an FT destination. As an indicator of the ecological dimension, she proposes CO₂ equivalents (CO₂(e)) caused by the FT to the wind turbine itself. Burgschweiger (2023) estimates that the FT, which consists of a train journey, a transfer to the port, and a subsequent boat trip to the wind turbine, generates 32.31 kg of CO₂(e) per learner (

Table 1. Emissions (in kg CO₂(e) per learner) caused by a field trip to an offshore wind turbine.

Transport	Emissions per km and Person [kg CO2(e)]	Distance [km]	Emission per Person [kg CO2(e)]	Number of Persons	Emissions per Field Trip [kg CO2(e)]
Train (Umweltbundesamt, 2021)	0.03	600.0	18.00	22	396.00
Car (Umweltbundesamt, 2021)	0.15	18.2	2.73	22	60.06
Boat (Schulz et al., 2020)	0.14	70.0	9.80	26	254.80
		Per learner: 32.31 kg CO2(e)			710.86

).

To compare the value of 32.31 kg CO₂(e) against a VFT, a corresponding value for video streaming is used, which is quantified by Shehabi et al. (2014) at 0.42 kg CO₂(e) per hour. Video streaming is chosen because its configuration is similar to that of VFTs: it requires a server, data transmission, and a digital end device. We assume that a VFT takes about 1 h and that the corresponding resources are used. While the embodied energy for creating the devices is included in Shehabi’s calculation (<10%) (Shehabi et al., 2014), it is neglected by Burgschweiger (2023). Assuming that embodied energy also reaches a similar order of magnitude in transport, this results in a ratio of CO₂(e) of roughly one hundred times, i.e., the FT causes 100 times the CO₂(e) generated during the VFT. While the time required for the FT can be estimated at approx. 8 h, the VFT takes 1 h. The learning effectiveness of a FT is estimated to be higher than that of a VFT; a study involving students showed that a VFT might reach approx. 60% of an FT (Springer et al., 2020). We conclude that a learning effectiveness that is higher by a factor of 2 is offset by a considerably greater time expenditure for the learning activity and a roughly 100 times greater CO₂(e) emission.

In a related comparison, including the CO₂ emissions required to create the VFT, Schott (2017) finds a ratio of 1:48, which, of course, improves if the VFT has more participants than the 96 participants estimated in the study, compared to 2 people obtaining the footage on-site for creating the VFT.

Another advantage of VFTs is their greater inclusiveness, which is part of the social dimension. While some FTs require physical fitness to access the FT locations, VFTs are also suitable for a large proportion of participants with physical disabilities. Thus, VFTs allow some participants to obtain an authentic impression of locations that they would never be able to visit in person.

FTs and VFTs may be compared from an economic perspective as well. Burgschweiger (2023) calculates rail transportation costs of EUR 50 per person, while she calculates a total of EUR 7500 for the purchase of a class pack of five HMDs. In approximate terms, the VFT costs less than the FT once the 150th participant has taken part. Even if some factors were neglected here, such as electricity and space for the VFT or transportation by train and car and a tour guide for the FT, it is apparent that VFTs have advantages from a cost perspective even with a low number of participants.

3.2. Example Smartboards

Smartboards, also referred to as interactive whiteboards, are fairly large-sized interactive boards that support innovative learning scenarios based on technology (Al-Qirim et al., 2017). Smartboards achieve significant positive effect sizes in terms of learning efficiency when used in appropriate scenarios (Akar, 2020; Shi et al., 2021). Since the successful use of smartboards benefits from prior educator training (Zhou et al., 2022), some reservations can be observed among educators that lead to non-use (Al-Qirim et al., 2010; Mun & Abdullah, 2016). Although there have been adaptation effects (Shi et al., 2021), reservations still exist about the use of smartboards, regardless of their availability (Tombak & Ateşkan, 2019). Smartboards are an example of digital end devices that have a great ecological impact compared to data transmission and servers (Bordage et al., 2021). Due to a lack of detailed LCA data, we estimated the CO₂(e). For example, Bhakar et al. (2015) calculated a CO₂(e) of approx. 150 kg over the entire life cycle of a 15” LED monitor. If the weight of such a monitor is assumed to be 4 kg and a standard smart board with a 65” diagonal weighs approx. 80 kg, this results in an approximate CO₂(e) of 150 kg × 80/4 = 3000 kg (Studio VIX, 2024).

Regarding the economic dimension, smartboards are likely subject to similar restrictions as those that have been experienced for years b individuals with no or instable internet connections in large parts of the world (Tadesse & Muluye, 2020). For example, in a study in an African country, Uduak and Kasumu (2022) found that smartboards tend to be difficult to fund. Examples of the social dimension include the joint creation of content that is conducive to learning and negotiating its shared meaning on smartboards (Maher, 2011).

3.3. Example of Large Language Model (LLM)-Based AI

In November 2022, ChatGPT, a chatbot that uses large language model (LLM)-based AI and communicates with users in natural language, was released to the public. ChatGPT is an example of the disruptive potential of AI as educational technology (Sallam, 2023), enabling an increase in the quality and accessibility of teaching (Rawas, 2024), but also necessitating adjustments in formal teaching, such as in the mindset of educators, e.g., from must-know-it-all to being-able-to-learn-it-all (Chiu, 2023). The knowledge that becomes accessible via LLMs shifts educators into becoming the learning companions of their learners (Chiu, 2023), who can acquire knowledge to a high degree independently through LLMSs. Accordingly, learning scenarios are conceivable in which learners analyze texts asynchronously using LLMs as virtual teaching assistants instead of synchronous support by educators in the classroom (Lee, 2023). Such learning scenarios have various positive characteristics that can be assigned to the social dimension: they allow self-directed learning at an individual pace and at locations of an individual’s choice. Private communication with LLMs may also be seen as a protected space that allows learning processes to be carried out that do not always take place in face-to-face lessons, as has been observed in regard to mental health (Jo et al., 2023). The option to use different languages is another positive feature inherent to LLMs. Subsequently, the educator capacity saved here may be spent on learning activities that lead to other qualitative improvements in teaching.

In addition to their disruptive potential in education, LLMs also pose several challenges. From a didactic perspective, these challenges include assessments. Since exams for selected disciplines are passable using LLM-generated answers (Lo, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Schwenke et al., 2023), exam formats need to be revised in order to preserve their ability to assess the actual skills of examinees.

The ecological dimension undoubtedly includes the significant energy consumption required to generate LLMs, which is a recurring topic of discussion (Khowaja et al., 2024; Stojkovic et al., 2024). The carbon footprint for the training of OpenAI’s GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), for example, is estimated at over 550 tons of CO₂(e) (Celdran et al., 2023; Faiz et al., 2024).

In addition to the ecological dimension, the social and economic dimensions also must be considered. For example, Rudolph et al. (2024) call for LLMs to be rooted in education based on ethics and equality. Furthermore, educational objectives and human values should play an elevated role in their use. Even more importantly, Khowaja et al. (2024) postulate that LLMs should be subject to a SPADE (Sustainability, PrivAcy, Digital divide, and Ethics) evaluation. In their work, they assign sustainability as a carbon footprint exclusively to the ecological dimension and measure it in CO₂(e), with the other three factors being largely assigned to the social dimension. LLMs are characterized by some privacy concerns. For example, the data for training the LLMs are often collected from the Internet for use as training data without the formal authorization of the respective data provider. The ethical factor must also be regarded as critical. Khowaja et al. (2024) compiled several characteristics that are critical from an ethical perspective. These include the fact that personal data are used for training when data are collected from internet resources. The LLM may also give biased answers, as the training data are not categorized beforehand. To counteract such biases, mitigation measures are already being worked on, such as a framework to ensure diversity and inclusion (Abdelhalim et al., 2024). LLMs empower the operator to potentially influence public opinion through the content. Because LLMs are considered black boxes, statements made by LLMs cannot be analyzed. Such ethical problems also arise in other branches of AI and are counteracted by so-called explainable artificial intelligence approaches (Celdran et al., 2023; Luckey et al., 2022). The digital divide factor might be on the boundary between the economic and social dimensions. Due to a lack of financial resources, some participants in society and even entire countries as part of international society are disadvantaged in the use of LLMs (Rudolph et al., 2024).

Overall, LLMs offer great disruptive potential, but also pose significant ecological, economic, and social challenges. Accordingly, this example advocates the consideration of different sustainability aspects by educators when integrating digital media into teaching.

3.4. Discussion of the Examples

As outlined in the three examples, sustainability aspects can vary depending on the used array of digital media or the use case. Moreover, information on the measurability of sustainability aspects remains complex and is not always available to educators or easy for them to obtain. This is also one reason why the examples are presented to varying degrees. Yet another reason relates to the distinction between evolved and disruptive media. VFTs may be seen as a development of FTs and, thus, as evolved media. Accordingly, the respective learning scenarios could be compared with each other and differences regarding the dimensions of sustainability then become identifiable. These comparisons are not so easy with disruptive media such as LLMs. LLMs offer new opportunities for learning that did not exist before; thus, there are no simple baselines for comparisons.

Ecological dimension: The example of VFTs highlights the major advantage of VFTs over FTs from an ecological point of view. The example of smartboards, on the other hand, illustrates that digital media in education can also partially contribute to a waste of resources. AI involves considerable energy consumption. However, current research on energy consumption has raised questions about whether there are reasonable arguments against using digital media in educational settings. For instance, Dias Pereira et al. (2014) point out that computers account for only 4 percent of the total energy consumption of a school building. Energy consumption in Romanian universities fell by up to 60% during the pandemic, despite an increase in the use of ICT (Andrei et al., 2021). If we only look at the energy consumption rates of digital media in the educational institution context, it seems that the influence on total energy consumption is rather low. There is also a rising number of educational institutions that produce their own energy using renewable sources. For instance, over 7300 K-12 schools in the United States have solar installations, accounting for 5.5% of all public and private K-12 schools (Generation180, 2020). Schools installing solar panels in the United States have nearly doubled over the past five years (Generation180, 2020).

Economic dimension: While the measurability of the economic dimension through calculating the monetary costs of devices seems easy at first, the assessment of costs depends on the financial resources of an educational institution. Consequently, the financial situation of the institution determines the acquisition of digital media. Hence, educators in educational institutions with solid financial resources may have more access to digital devices compared to those in educational institutions with fewer financial resources. Again, referring to the argument of energy consumption powered by renewable energies, this might influence cost-related decisions. However, resources to foster renewable energies must be available in the first place. While some countries may have funding for such projects, others may not (Uduak & Kasumu, 2022). The costs also depend on the type of device. While HMDs were quite expensive a decade ago, they are now available at costs comparable to computers. Nevertheless, regarding measurability, the economic dimension is a matter of cost. Within this debate, the cost of traditional materials also becomes evident and should be equally considered.

Social dimension: The measurability of indicators for the social dimension seems challenging because it depends on a variety of different criteria (e.g., socioeconomic status, ethics, accessibility, equality, inclusion) and the complexity of finding quantifiable metrics for such criteria. Determining which indicator is the most relevant might also depend on the perspective and digital literacy of the educator. For instance, using generative AI provided by a public platform, such as ChatGPT, raises different ethical considerations compared to a locally built solution, such as the Ollama Python library. This library allows the LLM system prompt to be manipulated, and learners’ responses can only be accessed by the educator in charge. Hence, mapping out the ethics of AI in particular is still complex, and questions on other aspects such as harmful content, privacy, interaction risks, or security, as highlighted by Hagendorff (2024), are still to be considered.

4. Sustainability Regarding Digital Media Integration in Education—A Review Attempt

Building on the three examples, we sought a framework that considers all three sustainability-related aspects of digital media to better comprehend its complexity within the context of education. Subsequently, we initially conducted a systematic literature review (SLR). The primary goal guiding this systematic review was to examine how digital media can be integrated into education in line with the three pillars of sustainable development. Therefore, we investigated the following three research questions, which build on each other:

• Which theoretical frameworks have been established to describe the integration of digital media in education in line with sustainability? (RQ1)
• How are the three pillars of sustainability assessed and measured within digital media integration frameworks? (RQ2)
• What are the findings regarding the successful integration of digital media in line with sustainability in education? (RQ3)

This screening process of 2099 records led to the exclusion of all 2099 articles (see Figure 1). As we were not successful in finding a basis for even a rudimentary review, we decided to outline and discuss our reasons for exclusion and derive a taxonomy based on them, as detailed in the next section. The SLR followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure a transparent and replicable methodology (Moher et al., 2009). The review process commenced with the identification of studies through a comprehensive search conducted across multiple databases, including Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and JSTOR. The search query used was as follows:

[(sustainable OR sustainability) AND (media OR technology) AND (instruction OR integration) AND (education OR learning)].

To maintain a focused scope, only journal articles written in English were considered. Following the identification phase, an initial screening of the titles and abstracts of the 2099 identified articles was conducted to assess their relevance (Figure 1).

Despite the extensive search and rigorous screening process led by two researchers, no article was found to be relevant to the specific research questions on frameworks that integrate digital media in a holistic, sustainable manner according to the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of its implementation. Instead, we found articles on topics that refer to specific components that differ considerably from the meaning of sustainability we had in mind (e.g., research that referred to sustainability in terms of the continuing use of technology). But we also found relatively new research that points to the general discussion about the use of digital media in education from a sustainability point of view (Kuntsman & Rattle, 2019; Maurer et al., 2024). Hence, we further outlined the reasons for exclusion and explained why they did not align with our initial research questions, eventually leading to the formulation of a new research aim: to examine how sustainability aspects have been considered in the complex debate on efficient digital media integration in the context of education.

For example, Hamadi and El-Den (2023) refer to a holistic approach of sustainability by including five dimensions of sustainability that must be considered when addressing sustainable digital learning in higher education: social, economic, environment, technical, and human. Outlined in their Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Digital Learning in Higher Education (Hamadi & El-Den, 2023), Hamadi and El-Den refer to the dimensions of sustainability (social, economic, environmental, technical, and human) that must be addressed as learning objectives in the classroom (see Figure 2).

Although the framework for sustainable digital learning (Hamadi & El-Den, 2023) links these five dimensions, the dimensions refer to the learner, not the digital media:

• Social dimension: foster positive social impacts such as inclusion, educational quality, lifelong learning, involvement, participation, motivation, skills.
• Economical dimension: equip students with skills required in the labor market.
• Environmental dimension: promote environmental sustainability awareness among students.
• Human dimension: promote collaboration, interaction, and action orientation among students through design-based teaching methods.
• Technical dimension: building sustainable digital learning software.

Hamadi and El-Den (2023) stress that further research is necessary to examine these learning dimensions, link them more effectively to media literacy, and incorporate them into curricula. Moreover, more research is needed to elaborate these learning objectives and embed them successfully in the classroom setting.

Hence, while we acknowledge that this framework is the only one we found that almost matched our search criteria, references to the sustainability dimensions are quite different from our initial approach: while we were looking at frameworks that measure the impact of digital media integration on the sustainability dimensions, Hamadi and El-Den (2023) looked at the impact on learners’ sustainability-related competencies. A similar approach can be found within the literature review conducted by Peters et al. (2024) on intended learning objectives, chosen content, and pedagogical approaches when integrating sustainability in computing education. Again, focusing on the impact on sustainability-related learner competencies, the authors identified sustainability education as a “niche activity in computing education” (Peters et al., 2024, S. 42).

The results of our search queries also revealed that there are different understandings of and perspectives on sustainability in the context of educational digital media. For example, Koohang and Harman (2007) describe four dimensions of sustainability of digital media in the form of open educational resources (OER).

Instructional design and presentation are relevant for educational value, i.e., for the possibility of learning efficiently with the help of digital media. Higher learning efficiency goes hand-in-hand with better sustainability, provided that the instructional design is guided by learning theories and that achieving good usability is a high priority. The cost of production and maintenance must remain reasonable in accordance with value engineering. Complex features that do not have a corresponding utility value should not be implemented. Support for digital media should consist of a mix of various pillars, such as commercial interests, institutional interests, or philanthropic approaches. Communities of practice ensure the upscaling of digital media, i.e., more widespread use and, thus, greater effectiveness.

Downes (2007) describes yet another perspective on sustainability. One of the most important prerequisites for the sustainability of a particular resource is its sustainability from the perspective of the resource provider—regardless of its value to the user. In some cases, sustainability corresponds to lower costs, but looking at costs alone often overlooks other factors, such as ancillary costs, e.g., for user training. Sustainability may also describe the other capabilities of digital media, such as enabling e-learning in sparsely populated areas in the first place.

UNESCO (2002) describes the term “software sustainability” as a sum of technical qualities, such as the ability to be used on different technical platforms. Usability, i.e., ease of use, and adaptation to different languages are also part of software sustainability in the sense of high utilization. Sustainability is characterized as the ability of software to be operated frequently with little effort and to make it as accessible as possible to many users, i.e., to be widely used. Drawing on the diverse perspectives offered by the literature, we compiled these results in the taxonomy described in the following section.

5. Sustainability Regarding Digital Media in Education—A Taxonomic Approach

Based on the insufficient outcome of the initial review, our aim in this study changed to an examination of how sustainability aspects have been considered in the complex debate on efficient digital media integration in the context of education. Therefore, we compiled our findings into a taxonomy of the use of sustainability as a term in the context of digital media in education as an essential first step toward addressing the complexity of integrating and assessing sustainability aspects of digital media (Figure 3). While some papers included in the review provided a basis for the taxonomy, we refined it by analyzing additional related publications.

For instance, when exploring related research using additional search terms, we identified studies addressing ethics in the integration of educational technologies such as the “preliminary educational technology ethics framework” (Spector, 2016) and the Ethical Choices with Educational Technology Framework (Warren & Beck, 2023) claiming that ethical guidelines are not incorporated into instructional design models of education (Warren et al., 2023). Against this backdrop, we aim to bring clarity to the debate surrounding the term “sustainability” in the context of digital media in education by developing a taxonomy.

The taxonomy consists of two main research streams regarding sustainability in the context of digital media in education (i.e., sustainability as a learning objective and the sustainability of learning environments), each of which can be subdivided into further particular fields of research. Furthermore, the term “sustainability in education” regarding digital media often refers to the continuation of use or the evolution of an actively used default of educational instruments such as a certain educational technology or a method of instructional design. Since sustainability as continuation is a further, yet related interpretation of sustainability beyond the three-pillar definition (ecological, economic, and social) on which the other research fields of the taxonomy are based, we have marked this research field in Figure 3 with dashed lines. We describe each research field in the following subsections.

5.1. Sustainability as Learning Objective

In the concept of education for sustainable development (ESD), there is plenty of research on competencies for learners, the design of learning environments by educators, and policymaking to establish sustainable governance in educational institutions (Fischer et al., 2022). As outlined in Section 4, we identified frameworks that debate the impact on sustainability-related learner competencies (Hamadi & El-Den, 2023), higher learner efficiency (Koohang & Harman, 2007), and literature reviews focusing on intended learning objectives, selected content, and pedagogical approaches for considering sustainability in computing education (Peters et al., 2024). Overall, the concept of ESD helps learners to discover strategies for effecting change and aims to empower them to enact change by offering “the values, knowledge, skills and competencies for sustainable living and participation in society” (Rieckmann, 2018, S. 1). ESD also differs from environmental education because it is concerned with “developing closer links among environmental quality, human equality, human rights and peace and their underlying political threads” (Rieckmann, 2018, S. 9). Subsequently, there is a high level of research interest in the question of how to design learning environments that can achieve this goal, as well as the relevant competencies, skills or pedagogical approaches that should be addressed (Fischer et al., 2022). In the following section, we further evaluate these two streams for a deeper understanding of how sustainability as a learning objective has been investigated so far and identify how digital media have been employed within these research streams.

5.1.1. Skills and Attitudes

ESD focuses on competencies that enable individuals to better cope with the current climate transition and, at the same time, are able to contribute to a sustainable future. However, there is an ongoing debate on the competencies that are vital to promoting such a sustainable future (Bianchi et al., 2022; Rieckmann, 2012, 2018; Wiggenbrock et al., 2024), and there have been several approaches to determining the learning objectives and competencies necessary to achieve learning outcomes in line with sustainable development goals that enable people to act on them (UNESCO, 2017). At the same time, there exist several competency frameworks, but there is no consensus on which is the most relevant (Brundiers et al., 2021). One recent framework—established by the European Union—is the European Sustainability Competence Framework (GreenComp; (Bianchi et al., 2022)). The GreenComp purports to have been developed based on the current frameworks and competency discussions in ESD. The GreenComp also utilizes the methods established by the Joint Research Center (JRC), which were used to create other competency frameworks such as the Digital Competency Framework for Citizens (DigiComp). Hence, we refer to this framework, which draws on well-founded methods and is based on prior frameworks as well as research on competency framework development. In the GreenComp, four areas have been established that address three competencies each: (1) embodying sustainability values; (2) embracing complexity in sustainability; (3) envisioning sustainable futures; and (4) acting for sustainability. The listed competencies within these areas refer to cognitive (e.g., critical thinking), social–emotional (e.g., promote nature connectedness), and behavioral processes (e.g., individual initiatives). In particular, ESD-related competencies require self-awareness and the reflection of one’s own values, desires, and habits to find solutions for sustainability-related challenges (Brundiers et al., 2021). Hence, these competencies are in need of learning environments that allow a debate on personal values as well as foster problem-solving competencies (Brundiers et al., 2021). In addition to frameworks, the implementation of ESDs is also promoted by national programs, e.g., in Germany (Nationale Plattform Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2022).

In the GreenComp, a reference to educational technology in the context of learning is limited to an outlook on the possible benefits of digital media for learning and a reminder of the impact of the proposed technology on sustainable development. It is possible that such a topic is implicitly encompassed within the methodology rather than being treated as a distinct issue. The question remains as to how learning objectives in terms of ESD-related competences can be systematically addressed by making the use of digital devices and their impact on the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability for educators easier to assess.

5.1.2. Pedagogical Approaches

With the ongoing debate for a consensus on sustainability-related competencies, a discussion was initiated as to which pedagogical approaches are suitable for promoting such competencies (Fischer et al., 2022) or can induce transformative processes (Grund et al., 2024). In general, ESD claims to build on prior existing educational theories and pedagogies, such as critical pedagogy or experiential learning theory (Grund et al., 2024). Thus, a large amount of research has been conducted on identifying appropriate learning methods and using different pedagogical approaches to foster sustainability-related competencies, as also observed in the systematic review by Fischer et al. (2022). The authors state that research on teacher education for sustainable development (TESD) has focused on the design of learning environments regarding content integration and used pedagogies besides measuring learning outcomes, as well as integration on an organizational level. At the same time, the authors observed that there is still a limited number of studies on successful teacher education for sustainable development and its influence on quality education beyond “narrowly-defined sustainability-related effects” (Fischer et al., 2022, S. 11). Moreover, there is still a lack of research on how “findings from TESD research can be translated to inform practice”.

One example provided by Sinakou et al. (2019) is the Holism–Pluralism–Action-orientation ESD framework (Figure 4). The authors stress that there is a lack of an integrated conceptual framework in the field of ESD and developed a framework that integrates skills to recognize and analyze sustainable development issues, and to enable learners to take action when dealing with sustainability issues. “[T]he holistic approaches refer to the content of ESD teaching, whereas the pluralistic and action-oriented approaches refer to the pedagogical methods applied in ESD” (Sinakou et al., 2019, S. 14).

Taking this short route into the debate on appropriate pedagogical approaches, it seems that ESD research still faces the complexity of addressing very personal-related learning processes into lesson planning without disregarding subject-oriented learning objectives. The question of how ESD can be successfully incorporated into existing curricula seems to be of high importance. Moreover, within this complex debate, relations to digitality or digital media as part of an integrative framework are still limited but are pointed to in research, e.g., in the sustainable-oriented ecologies of learning by Wals (2019). In the established ecology, the author refers to media and technology as a conduit, and games and simulations are mentioned as one part of the mechanism to enable sustainability-oriented learning processes. Hence, educators still face the challenge of incorporating sustainability-related skills and media literacy into educational contexts at the same time.

5.2. Sustainability of Learning Environments

A more device-oriented perspective was outlined by Downes (2007) and UNESCO (2002), focusing on the environmental impact of digital media and its surrounding ecosystem. Upon further investigation, we identified a debate on this issue from various perspectives, such as institutions (Section 5.2.1), manufacturers (Section 5.2.2), and educators (Section 5.2.3).

5.2.1. Whole-Institution Approach

The whole-institution approach (WIA) argues that educational institutions as organizations should align all institutional processes to sustainable development in a holistic way (Kohl et al., 2022). Subsequently, this approach is basically concerned with the question of how institutions as a whole can be transformed into learning environments for sustainable development and future-oriented action, starting with teaching content and methodology and moving on to institutional aspects such as facilities and interactions between relevant stakeholders. It shifts the focus from the individual and towards institutional responsibility and processes to support the achievement of institutional development at all levels. One vital factor necessary to achieve this goal is effective leadership (Kohl et al., 2022; Mader et al., 2013), and more research is still necessary to elaborate factors of success from an institutional point of view (Kohl et al., 2022).

5.2.2. Sustainability of Digital Media

As the example of smartboards shows, the manufacture of any digital media is also associated with an environmental impact (e.g., Göbl et al. (2023)). One method for quantifying the environmental impact is life cycle assessment (LCA), a systematic analysis of the potential environmental footprint and energy balance of products throughout their entire life cycle, which particularly helps in assessing the ecological dimension in the context of sustainability (Hauschild et al., 2018). Specifically for VFTs using 360° footage, the analysis by Schott (2017) mentioned above shows significant advantages for VFTs compared to FTs from an environmental perspective. Similarly, the two other dimensions, i.e., the social and economic dimensions of sustainability, also identified some advantages of VFTs in the example presented.

Less specific to digital media, but for software in general, Calero et al. (2021) define three dimensions of sustainability. Environmental sustainability describes using the label “green software” the extent to which natural resources are required for the development and operation of software. Human sustainability refers to the impact of software on the developer community in terms of work guidelines, mental health, and quality of life, amongst others. Accordingly, the Karlskrona Manifesto for sustainability design (Becker et al., 2015) defines the notion that sustainability is always system-related and should be taken into account in all design decisions. It is also proposed to include design for sustainable technologies in curricula (Özkan & Mishra, 2015). At this point, the loop closes from the sustainability of media to sustainability as a learning objective (see above).

According to Grunwald (2003), technical products and systems are neither inherently sustainable nor unsustainable. Grunwald (2003) argues that the focus should be on the sustainability potential of technologies, as at the development stage, it is not yet clear what the application contexts of the technologies will ultimately look like. Accordingly, it is not adequate to merely focus on LCA; an assessment of the use context needs to be carried out along with it. An example that shows the importance of rebound effects (Azevedo, 2014; Lange et al., 2023), for example, the more frequent use of media and the associated additional consumption of resources, are the VFTs discussed above. Simply because a VFT is less costly per participant is not decisive; the fact that the utilization threshold is lower must also be considered. As a result, VFTs are presumably used more frequently and thus lead to the additional consumption of resources. The fact that the additional consumption of resources is presumably offset by higher learning outcomes does not preclude reference to a rebound effect. Santarius et al. (2023) developed the concept of digital sufficiency, divided into policies for hardware, software, users, and economy sufficiency. For all four dimensions, Santarius et al. propose policies that support sustainable resource utilization. These policies also guide the sustainable implementation of media.

In their assessment of the sustainability of digital systems, Veit and Thatcher (2023) note that the discussion to date has focused on the area of environmental influences. The other two pillars, social and economic, should be part of a future research agenda. Gensch et al.’s (2017) study takes a critical stance on environmental impacts in particular. They present the concept of Greening IT (information technology), which aims at making information technology itself more sustainable. However, according to their findings, there is a lack of data for guiding sustainability effects; there are also often no a priori assessments of sustainability effects carried out for business models, and there is a lack of sustainability as a design guideline for digitization initiatives. There is also a lack of trend analyses. The advantages of digitalization are presented, while the disadvantages tend to remain uninvestigated.

To draw conclusions about sustainability in digital media, and, as a result, the support for educators in making decisions in this regard, it may be necessary to look at the research field of sustainability in information technology itself. The overall picture there is rather heterogeneous, and the need to anchor sustainability as a design principle in digital media is discussed in theory but apparently has not yet arrived in practice.

5.2.3. Sustainable Digital Media Integration

Sustainable digital media integration describes the implementation of digital media in education that is holistically guided by the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. As one of the most popular frameworks for successful educational technology integration, the TPACK model described by Mishra and Koehler (2006) has been extensively investigated since its creation (Schmid et al., 2024). This model describes the integration of educational technology based on three types of knowledge: technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK). In a recent revision, the model was also broadened to include an ethical dimension (Deng & Zhang, 2023). While there are some overlaps with the social dimension of the newly considered ethical knowledge in TPACK, such as the right to access technology, knowledge related to ecological and economic aspects is still missing. Hence, a holistic understanding with regard to the sustainability aspects of educational technology itself is not considered. The guidelines outlined in the Ethical Choices with Educational Technology (ECET) Instructional Design technology evaluation choice framework (Warren & Beck, 2023) could also be discussed under the broader concept of sustainability, raising questions about the feasibility of devices and, more recently, on their environmental impact (Warren et al., 2023). However, there appears to be an issue with the terminology: while frameworks exist for ethics, they are not explicitly linked or labeled under the term “sustainability”.

Moreover, educators need particular competencies to use digital media, which are outlined in the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu; (Redecker, 2017)). The framework consists of 22 competencies in six areas: professional engagement, digital resources, assessment, teaching and learning, empowering learners, and facilitation of learners’ digital competencies. Considering that the impact of digital media on sustainable development is limited to a part of the competency “responsible use” in the area “Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence”, responsible use in this framework has the main objective of enhancing a positive attitude regarding digital media, also ensuring “wellbeing and social inclusion”, and raising awareness of “the environmental impact of digital technologies and their use”. To establish a deeper understanding and measurability of these criteria, further explanation is still required.

Current models and frameworks for successful digital media integration (still) fall short of considering sustainable development from a more holistic approach. Current research instead seems to focus on one of the three dimensions, occasionally without explicitly framing it as being related to the concept of education for sustainable development or the term “sustainability”. Evaluating the sustainability of specific digital media as a distinct competency of educators is rarely mentioned, either in the TPACK or similar models (SAMR, (Puentedura, 2003); TAM, (Venkatesh et al., 2003) PICRAT, (Kimmons et al., 2020)) or the digital competency framework for educators. The current models of technology integration into educational settings might not consider the sustainability of technology, primarily because their focus has traditionally been on the immediate educational benefits rather than the sustainability-related impact. This oversight might have led to the underrepresentation of the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability in the theoretical frameworks and practical planning and implementation of digital media in teaching.

5.3. Sustainability as Continuation

In the research fields of this taxonomy that have been described so far, the term “sustainability” was based on the three-pillar definition (ecological, economic, and social). The research field we now describe, which is frequently covered in the literature, is also rooted in sustainability, but is not based on the three-pillar definition and, therefore, occupies an “outsider” role in the taxonomy. In one strand of the literature, predominantly in the early 2000s, sustainability is understood as continuation or perpetuation of digital media or instructional methods in regular learning contexts due to its proven learning-promoting qualities. Accordingly, Dickard (2003) defines sustainability as “strategies for maintaining and nourishing effective programs over time”. Furthermore, Trentin (2007) defines eight dimensions of the sustainability of e-learning, which are closely interrelated: pedagogical, professional, socio-cultural, informal, content, organizational, economic, and technical. Timpone (2005) also examines the conditions for sustainable educational technology and finds ten sustainability factors: vision and mission through leadership, funding, professional development, technical support, authentic assessment, literacy, digital content, access to technology, sharing practices, and connectivity. Koohang and Harman (2007) develop the prerequisites for the sustainability of open educational resources. Their findings include instructional design and presentation, the cost of production and maintenance, support, and communities. Niederhauser et al. (2018) discuss the reasons why sustainability cannot be taken for granted, even if educational technology has proven to be successful. They define recommendations for the actual perpetuation of educational technology innovation. These findings are also discussed by Howard et al. (2021), who see the four areas of organization, innovation, research, and new contexts as central to the sustainability and scalability of educational technology.

Furthermore, the relationship between continuation and sustainability is debated in the literature. Hence, continuation is seen as one of four parameters of sustainability. Patten and Costanza (1997) define sufficient and necessary conditions between the four parameters of stability, continuation, longevity and health, and sustainability. Based on the assumptions of Zadeh (1969), it is postulated that continuation is sufficient for sustainability, but sustainability is not sufficient for continuation (Patten, 1998).

6. Discussion and Implications

Initially aiming to conduct an SLR to answer three research questions—which theoretical frameworks have been established to describe the integration of digital media in education in line with sustainability? (RQ1), how are the three pillars of sustainability assessed and measured within digital media integration frameworks? (RQ2), and what are the findings regarding the successful integration of digital media in line with sustainability in education? (RQ3)—we found no literature matching our search query. Thus, we took a closer look at related fields of research to investigate the research question of how sustainability aspects have been considered in the debate on the sustainable use of digital media in the context of education. Based on three examples of digital media integration into educational settings, we found that the measurability and the impact on ecological, economic, and social dimensions differ depending on each use case. We also referred to the debate on the energy consumption of schools in general, and the complex assessment of product LCA. With the rapid development of technology, the answer to these questions becomes more urgent as well as even more complex.

Based on our initial SLR, we observed that there has been minimal research on sustainable integration frameworks of digital media in education that consider all three sustainability dimensions (ecological, economic, social) at the same time. Hence, this article aims to outline the current debate as an essential first step toward addressing the complexity of integrating and assessing sustainability aspects of digital media in teaching contexts. Thus, we outlined and enhanced the findings of the SLR using a taxonomy. By incorporating findings from related fields such as education for sustainable development, technology-enhanced teaching and learning, and product life cycle assessment, it seems, on first sight, that empirical evidence on the successful assessment of digital media into education considering all three pillars of sustainability is currently lacking. However, we assume that because our search query contained sustainability as a fixed term, some content-related matching results might not have been included. As pointed out at the beginning, research on the positive social impact such as participation (Boulianne, 2020; Bruce & Levin, 1997) has already been published but without framing it as the social dimension of sustainability. Similar observations can be made for the ecological dimension (Warren et al., 2023). Hence, while highlighting our observed perspectives, we cannot claim completeness. We observed that the ecological, economic, and social aspects of technology have been assessed in general, but it seems that approaches to transferring these results into the context of digital media education for sustainable development are still scarce. Concepts such as the Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) and the European Sustainability Competence Framework (GreenComp) exist; however, a cross-cutting integration of both frameworks that we believe would be beneficial to sustainable development seems to be missing. By addressing the research question of how sustainability aspects have been considered in the current debate on digital media integration in learning settings, we contribute to bridging the gap between these two research streams to better comprehend its complexity within the context of education.

We also emphasize that our review represents—to the best of our knowledge—the first attempt to elucidate the measurability of the three pillars of sustainability in regard to digital media integration in education. However, offering straightforward answers is inherently challenging due to the multifaceted nature of sustainability. The deficiency is also primarily due to the limited approaches to the measurability of the three dimensions, making the impact difficult for educators to assess. For instance, the discussion on energy consumption remains particularly complex. Regarding material waste, doubts arise about the disposal of digital media once they are no longer in use. Additionally, opportunity costs need to be considered when using alternative media, as it often depends on the specific use case to determine which waste is more manageable. Subsequently, in the current state, other research fields (e.g., LCA, environmental education) should be consulted for information concerning this matter.

One of the main implications of our review is the necessity of further research into the measurability of the three sustainability dimensions as guidelines for integrating digital media into educational settings. This is particularly relevant for ensuring the meaningful use of digital media, supporting educators in achieving sustainable practices, and preventing educators from disengaging with digital media due to false prejudices, as emphasized in previous studies (Al-Qirim et al., 2010; Mun & Abdullah, 2016). In future research, a systematic review on the measurability of each sustainability dimension of digital media integration in education should probably not focus solely on the term “sustainability” itself in the search query. Instead, the search queries should consider all of the research on ecological, economic, and social aspects of digital media to examine the current state of the art for each dimension separately. This future project aims at developing a comprehensive framework and guidelines for educators, ensuring that they can effectively assess and implement sustainable practices in their use of digital media. Based on such a future review, related competencies and assessment strategies could be incorporated as sustainability dimensions into one of the described frameworks of technology integration in education. This approach could provide valuable insights and practical frameworks for educators, further enhancing the sustainable integration of digital media in educational settings.

7. Conclusions

In the context of education for sustainable development, the debate on the sustainability of digital media in education is an emerging field of research (Hamadi & El-Den, 2023). Initially, we aimed to conduct an SLR to examine how current digital media integration frameworks might consider and assess sustainability from its ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Instead of finding a sound number of studies that provide insights into frameworks and the measurability of these dimensions regarding the use of digital media in a learning setting, we found many concerns about the economic impact in general and the potential for learning at the same time. Using three examples of digital media integration, we observed that evaluating the sustainability impact of digital media integration is manifold and may vary significantly. Different contexts, types of digital media, and ways that digital media is used can lead to different levels of impact on sustainability.

Consequently, we argue that the measurability of the sustainability dimensions is currently not yet adequately associated with the digital media integration frameworks in education. Despite the rising debate on the environmental impact of digital media in education for sustainable education, evidence-based research on the impact of digital media integration in teaching settings from a sustainability perspective is still scarce. Further research is necessary to determine how the digital literacy of educators can include the ability to evaluate the sustainability aspects of digital media in educational settings. Thus, further research on indicators of the sustainability of digital media integration might help form an assessment framework that guides educators and institutions in their decision-making regarding sustainable practice, and which ensures that the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability are being considered.