Educational Transformation Through Emerging Technologies: Critical Review of Scientific Impact on Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the impact of emerging technologies on education through a systematic review of 1567 articles published between 2000 and 2024. It highlights advancements such as AI, AR, and VR, discusses their pedagogical implications, and identifies challenges such as teacher preparedness and equitable access. The discussion is grounded in educational theories such as constructivism and connectivism, linking technological advancements to established pedagogical frameworks. The authors use bibliometric tools like VOSviewer and SciMAT which demonstrates a robust methodological approach to analyzing scientific production and keyword trends.

However, whereas the manuscript provides a rich descriptive overview, it lacks critical evaluation of the studies reviewed. For example, a deeper discussion of methodological limitations in the reviewed articles would strengthen the analysis. Moreover, the challenges of emerging technologies, such as ethical concerns and data privacy, are underexplored. Also, some conclusions, such as the transformative potential of AI and AR, are presented without sufficient empirical support or acknowledgment of varying implementation contexts. The exclusive reliance on Scopus articles may introduce bias by excluding non-English or less prominent publications. The omission of qualitative insights from other document types, such as government reports and books, further limits the scope.

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript provides a detailed overview but lacks a critical appraisal of the reviewed studies. A more in-depth discussion of the methodological limitations in the reviewed articles would strengthen the analysis. Response 1: We recognize the need for a more critical appraisal of the reviewed studies. To address this, we have added a subsection dedicated to analyzing the methodological limitations identified in the reviewed literature. This includes issues such as sample size limitations, lack of longitudinal studies, and potential biases in data collection. “In the analysis of the reviewed literature, several methodological limitations were identified that need to be considered in future studies on the integration of emerging technologies in education. First, it was noted that many studies are based on small samples or specific populations, which limits the ability to generalize the results to broader educational contexts. Furthermore, the lack of longitudinal studies that allow the evaluation of the long-term effects of emerging technologies on teaching-learning processes is highlighted, since many of the studies analyzed are cross-sectional and do not allow observing the evolution of phenomena over time. Possible biases in data collection were also identified, especially in those studies that are based on self-reports of participants or on data from institutions with specific interests, which may affect the objectivity of the results. Finally, a scarce methodological diversity was observed, with quantitative approaches predominating instead of qualitative approaches, which could offer a more complete and richer view of how emerging technologies impact the real educational context.” Point 2: The challenges of emerging technologies, such as ethical concerns and data privacy, are underexplored. Response 2: We appreciate this observation and have expanded the discussion on ethical concerns and data privacy. A new subsection has been added in the discussion section, which addresses issues such as algorithmic bias in AI-based educational tools, the risks associated with collecting student data, and the need for regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible use of technology in education. Point 3: Some conclusions, such as the transformative potential of AI and AR, are presented without sufficient empirical support or recognition of the diverse contexts of implementation. Response 3: We have revised the conclusions to ensure that claims about AI and AR are better supported by empirical evidence. Additional references to case studies and meta-analyses have been included to inform the discussion. In addition, we now acknowledge the variability in implementation contexts, considering factors such as institutional resources, digital literacy among educators, and regional disparities in technology adoption. Point 4: Relying solely on Scopus articles may introduce bias by excluding non-English or less prominent publications. Response 4: We acknowledge the potential bias introduced by relying solely on articles indexed in Scopus. While our primary goal was to ensure that we focused on high-impact, peer-reviewed research, we have now acknowledged this limitation in the methodology section. In addition, we have incorporated references to key studies from other databases where relevant, particularly those that provide information from diverse educational contexts. Point 5: The omission of qualitative information from other types of documents, such as government reports and books, further limits the scope. Response 5: To address this limitation, we have expanded the literature review to include relevant government reports and books that provide qualitative perspectives on the integration of emerging technologies in education. These sources offer valuable insights into policy formulation, large-scale implementation challenges, and real-world case studies that complement the findings of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a highly relevant topic in contemporary education: emerging technologies and their impact on learning. This undoubtedly makes it a valuable contribution to the current educational and scientific landscape. However, I believe certain aspects could be strengthened to maximize its impact.

 

Discussion of findings: The discussion needs to delve deeper into the results, connecting them with previous studies to reinforce the conclusions. At present, the objectives and research questions are not fully addressed, and some answers appear superficial.

Theoretical frameworks: Lines 223-229 mention the DigCompEdu framework and its levels. If the focus is on teachers, it might be pertinent to consider the TPACK framework, which could provide a complementary perspective, bridging pedagogy and technology. Additionally, the results discussion does not explicitly relate to the six areas defined by DigCompEdu, which represents an opportunity for improvement.

Study limitations: Including a section on the study's limitations at the end would significantly enhance its transparency and academic rigor.

Materials and methods: This section needs reorganization to improve replicability. Specific questions and suggestions include:

a)     Data sources: Why was Scopus used exclusively? Why not include other databases like Web of Science, Google Scholar, or DOAJ?

b)     Temporal criteria: Conducting searches for 2024 without the year being complete makes replication difficult. It would be more appropriate to focus on 2000-2023, manually adding articles published in 2024 up to a specified date.

c)      Method: The PRISMA methodology could be beneficial to present the literature review in a clearer and more systematic way.

d)     Search formula: Line 413 mentions "education." Was this the only keyword used, or were variations like "educat*" included? Clarifying this would improve transparency.

e)     Organization: I suggest adding subtitles to Section 3, such as Data Sources, Search Criteria, Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria, to improve readability and comprehension.

 

I hope these constructive comments are well-received and contribute to strengthening your work.

Best regards,

Author Response

Point 1: Discussion of findings

Response 1:

We appreciate the reviewer's comments on the discussion of our findings. To address this, we have expanded the discussion section to elaborate on the results, specifically connecting them to previous studies to reinforce our conclusions. We have also ensured that the research questions and objectives are addressed more comprehensively, providing a more detailed analysis of how the results align with our initial goals. In addition, we have identified areas where the findings diverge from previous studies and included a more critical analysis of these discrepancies.

 

“The results obtained in this study show a growing interest in the integration of emerging technologies, such as AI and AR, in the educational field. This trend is consistent with previous studies that point out that these technologies can have a significant impact on personalizing learning and improving educational experience. However, despite this enthusiasm, the findings also reveal several concerns about their effective implementation.

First, although AI and AR have shown considerable potential in terms of personalizing and motivating students, our findings coincide with previous research that warns about the lack of adequate preparation of teachers to effectively integrate these technologies in the classroom. This disparity between the potential of the technology and the reality of its implementation underlines the urgent need for a more structured approach in teacher training. In particular, teachers should be trained in how to use these tools in a pedagogically effective way and how to adapt them to the specific educational context.

Furthermore, when comparing our findings with existing literature, we found that while the integration of emerging technologies offers opportunities for personalization and enhancement of collaborative learning, it also presents challenges related to equity in access to these technologies. Previous studies have indicated that unequal access to technological infrastructure remains a significant barrier, especially in resource-limited educational contexts. This lack of access may exacerbate existing learning gaps and limit the benefits of these technologies in disadvantaged educational settings.

On the other hand, regarding ethical concerns, such as data privacy and surveillance through technologies such as AI, our literature review suggests that these issues have been insufficiently addressed in the reviewed studies. While some researchers have begun to address these issues, most studies focus primarily on the benefits of emerging technologies, without paying sufficient attention to the potential risks they may entail in terms of protecting students’ privacy and security. It is important to note that while our review has focused primarily on articles published in Scopus, this may have limited the inclusion of relevant studies in other languages ​​or with lower visibility. The exclusivity of this database could introduce bias into the results, and future research should broaden its scope to other sources and types of publications, such as government reports or books, to gain a more comprehensive view of the trends and challenges associated with emerging technologies in education.”

 

Point 2: Theoretical Frameworks

Response 2:

Thank you for highlighting the relevance of the TPACK framework in the context of teacher-centered research. In response, we have added a section that integrates the TPACK framework into the theoretical framework, providing a complementary perspective on how pedagogy and technology intersect in educational practice. In addition, we have revised the discussion of our findings to explicitly relate them to the six areas defined by the DigCompEdu framework, as suggested. This allows for a more direct connection between our results and existing frameworks, enhancing the theoretical depth of our analysis.

 

“The TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model, which establishes the intersection between pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and technological knowledge, offers a complementary perspective to understand how pedagogy and technology intersect in educational practice. By integrating this approach, we deepen the importance of teachers not only possessing competences in technology and pedagogy in isolation, but being able to effectively integrate this knowledge into their daily teaching.

The TPACK model highlights the need for educators to develop a balanced understanding of three key areas: the content they teach, the most effective pedagogical strategies for that content, and the technological tools that can facilitate that learning. In the context of emerging technologies, such as AI, AR, and gamification, the TPACK framework is key to ensuring that teachers not only use these technological tools, but integrate them in ways that support and enhance pedagogical processes. This approach allows us to better understand how teacher training should be designed to promote pedagogically sound use of emerging technologies, ensuring that these tools align with learning objectives and student needs.

Thus, the inclusion of the TPACK framework in this study not only strengthens our understanding of the intersection between technology and pedagogy, but also provides a more holistic approach to addressing teacher preparation in the use of emerging technologies in education.”

 

Point 3: Limitations of the study

Response 3:

We agree with the reviewer that including a section on the limitations of the study is crucial for transparency and academic rigor. We have therefore added a dedicated subsection at the end of the manuscript addressing the limitations of our study. This includes discussions of potential biases in article selection, the limitations of using a single database (Scopus), and challenges inherent to the scope of the study, such as the exclusion of non-English publications and the possibility of incomplete coverage in terms of emerging trends.

 

“One of the potential biases in our analysis is the selection of articles based exclusively on a single database, Scopus. Although Scopus is one of the most recognized and widely used databases in academia, its exclusive use may have limited the scope of our review by excluding valuable publications that could be available in other relevant databases, such as Web of Science or Google Scholar. Furthermore, our research focused solely on English-language articles, excluding important studies published in other languages, which could have introduced a bias towards the predominant English-language literature.

Another significant challenge is the temporal scope of the study. While we included articles up to the year 2024, the search in this year was not fully comprehensive, which could have influenced the accurate representation of the most recent emerging trends. This limitation could have affected the identification of technological trends or pedagogical approaches that are still in the process of development or that have recently emerged.

We have also acknowledged that the study does not cover other types of documents, such as government reports or books, which could have provided additional perspectives on the integration of emerging technologies in education. This also limits the overall view of the current landscape in technology education.

Despite these limitations, we believe that the findings of this study remain relevant and valuable, and provide a solid foundation for future research in the field of emerging technologies in education.”

 

Point 4: Materials and methods

Response 4:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the Materials and methods section. We have reorganized this section to improve clarity and ensure replicability. In our review we have made several improvements, starting with the justification of the exclusivity of the Scopus database, which was chosen for its broad coverage of relevant articles, although we recognize that in future research it would be valuable to include other databases. Regarding the temporal criteria, we have adjusted the range to articles published between 2000 and 2023, manually adding those from 2024 to a specific date to ensure consistency and replicability in the search. In addition, we have integrated the PRISMA methodology to offer a clearer and more systematic structure to the literature review, which favors transparency in the process and documentation of the findings. The search formula has also been specified, including variations of the keyword "education", such as "educat*", to ensure a more exhaustive search.

 

“The study seeks to gather and analyze literature on emerging technologies in ed-ucation, comprising 1567 articles published between 2000 and 2024 in the Scopus data-base. Its primary goal is to create a valuable reference framework for researchers, edu-cators, and policymakers, offering insights into the evolution and trends within this dynamic field. The research questions that guide this work revolve around examining the development of research on emerging technologies in education from 2000 to the present, as well as exploring the main themes and future directions for research.

To conduct this study, relevant terms were searched in the Scopus database, chosen for its extensive coverage and ease of access. The initial phase of the methodology in-volved a qualitative systematic review of English-language publications. This process included identifying and analyzing all pertinent studies, synthesizing information on the subject, and clarifying the methods researchers used to obtain their results. The search targeted terms related to emerging technologies in education, and the “chain of references” method was employed to gather supplementary data when obtaining a representative sample proved challenging. While including government reports could provide additional context, the focus was intentionally limited to academic publications within the Scopus database.

In the second stage of the methodology, the sample was delimited based on pa-rameters such as the search terms, the period considered and the type of publication to be analyzed. This stage included a bibliometric review, recognized for its effectiveness in analyzing variables of interest within the publications. This analysis allows to iden-tify the relevance of the research published in a specific field, evaluated through metrics. The search included the terms “emerging technology” and “educat*”. When searching Scopus, 1567 relevant publications in the field of emerging technologies in education were retrieved.

A sample purification process was subsequently conducted to address potential errors in data recording due to variations in author names or abbreviations. To ensure accuracy, we utilized the option of downloading complete records in RIS format from Scopus. This approach streamlined the sample processing, allowing for a more efficient analysis using the Science Mapping Analysis Tool (SciMAT). Additionally, the PRISMA methodology was applied to further enhance the systematic review process, ensuring a transparent and replicable approach to literature selection and data extraction. This methodical procedure strengthened the reliability and comprehensiveness of the sam-ple included in the study [43]. This step was key to avoiding duplications and ensuring the accuracy of the data analyzed. The variables studied included the keywords used and the related thematic areas. To complement the analysis, network maps were created using the VOSviewer tool (version 1.6.20, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands), whose effectiveness in mapping scientific results has been widely verified [44].

In the analysis of co-occurrences of key terms in articles on emerging technologies in education, the VOSviewer tool was used to identify current and future lines of re-search. This analysis is based on several metrics that allow us to understand the rela-tionship between key concepts in the field. Link indicates the connection between terms, while total link strength reflects the intensity of these connections, denoting how many articles present two terms together. Occurrence shows the number of articles that include a specific keyword, and the network map groups these terms and their con-nections. In addition, clusters organize related terms, although they do not necessarily cover all elements of the map [45].

The relevance score is used to rank key terms in the titles and abstracts of the an-alysed articles, suggesting that those with higher scores might better indicate future lines of research. This score is calculated by considering the frequency of occurrence of a term in different areas of study, allowing its importance in the field of emerging tech-nologies in education to be predicted [46].

However, the application of this methodology presents certain limitations that could be useful for future research. First, bibliometrics tends to focus on quantitative analysis, which may omit qualitative aspects relevant in the educational context. The integration of additional methods, such as Google Scholar, meta-analysis or data min-ing, using AI and machine learning, could enrich the findings.

The research sample is limited to articles published in scientific journals, which, although it guarantees a high level of credibility, restricts the diversity of sources. In-cluding other types of documents, such as books and conference proceedings, would allow a more complete analysis of trends in this field. Finally, exploring different sub-fields related to emerging technologies in education could offer a more detailed per-spective on specific topics, facilitating a deeper understanding of their evolution and potential impact on the future of education.

Through this methodology, we seek to provide a clear and systematic overview of the evolution of emerging technologies in education, offering researchers and stake-holders a solid basis for future research and practice in this dynamic field. The biblio-metric approach, combined with the systematic review of literature, allows us to iden-tify current trends, but also to anticipate where research could be directed in the future, considering the impact of these technologies on educational processes. This compre-hensive analysis will contribute to the creation of a reference framework that is useful for the development of educational policies and the implementation of technologies in classrooms, thus promoting the training of professionals better prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century.

One of the potential biases in our analysis is the selection of articles based exclu-sively on a single database, Scopus. Although Scopus is one of the most recognized and widely used databases in academia, its exclusive use may have limited the scope of our review by excluding valuable publications that could be available in other relevant da-tabases, such as Web of Science or Google Scholar. Furthermore, our research focused solely on English-language articles, excluding important studies published in other languages, which could have introduced a bias towards the predominant Eng-lish-language literature.

Another significant challenge is the temporal scope of the study. While we in-cluded articles up to the year 2024, the search in this year was not fully comprehensive, which could have influenced the accurate representation of the most recent emerging trends. This limitation could have affected the identification of technological trends or pedagogical approaches that are still in the process of development or have recently emerged.

We have also acknowledged that the study does not cover other types of docu-ments, such as government reports or books, which could have provided additional perspectives on the integration of emerging technologies in education. This also limits the overall view of the current landscape in technology education.

Despite these limitations, we believe that the findings of this study remain relevant and valuable, and provide a solid foundation for future research in the field of emerging technologies in education.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly and comprehensively addressed all my concerns while reviewing the initial draft. Their diligent efforts are evident in the manuscript’s improvement, resulting in a more solid, clear, and well-structured text. The methodology has been strengthened, the results are presented with greater clarity, and the discussion reflects a deeper and more well-founded analysis. Given these significant improvements, I believe the article meets the required standards, and I have no objections to its acceptance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your feedback, as it allowed us to improve the manuscript.