The Critical Role of Science Teachers’ Readiness in Harnessing Digital Technology Benefits

Abstract

Digital competence refers to the integration of digital technology in teaching and learning, as outlined in the national curriculum of Estonia for upper secondary schools. This study presents original research findings on Estonian science teachers’ use of digital tools and materials, their digital competence, and the main benefits and challenges they face. The findings emphasize the need for continued professional development, accessible digital resources, and equitable digital infrastructure to maintain Estonia’s leadership in digital science education. A survey of 58 secondary school science teachers revealed that computers (desktops, laptops, and tablets) are the primary digital tools used. The article explores digital literacy advancements in secondary science education, research methodologies used to assess digital tool usage, and key findings from recent studies. However, challenges such as digital equity, technological barriers, and digital fatigue persist. Additionally, discrepancies were found in teachers’ responses regarding digital tool effectiveness, implementation strategies, and perceived barriers. While some teachers reported a successful integration and improved student outcomes, others highlighted difficulties in aligning digital resources with curriculum requirements and pedagogical approaches.

1. Introduction

Digital competence is recognized as a key lifelong learning skill and is treated as a general competence (Farias-Gaytan et al., 2022). In science education, using digital tools relates directly to digital literacy, defined by the American Library Association (ALA) as “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills.” Thus, scientific literacy, digital competence, and digital literacy develop together (Dašić et al., 2024).

Digital competence is critical for teachers, pre-service and in-service alike, as well as students. It involves effectively navigating and using digital technologies for learning and teaching (Claro et al., 2024). The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized how essential these skills are for adapting to evolving learning environments (Besser et al., 2022).

Digital competence goes beyond simple internet use to include finding information, using digital tools, creating content, and staying safe online. Its dynamic nature means educators must update their skills continually (Falloon, 2020). While digital tools are common and can make learning more varied and efficient, using them well requires ongoing learning (Hrynevych et al., 2021).

Teachers are expected to develop digital competence alongside their subject knowledge, which adds to their workload. Learning to use digital tools, adapting materials, and integrating technology can be time-consuming and complex (Kormakova et al., 2021). The rapid integration of technology, accelerated by COVID-19, has made digital literacy crucial for preparing students for a tech-driven world. However, the level of teachers’ digital literacy remains inconsistent, posing challenges (Rahmawati et al., 2024).

The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for rethinking educational practices, particularly highlighting the urgent need for digital competence among teachers. This transformation was not undertaken in isolation; it was often driven by dynamic partnerships between schools and technology providers (Cone et al., 2022) as well as collaborations among science teachers themselves (McPherson & Pearce, 2022). These joint efforts were crucial in accelerating digital adaptation and fostering professional development under unprecedented circumstances.

Recent studies show that while many secondary school teachers understand the importance of digital literacy, their proficiency varies. Teachers’ digital competence includes using technology for instruction, managing digital content, ensuring online safety, and communicating effectively online—areas covered in frameworks like DigCompEdu (Aydin et al., 2024).

Research by Schmidt et al. (2020) found that teachers often have only moderate competence, with notable gaps in areas like content creation and safe practices. Many struggle to integrate digital tools into teaching due to limited professional development and lack of resources. Disparities in access to digital infrastructure also widen the gap: teachers in well-resourced schools have more opportunities, while those in less affluent regions face barriers like outdated equipment and limited training (Castaño Muñoz et al., 2023). Even when teachers have personal digital skills, applying them effectively in pedagogy can be challenging (Sánchez-Cruzado et al., 2021). Some teachers, especially those with longer tenure, feel hesitant or anxious about using new technologies, worried about keeping pace and how it affects traditional methods (Ogegbo & Ramnarain, 2022).

Continuous professional development is vital. Countries that invest in ongoing training, such as workshops and online courses, report higher teacher competence levels (Aydin et al., 2024).

In summary, while teachers’ digital literacy is improving, challenges remain such as unequal access to resources, inconsistent training, and reluctance to adopt new tools. Educational policymakers must prioritize equitable access, targeted training, and supportive environments that help teachers confidently integrate digital skills into their practice (Lund et al., 2014).

Estonia is widely recognized as one of the most digitally advanced countries in Europe (European Commission, 2024). Teachers’ professional competence is supported by national frameworks aligned with the Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) (European Commission, 2017). Professional development focuses on digital content creation, data literacy, online safety, and pedagogical use of ICT (Pedaste et al., 2023). Estonia’s investments in digital infrastructure since the Tiger Leap program (Kalvet, 2012) have laid the foundation for tools like eKool, Moodle, and the EENet network (Education Estonia, 2024a).

The primary objective of this study is to explore the use of digital learning tools by science teachers at the secondary school level, focusing on the following research questions:

• Which digital tools and materials do secondary school science teachers in Estonia use?
• What is the current level of digital competence among Estonian science teachers?
• What are the main benefits and challenges perceived by teachers regarding digital tools?
• How does digital tool usage differ between distance and face-to-face science teaching?

Thus, the study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the integration of digital technologies in the science classroom, examining the practical implications of these tools on teaching and learning processes.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. The Importance of Digital Literacy and Digital Competences

Digital literacy has become a cornerstone of modern education, especially in countries like Estonia, which is widely recognized for its digital advancement. Teachers’ professional competence is guided by national frameworks aligned with the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu). This framework defines key areas such as digital content creation, data literacy, online safety, and the pedagogical use of ICT, ensuring that teachers can integrate technology meaningfully into their subject teaching (European Commission, 2017).

In this study, digital competence refers specifically to how Estonian science teachers use digital tools and develop digital pedagogical skills in alignment with the National curriculum for upper secondary schools (2023).

Estonia’s Education Strategy 2021–2035 emphasizes continuous professional development to help teachers keep pace with emerging technologies such as AI-powered learning tools and data-driven learning analytics (Viberg et al., 2024). Research shows that this policy context supports the development of teachers’ inquiry-based teaching, real-time data analysis, and differentiated instruction (Pedaste et al., 2023).

The importance of digital literacy for teachers was dramatically highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sánchez-Cruzado et al., 2021), which forced schools worldwide to shift to distance learning almost overnight. This sudden transition revealed both the potential and limitations of digital education (Howard et al., 2021). Digital literacy is not just a supplemental skill for teachers; it is a vital component of their professional competence. As educational technologies continue to evolve, ongoing professional development in digital literacy will be essential for teachers to remain effective and confident in their roles (van Laar et al., 2020).

For pre-service teachers, digital competence is a key component of their professional development. Early training in digital literacy equips them with the skills necessary to integrate technology seamlessly into their future classrooms, ensuring they are prepared for the dynamic nature of modern education (Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021). Teacher education programs are increasingly prioritizing digital competence to ensure that new educators are ready to meet the demands of contemporary classrooms (Pinto-Santos et al., 2022).

In-service teachers, many of whom may not have received formal training in digital tools during their initial education, face the challenge of continuously updating their skills to remain effective. Reychav et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of lifelong learning for in-service teachers, as it allows them to keep pace with rapid technological advancements and adapt their teaching methods accordingly. Schools play a key role in integrating digital literacy into their curricula, ensuring that students develop the necessary skills to thrive in the digital age (Helsper et al., 2021).

2.2. Benefits and Challenges of Digital Tools Usage in Science Teaching and Learning

Digital tools in science education offer multiple advantages: flexibility, interactivity and authentic experimentation opportunities, increased accessibility, ability to provide immediate feedback, enhanced collaboration and peer learning, and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital learning platforms (Branig et al., 2022; Bilyalova et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2018; Oskarita & Arasy, 2024; Zhang, 2024). Also, interactive assessment tools, such as Quizizz, Kahoot, Socrative and Google Forms (ClassPoint, 2024), and adaptive learning technologies (Healy et al., 2017).

Among the most used digital tools, materials, and technology are: (1) virtual labs and simulations platforms like PhET Interactive Simulations (Futri et al., 2024) and Labster (Schechter et al., 2024) provide hands-on scientific experiences without physical lab equipment, allowing students to manipulate variables, observe outcomes, and repeat experiments at their own pace (de Jong et al., 2024). The rise in AR, VR, and interactive simulations further enriches science education, making learning more immersive and effective. These advancements support both traditional and distance learning environments, ensuring students gain practical and theoretical knowledge efficiently (Vashisht, 2024).

Estonian upper secondary science teachers make versatile use of digital tools to enhance learning and student engagement. School management systems such as eKool and Stuudium are widely used to share assignments, materials, and feedback (HARNO, 2022; Lorenz et al., 2016). Many schools also rely on Moodle or Google Classroom for course organization and online assessments (EKKA, 2022). In science lessons, teachers also integrate YouTube videos, Pinterest, smartphones, and digital lab equipment (including Vernier dataloggers and sensors) (Tallinna Reaalkool, 2023). Also, PhET Interactive Simulations have been incorporated into science education to support digital learning and enhance conceptual understanding (PhET Interactive Simulations, n.d.).

To strengthen teachers’ skills, Estonia aligns its professional development with the EU DigCompEdu framework, promoting digital pedagogy, content creation, data literacy, and safe online practice (European Commission, 2024). National programs like ProgeTiiger (2012–present) provided over EUR 830,000 worth of programmable devices such as robotics kits and sensors to more than 400 schools and trained thousands of teachers (Education Estonia, 2024b). In addition, the government invested over EUR 40 million between 2015 and 2020 to develop free digital learning materials and to switch to computer-based exams for science and other core subjects (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015).

These investments bring clear benefits: accessible infrastructure, high-speed networks, rich digital content, and competence-based testing, which all support Estonian science teachers in delivering more engaging, inquiry-based learning (Rosin et al., 2020). However, challenges remain. Many teachers feel underprepared to adopt advanced tools like AI or big data analysis in everyday science lessons, and professional development opportunities can be uneven across schools (Raave et al., 2024; Viberg et al., 2024).

2.3. Remaining Challenges

Despite these advantages, challenges include the uneven integration of advanced digital solutions, teachers’ limited time for training, and the complexity of translating digital testing feedback into effective pedagogical adjustments (Chounta et al., 2022; Raave et al., 2024). Alongside technological barriers, such as unequal access to digital devices and the internet, student motivation and engagement in virtual environments also poses significant challenges, including digital fatigue and excessive screen time, have emerged as significant issues, emphasizing the need for the balanced integration of digital and offline learning activities to promote student well-being (Biggins & Holley, 2022).

Because of this, the continued investment in teacher support, targeted training, and peer learning networks is crucial to help Estonian science teachers fully capitalize on digital opportunities (Pedaste et al., 2023; Orav-Puurand et al., 2024).

2.4. Key Areas of Research on Digital Technology

Recent bibliometric research (Fajri et al., 2024) highlights major trends and emerging areas in the use of digital learning media for science education, providing a clear foundation for educators, researchers, and policymakers. Seven main research clusters have been identified: (1) ICT, digital explanation, and representation; (2) artificial intelligence, mobile learning, and internet forums; (3) educational technology, human experiments, and video recording; (4) online and multimedia learning; (5) gamification, social networking, and YouTube; (6) augmented reality; and (7) digital technology for distance learning.

Studies in this field generally focus on five key aspects: the types of digital tools and materials used in classrooms (Zhao et al., 2023; Shapovalov et al., 2022), how deeply these tools are integrated into teaching (Nor & Halim, 2023), their benefits and challenges (Farooq et al., 2024; Nor & Halim, 2023), their impact on learning outcomes, and methodological approaches for researching digital teaching and learning (Sari & Wulandari, 2023).

Overall, research shows that digital tools have clear benefits for learning. They increase student engagement through interactive and gamified activities, support deeper conceptual understanding—especially in science subjects—and enhance problem-solving skills and critical thinking (Hillmayr et al., 2020). Digital tools also foster collaboration through inquiry-based tasks and real-world problem solving.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of digital technologies, exposing gaps in digital literacy but also driving innovation. As schools adapt post-pandemic, building digital literacy remains essential for teachers and students to take full advantage of technology’s potential for more personalized and effective learning (Inan-Karangul et al., 2021; Sánchez-Cruzado et al., 2021; Neumann & Waight, 2019).

3. Materials and Methods

This study focuses on the specific context of Estonian science education, where extensive digital infrastructure supports these practices, but challenges remain.

3.1. Sample

The study involved a sample of 58 science teachers who responded to the questionnaire. The participants represented a range of subject specializations: 34 teachers of General Science, 11 teachers of Chemistry, 15 teachers of Physics, 21 teachers of Geography, and 23 teachers of Biology. There was an uneven distribution of respondents across educational levels, with 33 respondents teaching at the primary school level, 13 at the secondary level, and 12 teaching at both levels.

The geographical distribution of participants was also uneven, with 19 teachers from rural schools and 11 from urban schools. This imbalance reflects the differing contexts in which science education is delivered, providing an opportunity to explore variations in the use of digital tools between rural and urban settings. Notably, only two science teachers reported teaching in both rural and urban schools, which may offer unique insights into the comparative challenges faced in different educational environments.

In terms of teaching experience, the sample was diverse: 8 teachers had 0–2 years of experience, 20 had 2–6 years, 7 had 6–10 years, and 23 had more than 10 years of teaching experience. This range of experience levels allows for a detailed examination of how familiarity with teaching and digital tools may influence their use in science classrooms.

The target group for this study (

Table 1. An overview of the work experience of science teachers based on the survey responses.

Time of Teaching Experience	No. of Teachers	Description of Teachers
0–2 years	8	new or relatively new to teaching
2–6 years	20	moderately experienced
6–10 years	7	mid-career level

) consisted of active science teachers who have taught at least one science subject. A convenience sampling method was employed (Cohen et al., 2007) with science teachers from secondary schools. The questionnaire was disseminated to school principals and science teachers, who forwarded it to additional science teachers.

The data indicate that a considerable proportion of the respondents (over 50%) have more than 6 years of teaching experience, with the largest group being those with more than 10 years of experience. This suggests that most science teachers have a well-established background in their profession.

3.2. Instrument

A comprehensive questionnaire, designed as a detailed and extensive survey instrument, was developed to gather a wide range of information on digital literacy. It included multiple-choice questions, a Likert scale, and open-ended questions, covering various aspects of digital literacy as outlined in the National curriculum for upper secondary schools (2023). The questionnaire focused on specific objectives and outcomes related to digital tools, information and communication technologies (ICT), and other elements defining digital competence. The primary aim was to explore the use of digital tools and materials in science education, capturing science teachers’ experiences and perspectives on the integration of digital technologies in their teaching practices. Furthermore, the questionnaire was aligned with specific objectives regarding digital skills in the science curricula, such as the expectation that, by the end of basic school, students should be proficient in using a variety of sources and online materials to search for information related to science and technology, as well as being able to critically analyze and evaluate the reliability of such information (National curriculum for upper secondary schools, 2023).

3.3. Data Collection

The questionnaire was piloted and validated with three science teachers (two Biology teachers and one Chemistry teacher), who also comprised part of the study sample. Following the piloting phase, minor adjustments were made to the questionnaire. To ensure its validity, expert opinions were sought from two experienced science teachers and a science education researcher from the University of Tartu.

The data for this study was collected via the questionnaire, which was distributed electronically. Given the timing of distribution, the collection period, and the busy schedules of teachers, the questionnaire was designed to be concise, requiring no more than 15 min to complete. The questionnaire was created using Google Forms, a freely accessible platform that offers convenience for respondents.

Completing the questionnaire was voluntary and anonymous, as emphasized by the author in the cover letter. Previously, the questionnaire was piloted by Biology and Chemistry teachers, then adjusted by the author. Validity was ensured through expert evaluations from a Biology teacher, an expert from the center for science education, and a pedagogy researcher from the University of Tartu.

3.4. Anonymization for Ethical Compliance

The data was further anonymized after identifying information was eliminated. Random codes were used in place of any possible identifiers during this procedure. This step maintained a high quality of ethical research practice by ensuring that even if someone were to acquire the data, it would be impossible to relate it back to specific participants.

3.5. Data Analysis

The study predominantly employs a qualitative data analysis, which is well-suited for exploring the content and context of teachers’ responses. This method allows for flexibility in the research process, enabling the development of new codes and categories during analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). An inductive approach to coding was utilized to facilitate the exploration of interpretations emerging from the data. Inductive coding allows for themes and patterns to arise naturally from the data, as opposed to being predetermined by the researcher (Thomas, 2006). This approach is particularly effective for examining the nuanced perspectives of teachers on the integration of digital tools in their teaching practices, including the advantages, challenges, and the impact of these tools during both distance and in-person learning.

For the analysis, the QCAmap.org platform was employed to conduct a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (

Table 2. The detailed procedure of Qualitative Content Analysis with QCAmap software 2020.

Stage	Sub-Stage	Description
Project Initiation		The initiation phase of the project begins within QCAmap by specifying a project name and providing a detailed description; project settings, including privacy options, are configured to align with the project’s needs.
Data Entry	Conditions and Outcomes	Cases and their associated conditions (variables) are entered into the system. Both binary (0/1) and multi-value conditions can be input, depending on the nature of the analysis.
	Data Table Completion	A data table is populated with cases (as rows) and conditions (as columns). This data forms the foundation for the subsequent QCA.
QCA Execution	Truth Table Generation	A truth table is automatically generated by QCAmap, displaying all possible combinations of conditions and their corresponding outcomes.
	Minimization Process	An algorithm is applied to minimize the truth table, identifying the most parsimonious combination of conditions that lead to specific outcomes. This process is central to QCA, as it simplifies complex data into understandable patterns.
	Result Interpretation	The results, including minimized formulas, are interpreted to understand the underlying patterns among the cases. This step is crucial for drawing meaningful conclusions from the analysis.
Results Export	Exporting Results	The outcomes of the analysis, such as truth tables and minimized formulas, are exported in various formats (e.g., CSV, PDF) for further examination or reporting purposes.
Co-Coding Scheme Development	Codes and Categories Definition	A coding scheme is developed, encompassing all codes and categories that will be used to analyze the data. Definitions and examples for each code are provided to ensure clarity.
	Discussion and Refinement	The coding scheme is discussed among all coders to reach a consensus, ensuring a shared understanding and reducing the likelihood of discrepancies during the coding process.
	Training	Coders are trained in the application of the coding scheme, which may involve practicing on sample data. Feedback is provided to resolve any emerging issues.
	Trial Coding	A small sample of the data is independently coded by each coder. The results are then compared to identify and address any differences in coding decisions.
Independent Coding	Data Assignment	The data is divided among coders, who independently apply the coding scheme to their assigned portions. This independent work is critical to prevent bias.
	Results Comparison	The coded data is compared using inter-coder reliability measures, such as Krippendorff’s alpha, to assess the level of agreement between coders.
Discrepancies Resolution	Discussion of Discrepancies	Any discrepancies are discussed in a meeting among coders. The goal is to reach a consensus on how the data should be coded, which may involve refining the coding scheme or providing additional training.
	Consensus Achievement	Agreement is reached on the final coding, ensuring consistency across all cases.
Final Coding and Analysis	Final Coding Execution	The final coding is completed based on the consensus reached during discrepancy resolution.
	Reliability Assessment	The final inter-coder reliability is calculated to evaluate the consistency of the coding process.
	Data Analysis	The finalized coding allows for the comprehensive analysis of the data, leading to the extraction of significant findings.
Documentation and Reporting	Process Documentation	The entire co-coding process is documented, including the development of the coding scheme, training, trial coding, discrepancy resolution, and final reliability measures.
	Reporting	The co-coding results and reliability metrics are reported in the final research output to ensure transparency and credibility.

). This method has garnered attention in recent social science research for its effectiveness in analyzing complex cases and identifying patterns across diverse datasets (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009). The QCA method is particularly well-suited for this study, given its capacity to handle multiple variables and examine the relationships between different factors influencing the use of digital tools in science education.

In conjunction with QCA, a co-coding method was used to enhance the reliability of the coding process. Co-coding is a methodological step that is frequently employed in qualitative data analysis to ensure consistency and reliability, particularly when multiple coders are involved (Nowell et al., 2017). Co-coding involves multiple researchers coding the same data independently and then discussing discrepancies to reach a consensus (Coulston et al., 2025). This method helps mitigate individual bias and ensures a more robust and nuanced analysis of the data.

4. Results and Analysis

The results of the Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) provide a detailed examination of teachers’ responses regarding their use of digital tools in science education, presented in Appendix A. The analysis categorizes various aspects of digital tool usage, including the types of devices employed, the frequency of their use, and the challenges faced by educators in incorporating these technologies into their teaching. Additionally, it explores differences in the application of digital tools during contact and distance learning, offering insights into the extent and effectiveness of their integration within different learning environments. The responses reflect diverse experiences and attitudes towards digital technology in the classroom, which are further analyzed to identify underlying patterns and trends.

The survey results reveal significant insights into the use and perception of digital tools in education. Traditional computing devices, particularly desktops and laptops, remain the most frequently used technologies in digital learning environments. Desktop computers were the most popular, with 65.5% of respondents (38 out of 58) reporting their use, followed by tablets, used by 48.3% (28 respondents), and laptops, reported by 37.9% (22 respondents). This pattern highlights the centrality of traditional devices, reaffirming their role as foundational tools for digital education.

In contrast, more specialized tools like educational robots, virtual glasses, and Vernier dataloggers were rarely used, indicating that they are either less accessible or perceived as less relevant to teaching. These findings suggest that such devices serve niche purposes and may require broader integration efforts to become widely adopted. Devices like document cameras, data projectors, and interactive whiteboards were moderately utilized, often in specific contexts such as illustrating homework, delivering presentations, and engaging in interactive teaching. Their supporting role in education underscores their targeted, scenario-specific application.

The frequency of digital tool usage varied greatly among respondents. A minority (19%) reported heavy reliance on digital technology, using tools more than 20 times a month. In contrast, 32.8% of respondents used digital tools infrequently, between zero and five times a month. Despite this variability, there was a notable trend of daily integration in classrooms, with 43.1% of respondents using digital tools in two to three lessons per day. This reflects a high degree of integration into regular teaching practices, albeit with differing levels of intensity across individuals and contexts.

Barriers to the effective use of digital tools were a recurring theme. Cost and availability emerged as significant challenges, cited by 34.5% of respondents. Financial constraints, coupled with the high cost of devices and suitable learning environments, hindered broader adoption. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents (48.3%) pointed to a lack of subject-specific content as a major issue, while 43.1% identified problems with foreign language materials, such as poor translations or English-only resources. These findings highlight the pressing need for better localization and curriculum alignment in digital educational content.

Ease of use also posed a challenge, with 27.6% of respondents reporting difficulties in navigating digital tools. A smaller number expressed concerns about their effectiveness (1.7%) or relevance (6.9%), reflecting a perception that some digital tools might not fully meet teaching needs or align with curriculum objectives. These challenges underscore the importance of improving both the usability and educational value of digital resources.

4.1. Differences in the Use of Digital Tools in Distance and Contact Learning

A notable difference exists in the use of digital tools between distance and contact learning contexts. In face-to-face teaching, 20.7% of respondents reported using more digital tools, leveraging devices such as smartboards and tablets to support interactive methods. Similarly, 12 educators (19%) indicated a greater use of digital tools during contact learning, frequently utilizing smartboards for presentations, interactive drawings, and writing tasks. Tablets were also occasionally used to engage students in solving tasks during face-to-face sessions. However, 46.6% of respondents stated they used fewer digital tools in contact learning, suggesting that direct teacher–student interaction often takes precedence in physical classrooms, reducing the reliance on technology. This perspective aligns with findings from 27 educators (42%) who observed a selective approach to digital tools, using them mainly for specific tasks such as Kahoot quizzes, online research, or completing assignments on platforms like Opiq.ee or Google Forms.

Interestingly, 19 educators (30%) reported no significant difference in the use of digital tools between distance and contact learning. They emphasized that modern digital tools are flexible and can be integrated seamlessly into either format, highlighting their potential for consistent educational practices regardless of the learning environment. However, in distance learning, digital tool usage was more standardized, with computers serving as the primary medium for delivering instruction and assignments. Overall, attitudes toward digital tools were mixed. While some respondents reported no significant problems, others raised concerns about the clarity, time consumption, and effectiveness of digital tools, as well as the outdated or irrelevant nature of some e-learning materials. These insights emphasize the need for continuous improvement in digital tool design, user training, and content updates to ensure they effectively support modern educational demands.

4.2. Teaching Methods in Science Education

The study examined the teaching methods most frequently employed by science teachers, categorized into five main approaches: practical work, group work, ICT integration, independent work, and other methods. Figure 1 provides a detailed overview of the percentages associated with each method: (1) practical work; (2) group work; (3) ICT integration; (4) independent work; and (5) other methods. The data revealed a clear preference among science teachers for interactive and applied teaching methods, particularly practical work and group activities. Additionally, the growing role of ICT highlights the importance of integrating digital tools to enhance both engagement and learning outcomes. These findings suggest a balanced approach that combines traditional and modern teaching strategies tailored to meet the diverse needs of students in science education.

4.3. Digital Tools Available at Schools—Availability and Use of Digital Tools in Schools

Another key area of the study focused on the availability and use of digital tools in schools. The most common digital tools reported were computers, cameras, and various other devices. Subcategories of computer usage included laptops, desktop computers, and tablets, while camera usage ranged from digital cameras to document cameras and projectors. Other frequently used tools included smartphones, VR glasses, and educational robots.

Teachers reported that digital tools such as projectors and audio-visual equipment were regularly used in almost every lesson, though more specialized tools like digital sensors and counters were less commonly employed due to their recent introduction in schools. This highlights the importance of both availability and accessibility when it comes to digital tool usage in science education.

Science teachers choose digital tools based on need, with two main factors: convenience and lesson requirements. Convenience includes tool availability, classroom accessibility, teacher familiarity, and student comprehension. Teachers prefer tools that are reliable, easy to use, and support student understanding, including those in Estonian or with familiar content. Lesson topic and methodology influence tool selection for illustrating complex concepts, practicing knowledge, or conducting specific activities. Tablets, desktops, and interactive tablets are used for exercises and tests, while projectors or interactive tablets support presentations. Digital tools also assist with graph analysis, video watching, and essay writing. During distance learning, teachers favored laptops with internet access, webcams, and platforms like Google Meets and Google Classroom.

4.4. Frequency of Using Digital Learning Tools

The survey responses provide insight into the frequency with which science teachers use digital learning tools in their teaching (Figure 2). The responses indicated that: 32.8% of teachers reported using digital tools in 0–5 lessons per month, making this the most common frequency. A total of 25.9% of teachers use digital tools between 6 and 10 lessons per month. A total of 15.5% of teachers reported using digital tools in 11–15 lessons, and 6.9% of teachers use digital tools in 16–20 lessons per month. Approximately 19% of teachers integrate digital tools extensively, using them in more than 20 lessons per month.

The average extent of their digital learning tools usage in daily teaching is illustrated in Figure 3, and a significant portion of teachers (43.1%) use digital tools regularly, integrating them into 2–3 lessons each day. Assuming a typical school day contains 5–6 lessons, this suggests that nearly half of these teachers are utilizing digital resources in roughly half or more of their daily instructional periods. This indicates a moderate but consistent integration of digital tools in their teaching practices. Approximately 24.1% of teachers show a more intense usage pattern, with digital tools being utilized in 4–6 lessons daily. This implies that approximately a quarter of the teachers have fully embraced digital learning tools, making them a central component of nearly all lessons throughout the day. The remaining 32.8% of teachers reported integrating digital tools in one lesson per day, suggesting a more limited but routine application of these resources in their teaching.

The data illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that the reported daily usage does not correspond well to the monthly usage, as the high frequency given of daily usage reported in Figure 3 (especially the 43.1% using digital tools in 2–3 lessons daily and 24.1% using them in 4–6 lessons daily), and the monthly data in Figure 2 appear to underestimate the extent of digital tool use. Only 19% of teachers are reported to use digital tools in more than 20 lessons per month, which seems disproportionately low compared to the daily usage patterns. In sum, the data reveals potential issues in the relevance and coherence of the teachers’ responses, indicating that their reported usage patterns across daily and monthly contexts may not accurately reflect their actual practices with digital learning tools.

4.5. Use of Digital Tools in Different Science Subjects

Teachers reported varying levels of digital tool usage across different science subjects. Figure 4 illustrates the comparison of usage of digital tools in different science subjects. Geography and Biology show moderate digital tool usage. While digital tools like interactive maps, virtual dissections, and simulations enhance learning, they tend to be used in specific lessons rather than consistently across all lessons.

Chemistry and Physics have a higher reliance on digital tools. Simulations and virtual labs are more frequently integrated into lessons due to the complexity of the content. Digital tools are critical for teaching abstract concepts in both Chemistry and Physics. The extent of digital tool usage in General Science (a subject taught at the lower secondary school level that combines foundational concepts from various scientific disciplines) varies depending on the unit being taught. When covering Physics or Chemistry topics, digital tools may be used more frequently, whereas Biology or Earth Science units may rely less on digital integration.

Each of these five science subjects shows varying levels of digital tool usage depending on the content and teaching approaches. To ensure that digital tools are effectively integrated across all subjects, further investment in resources and teacher training is recommended, particularly in subjects where usage is more limited, such as Geography and Biology. This would help teachers leverage the full potential of digital tools to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes across the entire General Science curriculum.

4.6. Challenges and Barriers to the Usage of Digital Tools in Science Education

The integration of digital tools in science education faces significant barriers, primarily the lack of adequate subject-specific content and the prevalence of foreign language materials. Other challenges include tool availability, ease of use, outdated or malfunctioning devices, and the time required for educators to adapt to new technologies (Figure 5). A study investigated these obstacles, offering respondents five predefined response options—availability, ease of use, insufficient subject-specific content, foreign language materials, and non-compliance with the curriculum—along with category “other”. The most cited issue was insufficient subject-specific content (48.3%), followed by foreign language materials (43.1%), tool availability (34.5%), ease of use (27.6%), and curriculum non-compliance (12.1%).

Teachers also reported additional difficulties, such as overly complex materials, students’ lack of digital skills, unengaging tools, and outdated technology. Concerns were raised about the time required to learn these tools, with some questioning about their efficiency. However, a minority saw no significant barriers to their use.

4.7. Prevalence of Digital Tool Utilization Across Various Science Subjects

The investigation also sought to identify themes where digital tools are most frequently utilized. It was found that digital tools are commonly employed to illustrate complex or abstract concepts, such as natural processes and interactions. Teachers noted efforts to incorporate additional materials, including videos, diagrams, graphs, and other illustrative resources, to enhance student understanding. In Biology, digital tools were most frequently used for topics such as biodiversity, cells, fauna/flora, processes (e.g., respiration and photosynthesis), and structures (e.g., skin). In Chemistry, digital tools were utilized for teaching classes on substances, the periodic table, processes (e.g., respiration and combustion), and solving reaction equations. Physics topics were frequently taught using digital tools including mechanics, electricity, forces, motion, and nuclear Physics. In Geography, digital tools were applied to topics such as map reading, forestry, climatic zones, population studies, the formation of the earth, plate tectonics, natural processes, and the earth’s internal structure. In General Science, digital tools were used for topics related to animals, plants (e.g., species recognition, material illustration), and water (e.g., illustrations and models). Some teachers reported that they did not differentiate between topics when integrating digital tools into science lessons. Others stated that digital tools were incorporated into every lesson to illustrate the theme, regardless of the specific topic.

4.8. Use of Digital Tools Across Different Age Groups

The study examined digital tool usage across age groups, focusing on whether age influences usage and why. The research asked: “Which age group uses digital tools the most and why?” Findings categorized usage into no differentiation, primary, secondary, higher secondary, and all levels.

Key reasons for usage included English proficiency, independent work skills, digital tool skills, lesson engagement, and time efficiency. Some teachers applied digital tools uniformly across all topics rather than by age. At the primary level, tools were used for illustrating concepts with simple videos and native language materials. Secondary school students used them for early independent work, while higher secondary students leveraged their advanced English and digital skills to manage learning independently. Teachers who considered age significant in tool usage reported the highest use in high school, citing students’ developed skills in language, problem-solving, and information evaluation as crucial factors.

4.9. Discrepancies in Teachers’ Responses

The QCA, as detailed in Appendix A, also highlights various discrepancies in teachers’ responses. These include differences in the reported frequency of digital tool usage, the varying extent to which digital tools are utilized in contact versus distance learning, and disparities in the perceived ease of use and effectiveness of these tools. Furthermore, while some educators express concerns about the availability of subject-specific content and the predominance of foreign language materials, others indicate that they encounter no significant issues when using digital tools in their teaching practices.

Although 19 respondents (31%) reported using digital tools 0–5 times per month, the same number (19 respondents, 31%) reported using digital tools in at least one lesson per day, and 25 respondents (41%) reported using them in 2–3 lessons per day. This suggests a discrepancy between the reported monthly usage and daily integration. It could indicate different interpretations of what “usage” means (e.g., light vs. intensive use of tools) or inconsistent patterns in reporting.

There is a clear contradiction between the 12 respondents (20%) who said they use more digital tools in contact learning and the 27 respondents (44%) who reported using less. This indicates a divide in how teachers perceive the role of digital tools in a face-to-face classroom setting. Some may find them essential for interactive teaching, while others prefer traditional methods when direct communication is available. This suggests different teaching philosophies or classroom strategies.

While 16 respondents (26%) indicated that they struggle with ease of use, 2 respondents (3%) claimed to have no issues at all and believe that everyone can use the tools easily. This discrepancy could stem from varying levels of digital literacy among teachers, where some are more comfortable with technology than others.

There seems to be a stronger concern about foreign language materials (25 respondents, 41%) compared to non-compliance with the curriculum (7 respondents, 11%). This could indicate that while many teachers struggle with language barriers, fewer are concerned with the direct alignment of digital content with the curriculum, even though both are critical to effective teaching. The lower emphasis on curriculum non-compliance might also suggest that teachers are more adaptable in integrating available content despite these challenges.

Only one respondent (2%) explicitly questioned the effectiveness of digital tools, while others mentioned concerns related to relevance and time consumption. This might indicate a lack of comprehensive reflection on digital tools’ effectiveness, or it could suggest that effectiveness is more difficult to assess for teachers, particularly in relation to specific content and contexts. The broad distribution of responses in the “problems” section hints at uncertainty about the real impact of these tools on learning outcomes.

These discrepancies reflect the varying levels of adoption, experience, and attitudes toward digital tools among teachers. While some are fully integrating these tools into their classrooms and see their benefits, others face challenges with content, ease of use, or relevance. This suggests a need for differentiated support based on individual teacher needs, possibly including training, better content curation, and localized resources to ensure consistency in the effective use of digital tools across classrooms.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study emphasize the growing role of digital competence in science education, particularly in the context of evolving teaching methodologies and the increasing integration of technology. As noted by Farias-Gaytan et al. (2022), digital literacy is a fundamental competency for educators and students alike, as it facilitates effective teaching, engagement, and problem-solving. The study results indicate that teachers acknowledge the necessity of digital tools but face significant barriers in their effective implementation. These findings align with prior research that underscores the multifaceted nature of digital competence, which extends beyond basic technological proficiency to encompass digital content creation, online safety, and pedagogical applications (Claro et al., 2024).

The COVID-19 pandemic further reinforced the importance of digital competence, as educators had to swiftly adapt to online and hybrid teaching formats (Besser et al., 2022). The results of this study suggest that while many teachers have adapted to using digital tools, disparities remain in the level of digital literacy among educators, with variations in accessibility and confidence in integrating technology into pedagogical practices (Falloon, 2020). The importance of ongoing professional development in digital competence is therefore crucial, as educators must continually refine their skills to meet the evolving demands of modern education (Kormakova et al., 2021).

The study revealed considerable variability in the digital literacy levels of secondary school science teachers. Some educators demonstrated proficiency in using digital tools, while others struggled with integration due to a lack of professional development opportunities and limited access to resources. These findings are consistent with previous studies highlighting the uneven distribution of digital competencies among teachers (Rahmawati et al., 2024). Frameworks such as DigCompEdu provide a structured approach to digital competency development, yet the results indicate that many teachers have not received adequate training in these areas (Aydin et al., 2024).

Another key finding relates to disparities in digital literacy based on geographical location and teaching experience. Teachers in urban schools reported greater access to digital resources, whereas those in rural settings faced challenges such as outdated equipment and limited internet access. Similarly, teachers with over ten years of experience were more likely to express hesitancy towards digital tools, citing concerns about the rapid pace of technological change (Ogegbo & Ramnarain, 2022). Addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions, including equitable access to digital infrastructure and tailored training programs to support educators at different stages of their careers.

The study identified multiple benefits associated with the use of digital tools in science education, including increased accessibility, flexibility, and enhanced student engagement. As noted by Bilyalova et al. (2020), digital tools enable students to learn at their own pace and provide immediate feedback through interactive assessments. Additionally, platforms such as Quizizz, Kahoot, and Google Forms facilitate formative assessments, allowing teachers to monitor student progress effectively (ClassPoint, 2024).

Despite these advantages, several challenges persist. The most frequently cited barrier was the lack of subject-specific digital content, followed by issues related to foreign language materials and ease of use. These findings mirror concerns raised in previous research regarding the relevance and accessibility of digital learning resources (Sánchez-Cruzado et al., 2021). Moreover, the study revealed discrepancies in teachers’ perceptions of digital tool effectiveness, with some educators questioning the pedagogical value of certain digital materials. Addressing these concerns necessitates the development of localized digital resources and user-friendly platforms that align with national curricula (Biggins & Holley, 2022).

The study examined the extent to which digital tools are integrated into science subjects such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Geography. The findings indicate that digital tools are most frequently used in Physics and Chemistry, where simulations and virtual labs enhance conceptual understanding (de Jong et al., 2024). In contrast, Geography and Biology teachers reported moderate usage, often limited to specific topics such as biodiversity and climate studies.

The use of digital tools also varied based on the teaching format. During face-to-face instruction, teachers reported a lower reliance on digital tools, whereas in distance learning settings, digital platforms became essential for delivering lessons and assessments. These findings align with research highlighting the adaptability of digital technologies in different educational contexts (Howard et al., 2021). However, the study also revealed inconsistencies in teachers’ reported usage patterns, suggesting the need for clearer guidelines on integrating digital tools effectively in both online and in-person learning environments.

Several discrepancies were noted in teachers’ responses regarding the frequency of digital tool usage and their perceived importance in different learning environments. For instance, while some educators reported using digital tools in nearly every lesson, others indicated minimal usage. These inconsistencies suggest that digital integration is highly context-dependent, influenced by factors such as teacher confidence, curriculum requirements, and school infrastructure.

Moreover, the study found contradictions in teachers’ perceptions of digital tool accessibility and effectiveness. Some educators emphasized the importance of digital tools in enhancing student learning, while others expressed skepticism about their long-term impact. These findings highlight the need for further research to examine the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools across different subject areas and educational levels.

6. Conclusions

This study highlights the strong digital foundation that Estonian science teachers operate within, enabled by decades of targeted investments like the Tiger leap broadband program and recent initiatives such as ProgeTiger (ProgeTiiger) and AI Leap 2025 (e-Estonia, 2023). Teachers benefit from high-speed networks, interactive tools, and national alignment with the DigCompEdu framework, but they also face challenges in integrating advanced AI-powered learning tools and data analytics into everyday practice. Targeted professional development, improved peer learning networks, and equitable infrastructure are critical for maximizing these opportunities.

In reflecting on the development of science teachers’ digital competence during the pandemic, it is evident that sustained growth relied heavily on collaborative networks and cross-sector partnerships. The shared challenges of COVID-19 created a foundation for more integrated approaches to digital professional learning—approaches that should be sustained and deepened beyond the crisis period.

The results of this study underscore the growing importance of digital tools in science education, particularly in response to the demands of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. While digital tools provide valuable support for both in-person and distance instruction, their usage is influenced by factors such as availability, convenience, and the specific needs of the lesson.

Teachers have adapted their use of digital tools based on the strengths of different teaching environments, and while barriers such as insufficient content and accessibility remain, the overall trend points to a more integrated and flexible approach to digital education. Moving forward, there is a need to continue developing high-quality digital materials that align with curricula and to address disparities in access to ensure that all students benefit from the advancements in educational technology.

The analysis highlights the widespread use of traditional computing devices, the moderate adoption of classroom-specific tools, and the limited penetration of specialized technologies. Variability in usage patterns and the presence of significant barriers point to opportunities for targeted improvements, particularly in addressing cost, content relevance, and usability issues. While 30% of educators reported no differences, others adjusted their tool usage to fit the unique demands of contact or distance learning. These findings underscore the importance of a balanced approach to digital tool integration, one that prioritizes accessibility, effectiveness, and alignment with educational objectives.

In conclusion, the advancements in digital literacy brought about by the pandemic offer new opportunities to enrich and transform education. However, challenges such as digital equity and well-being must be addressed to ensure that these benefits are accessible to all learners. By continuing to innovate and adapt, educators can create inclusive, engaging, and effective learning experiences that prepare students for the demands of the digital world.

Still, the study revealed that Estonian science teachers benefit from strong digital infrastructure, supportive national policies, and a commitment to competence-based education. They leverage data-rich platforms and digital tools to enhance science learning. However, challenges remain in the following areas: equipping teachers with advanced digital pedagogical skills (e.g., AI tools); ensuring consistent professional development and school-level collaboration; translating external feedback into effective classroom practices; and deepening the integration of digital technologies beyond basic use.

7. Limitations

This study encountered several limitations. The survey period lasted for one month, during which science teachers were less active, leading to a limited sample size (N = 58), which restricts the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the participating teachers represented both rural and urban schools, spanning primary and secondary education, which introduces variability that complicates direct comparisons between schools. To enhance the reliability of the findings, future studies should consider extending the response period to allow teachers more time to participate.

8. Recommendations and Implications

This study underscores the critical role of digital competence in science education while highlighting the existing challenges in integrating digital tools effectively. The findings suggest that while digital tools offer significant pedagogical benefits, disparities in access, training, and confidence among educators hinder their full potential. To address these issues, several recommendations emerge:

Continuous training programs tailored to different levels of digital competence should be implemented to support teachers in acquiring and refining their digital skills (Reychav et al., 2023). Educational policymakers should invest in the development of subject-specific digital resources in native languages to enhance accessibility and curriculum alignment (Inan-Karangul et al., 2021). Schools, particularly those in rural areas, require improved digital infrastructure to ensure all educators have the necessary tools for effective teaching (Castaño Muñoz et al., 2023). Further studies should explore the long-term impact of digital tools on student learning outcomes to establish best practices for digital integration in science education (Hillmayr et al., 2020). By addressing these challenges, educators and policymakers can work towards a more inclusive and effective digital learning environment. Digital literacy and competence should not be viewed as supplementary skills but as essential components of modern science education, ensuring that both teachers and students are prepared for the demands of an increasingly digital world.

Implications for Science Teachers

➢

Increased access to AI-powered tools will enhance teaching in science subjects through data-driven experimentation and personalized learning experiences (The Guardian, 2025; Choudhury et al., 2024).

➢

Strengthened broadband infrastructure ensures equitable access to digital tools, reducing disparities for rural schools (European Commission, 2025).

➢

Targeted teacher training programs, especially under AI Leap, will support educators in integrating advanced digital pedagogy, including AI literacy and ethical use.