Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3)

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3).  
130 
Among those interested in revising concepts and models of DC in HE, Palacios et al. (2020) reviewed two 
frameworks – DigCompEdu (Redecker & Punie, 2017) and the common framework for DC from the 
National Institute for Educational Technology and Professional Development (Institutio Nacional de 
Tecnologia Educativa y Formacion del Profesorado, 2017) – which can serve to develop DC awareness 
during initial teacher training, while Duran et al. (2016) proposed a TDC model for HE through three frames 
to support professional practice: TDC in HE, TDC and general DC. In reviewing concept use of DC and 
digital literacy in HE research, Spante et al. (2018) concluded that digital literacy has been used more 
frequently and over a longer period and thus is a more established concept compared to DC, arguing for 
informed and conscious referencing to established definitions. Also, regional differences appear between 
the two concepts, where digital literacy research is often conducted in English speaking countries, while 
DC research in European countries outside the United Kingdom. 
• RQ3: What is the quality of published systematic reviews on TDC research in HE? 
To assess the quality of the included reviews, we used the JBI (2017) checklist, which consists of 10 items. 
As shown in Table 4, the quality of the included reviews ranged considerably, and this variability will 
impact on the interpretation and implications for practice and research. Three clusters of quality emerged, 
with those in the highest range scoring between 8 and 9 on a quality score out of 10. The middle-quality 
cluster scored between 6.5 and 7.5, and the lower third scored between 5 and 6, a relatively low threshold 
for inclusion. As noted earlier, 10 reviews were excluded by not meeting the pre-established quality 
threshold of 5, an unanticipated result. The average total quality score was 6.75, and no review met all the 
criteria. 
Table 4
Critical appraisal of included reviews 
Author 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Score 
Røkenes & Krumsvik (2014)
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
9 
Spante et al. (2018)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
9 
Sánchez-Caballé et al. (2020)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
8.5 
Zhao et al. (2021)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
8 
Fernández-Batanero et al. 
(2020)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
7.5 
Starkey (2020)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
7.5 
Esteve-Mon et al. (2020)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
7 
Perdomo (2020)  
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
- 
+ 
+ 
0 
+ 
7 
Palacios et al. (2020)  
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
6.5 
Pettersson (2018)  
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
6 
Duran et al. (2016)
- 
0 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
+ 
0 
+ 
5 
Recio et al. (2020)  
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
+ 
0 
0 
5 
Rodriguez-García et al. (2019)  
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
+ 
- 
- 
5 
Note. 1. Presence of a review question; 2. Use of inclusion criteria; 3. Use of search strategy; 4. Sources 
and resources used to search were reported; 5. Criteria for study appraisal; 6. Critical appraisal conducted 
by two or more reviewers; 7. Minimise errors in data extraction; 8. Methods used to combine studies; 9. 
Recommendations for policy and/or practice; 10. Implications for future research; + = Clearly reported; 0 
= Partially reported; - = Not reported. 
Surprisingly, just over half of the reviews (61%) included a guiding review question, an essential step that 
helps define the scope when conducting systematic reviews and establish effective search strategies. Most 
reviews clearly reported inclusion criteria, search strategies and sources and resources used for the review 
process. However, critical appraisal was another surprising method that was absent from most reviews 
(85%). Only two reviews assessed the quality of included primary studies and no reviews explicitly reported 
critical appraisal being conducted by two or more reviewers independently. This finding has implications 
as there is no indication of the quality of the included primary studies in most reviews, bringing into 
question the reliability and validity of the overall findings. Data extraction was another clear limitation, as 
under half of the reviews (38%) reported methods to minimise errors in this critical phase. Another area of 
concern were the recommendations for policy and practice and specific directives for future lines of 
research. In both criteria, there should be a clear link to the results of the review. In the lower-quality cluster, 
three reviews had vague recommendations for policy or practice and one review did not report any. 
Concerning future lines of inquiry, three reviews had ambiguous implications for future research, which 

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3).  
131 
did not clearly relate to the results of the review, while two reviews did not report any gaps in the research 
requiring future attention.