Dimensions of digital transformation

in higher education institutions for

continuing education

Dimensions of digital transformation in

higher education institutions for

continuing education

How to cite: Mas, C. G. y Duart, M. J. M. (2024). Dimensions of Digital Transformation in Higher

Education Institutions for Continuing Education. Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado,

5(10), 33-57.

Josep Maria Duart Montoliu**

https:orcid.org/0000-0002-5123-0370

Barcelona / España

Gemma Mas Crespo*

https:orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-8408

Barcelona / España

* PhD Student in Education and ICT (e-learning), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona. Postgraduate

in Quality Management and Control, Quality Control and Safety Technologies/Technicians, UOC. Bachelor's Degree

in Psychopedagogy, UOC. Bachelor's Degree in Pedagogy, UOC. University of Barcelona - Institute for Lifelong

Learning. Contact email: gemmag1975@gmail.com

** PhD in Pedagogy, Ramon Llull University (URL) Barcelona. Master in Business Administration from ESADE Busi-

ness School, Barcelona. Bachelor's Degree in History, University of Barcelona (UB). Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Contact email: jduart@uoc.edu

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10), 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Received: January / 20 / 2024 Reviewed: January /24 / 2024 Approved: March / 9 /2024

Abstract

To comprehend the need for digital transformation in the field of continuing education, we must

first be aware of the existence of a digitized society facilitated by technological changes and

the phenomenon of globalization. These changes are reshaping our understanding of the world

and how we live in it. It is in this context of digital transformation that society expects higher

continuing education to respond to the demands of digitization. With the aim of defining pat-

terns that facilitate transformation processes in our higher education institutions for the deve-

lopment of continuous training programs, this article analyzes, through 26 articles (between

2017 and 2022), selected using the PRISMA methodology, the main dimensions, levels, and ac-

tors involved in digital transformation processes. The results lead us to conclude that it is an

emerging field of interest, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, which has accelerated digi-

tization processes.

Keywords:

Continuing education, digital transformation, lifelong learning, digitization, higher.

Resumen

Para entender la necesidad de transformación digital en el campo de la educación continua

primero deberemos ser conscientes de la existencia de una sociedad digitalizada facilitada por

los cambios tecnológicos y el fenómeno de la globalización. Estos cambios están transformando

nuestra forma de entender el mundo y vivir en él. Es en este contexto de transformación digital

donde la sociedad espera que la educación continua superior responda a las necesidades de

digitalización. Con el objetivo de definir patrones que faciliten los procesos de transformación

en nuestras instituciones de educación superior en el desarrollo de programas de formación

continua, el presente artículo analiza, a través de 26 artículos (entre 2017 y 2022), seleccionados

usando la metodología PRISMA, las principales dimensiones, niveles y actores implicados en

los procesos de transformación digital. Los resultados obtenidos nos llevan a concluir que se

trata de un campo de interés emergente, especialmente después de la pandemia del COVID-

19 la cual ha acelerado los procesos de digitalización.

Keywords:

Educación continua, transformación digital, aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida, digita-

lización, educación superior.

Introducción

In our "digitalized society" (González et al., 2018), digital technology is evolving rapidly, especially

during the last decade of the 21st century with the emergence of certain technologies such as

Artificial Intelligence (AI), 3D printing, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and quantum com-

puting (QC), among others. This period is known as the 4th Industrial Revolution (Penprase,

2018), in which technology has become one of the main external drivers of digital transformation

(Hanelt et al., 2021; Verhoef et al., 2021).

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2017), di-

gital transformation is the result of the digitalization of economies and societies. Other authors

consider digital transformation as the best approach to address emerging trends generated by

digital technologies (Aditya et al., 2021). In any case, together with the phenomenon of globa-

lization (Branch et al., 2020), digital technologies have forced organizations to initiate digital

transformation processes whose purposes, among others, are: a) efficiency and cost reduction,

b) value creation, and c) cultural change through the use of digital technologies (Castro et al.,

2020; Hanelt et al., 2021; Tekic & Koroteev, 2019). This situation has been increased and accele-

rated by the 2020 pandemic (COVID-19), affecting all productive and service sectors.

Given this context, higher education institutions are not exempt from transformation, and there

are different reasons that lead us to make this statement. First, if we consider Gobble's (2018)

words about the social purpose of transformation, higher education institutions, by having social

commitment as their third mission (Carrión, 2018; Rojas et al., 2018), play an important role in

this context of change towards a digital society. Second, it refers to the need to integrate these

technologies into the processes and services (both operational and academic) by automating

and digitizing them (OECD, 2000). Thirdly, in a post-digital education context (Fawns, 2018; Lamb

et al., 2022), we can agree that students are more connected than ever before (González et al.,

2018). These students are digital natives and have higher expectations about the possibilities of

digital learning (Henderson et al., 2017). Therefore, the necessary integration of technology can-

not be simplified to the context of its use. It requires a transformation process within the institu-

tion itself, involving changes in the traditional business model, organizational processes and

structures, products and services, and organizational culture (Giang et al., 2021; Teslia et al.,

2020; Verhoef et al., 2021). In other words, digital transformation is not defined as a simple pro-

cess of incorporating technology at the level of teaching or a few processes (Fernández et al.,

2019), or "digital transformation in higher education institutions refers to the development of

new, more advanced and effective methods and practices in pursuit of the mission of higher

education" (Alenezi, 2021, p. 2).

However, the process of digital transformation in higher education institutions poses significant

challenges since "the last 100 years show that education has not been transformed or altered

by successive waves of technological innovation" (Selwyn, 2016, p. 439).

With the aim of addressing this complex issue, the present study aims to provide an overview

of the state of digital transformation in higher education institutions, in the context of continuing

education, through a literature review process based on the PRISMA methodology for the last

5 years (2017-2022), in the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) databases. The results of this

work are presented in this article, which is organized into the following sections. The present

section, where we have presented the framework by which the constructs of digital transfor-

mation and higher education institutions for continuing education are related. The "Concepts"

section, where definitions of the search concepts are shared and decisions made for the con-

cretion of the search algorithm are described. A section called "Methodology" that describes

the protocol followed, the process of data selection, and the results of the analysis process. A

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

"Conclusions" section that presents the main inferences obtained from the study. A "References"

section with the referenced bibliography. And finally, in the "Annex" section, the analyzed articles

are listed.

Concepts

For our study, the main terms considered in the literature search refer to digital transformation

and continuous education in the context of higher education institutions.

Regarding the first of the terms, "digital transformation" it should be noted that it lacks a single

definition (Hanelt et al., 2021), and it was not until 2003 that it was distinguished from the term

"digitization" (Pihir et al., 2019). For our study, the term is defined as "a series of profound and

coordinated changes in culture, workforce, and technology usage that facilitate new educational

and operational models, transforming the operations, strategic directions, and value proposition

of the institution" (Grajek & Reinitz, 2019).

Regarding the term "Continuing training" it is understood as education "after initial education

and training, [...] intended to help individuals: improve or update their knowledge and/or skills;

acquire new skills for a career change or new training; continue their personal or professional

development" (CEDEFOP, 2014, p. 51). It should be noted that continuing education is also as-

sociated with other terms such as "professional training", "professional development," or "adult

education" (Bade-Becker et al., 2009). For our analysis, we understand that the term "professional

training" "is attributed to a specific study cycle corresponding to Vocational Education and Trai-

ning (VET) (CEDEFOP, 2014, p. 292), which is not part of the present analysis. However, we will

consider the concept of "professional development" as it is part of the definition of the term

"continuing education".

“Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a reality” (European Commission, •

2001).

“Recommendations on key competences for lifelong learning” (European Council, •

2006).

"Education and Training 2020" (Council of Europe, 2009). •

For this reason, the following terms have been considered synonymous with the concept of

"Continuing education": "lifelong learning" "permanent education/training," "adult educa-

tion."

Methodology

In order to conduct a literature review on the state of digital transformation in continuing edu-

cation carried out by higher education institutions, with a search date of March 13, 2022, and

limited to the last 5 years, the following process based on the PRISMA model (Page, McKenzie

et al., 2021; Page, Moher et al., 2021) has been followed, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Figure 1

Workflow process (PRISMA methodology)

Note: Original source.

Identification Phase

For the identification phase, the following combinations of terms (in two languages: Spanish

and English) were used in the following thematic databases: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus,

limiting the searches to the title, abstract, or keywords defined by the author..

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

Table 1

Search Algorithms

Since indexing in different databases is not the same, initially, the analysis has been conducted

separately for each database.

Table 2

Search Results in WoS and Scopus.

Note: Original source.

For the specification of the temporal criterion, 2017-2022, the following parameters have been considered:

1) The nature of the topic itself leads us to the need to narrow down the search to more

recent periods to conduct reviews of scientific literature that allow us to access the most

updated knowledge on our topic of interest.

2) 89% of the search results are concentrated in the period from 2017 to 2022.

Having established the temporality criterion, the obtained records were reviewed to refine the

information with the purpose of obtaining unique records.

Discard criteria:

1) Publications not written in English or Spanish.

2) Those that did not contain information about authors, title, or abstract were categorized as null.

Results

WoS Scopus

Global

=2017

Global

X>=2017

Spanish 0 1 2 2

English 130 117 117 104

Open Access 48 46 36 35

lid X>=2017

105 101

ES: Title, abstract or author-specified keywords = ("Transformacion Digital" OR "Digitalizacion") AND ("Educacion

continua" OR "formacion continua" OR "lifelong learning" OR "formacion permanente" OR "educacion perma-

nente" OR "educacion de adultos” OR "desarrollo profesional") | Year: 2017-2022.

EN: Title, abstract or author-specified keywords = ("Digital transformation" OR "Digitalisation" OR "Digitalization")

AND ("Continuing education" OR "Continuing training" OR "lifelong learning" OR "adult education” OR "con-

tinuing professional development) | Year: 2017-2022.

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

3) Records were considered duplicates if they contained the same abstract, authors, and

publication year.

The following table shows the results obtained, taking into account the previous filtering pro-

cesses (temporal criterion and unique record):

Table 3

Results of the identification phase

Note: Original source.

As can be observed, in this phase, 80 records that did not meet the selection criteria have been

excluded (37% out of 216), leaving a total sample of 136 publications: 48 from WoS, 44 from

Scopus, and 44 common.

Eligibility phase

With the aim of delimiting the results to our object of study and determining its distinctive cha-

racteristics: dimensions, actors, and levels of implementation; we have proceeded to evaluate

the different publications to answer the following questions:

1) Does it describe any digital transformation process in the higher continuing education

sector?

2) What dimension(s) and categories do they describe?

3) To what organizational level do they refer?

4) Who are the actors involved?

1. Higher Continuing Education Sector

To analyze if an article addresses the first of the described questions, 3 rounds of reading have

been conducted. In these rounds, the abstract and the keywords defined by the author (1st,

2nd, and 3rd round), as well as the content of the publication (in the 2nd and 3rd round), have

been evaluated according to the following evaluation table:

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Results

WoS Scopus

X>=2017 X>=2017

English/ Spanish 93 90

Duplicates / Nulls -1 -2

Total valid 92

Unique records

136

48 44 44

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

Table 4

Eligibility evaluation criteria.

Note: Original source.

In each of the rounds, different elements were analyzed according to the following description:

1) Round 1: Reading of the abstract and keywords.

2) Round 2: Reading of the abstract and keywords in all, and content of publications in the

"Null" category.

3) Round 3: Reading of the abstract and keywords in all; and content of publications in the

"Null" and "Partial" categories.

As a result of the filtering carried out over the three rounds, 26 publications (Annex 1) have fi-

nally been identified as eligible for the subsequent analysis phases, as shown in the following

summary table:

Table 5

Results of the 3 rounds of eligibility.

Note:

They could not be analyzed in further detail as the full article was not available.

They couldn't be analyzed

because the article wasn't available. Own work.

2. Dimensions and Categories

Taking a multidimensional view of the digital transformation process or digitization (Aditya et al., 2021;

Hanelt et al., 2021; Rodrigues., 2017), which affects any organization in multiple aspects (Giang et al.,

2021; Teslia et al., 2020; Verhoef et al., 2021), we have opted to establish different levels of analysis.

Values Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

Yes 30 24 26

Partial 21 27 29

Null 39 14 8

No 46 71 83

Valeur

Description

Action

Yes

Contains clear references with explicit informa

tion.

Include in the following phase as eligible.

Partial

It is inferred, although the information is not ex

plicit.

Null

With the existing information, the sector cannot

be inferred.

Review full article and reevaluate.

Nou

Contains clear references to another sector.

Exclude from the following phase.

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

At a first level, we will focus on the complexity of the definition of digital transformation itself.

As such, according to authors such as Reis et al. (2018) or Castro et al. (2020), it encompasses

three main dimensions:

1) The "technological" dimension, focused on the use of digital technologies.

2) The "organizational" dimension, requiring a change in organizational processes or the

creation of new business models (Henriette et al., 2015).

3) The "social" dimension, which affects many aspects of our lives to the extent, for example,

of becoming a catalyst for social innovation (Kaputa et al., 2022).

Taking into consideration the three aforementioned dimensions, the following distribution is

shown in our sample of eligible publications:

Figure 2

Distribution of dimensions by publication year.

Note: Original source.

As can be observed, the three dimensions participate in similar percentages, reinforcing the

idea of the multidimensionality of transformation processes. Similarly, since 2018, a certain in-

crease in interest has been detected in the organizational and social dimensions (Castro et al.,

2020). This responds to the fact that the technological dimension is limited to the need to in-

corporate technology, while there is increased interest in organizational changes (for example,

recommending the development of teacher training centers or the need for a legal framework)

or in the social dimension (as an asset for improving society and/or the regional context).

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

As a second level of analysis, publications were analyzed according to groupings established

by different authors such as Graham et al. (2013), Khalid et al. (2018), and Rampelt et al.

(2019):

Strategic Framework [G1]: institutional policies, strategies, vision, governance, among •

others.

Structural Changes [G2]: technological, legal, pedagogical, and administrative environ-•

ment, among others.

Support Elements [G3]: incentives, professional support services, student support, •

among others.

Figure 3

Distribution of groupings by publication year.

Note: Original source.

Unlike the pattern identified in the earlier dimensions analyzed (Figure 2), the distribution re-

garding the 3 aforementioned groupings (Figure 3) shows a certain predominance of structural

changes, while the conception or development of support elements is the least present group;

this trend persists over the years. Additionally, there is an increase in interest in strategic issues

(from 0% to 33% in the year 2022).

The following infographic (Figure 4) shows how the previous dimensions and groupings would

be combined according to levels of importance identified in the analyzed articles.

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Figure 4

Digital transformation: dimensions and groupings.

Note: Original source.

In each of the aforementioned groupings [G1/G2/G3], we have also identified different thematic

categories. The following table shows the distribution of some of the most recurrent themes

in the 26 analyzed articles. The following image shows the intersections between the groups

and the themes, indicating the number of related articles in each category:

Figure 5

Categories for digital transformation and number of articles.

Note: Original source.

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

3. Level of implementation of digital transformation

As would happen in any organization, and higher education institutions are no exception, a

process of digital transformation may involve different levels of implementation, from a macro

to a more micro level (Arnold & Sangrà., 2018; Hanelt et al., 2021; Johnston et al., 2018). Other

frameworks refer to these same levels of implementation using different terms: individual, ins-

titutional, and social (Loebbecke & Picot., 2015).

Our proposed analysis suggests a first categorization of the 26 publications based on the level

of impact of the expressed digitization process, ranging from the micro level (Classroom/Teacher,

Program/Course) to the macro level (National/International), passing through the meso level

(Institution/Center):

Figure 6

Levels of implementation of digital transformation

Note: Original source.

The first three represented levels (Classroom/Teacher, Program/Course, and Institution/Center)

correspond to the different levels of technology adoption defined by Graham et al. (2013). They

describe a gradation from a more exploratory and introductory level, limited in risks and without

institutional support; evolving towards a more mature implementation with full institutional sup-

port.

If we analyze the 26 articles according to these levels (considering that the same article may involve

more than one reference level), the results obtained are shown in the following graph (Figure 7):

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Figure 7

Levels of implementation identified in the articles

Note: Original source.

Below, each of the levels and the relationships found are described in more detail:

• Classroom/Teacher: In these cases, institutional support is limited, and teachers, indivi-

dually or in small groups, explore ways in which they can digitize teaching and learning

processes. Under this definition, we have identified 7 references (27%). Only 1 of them

focuses on proposals at the Classroom/Teacher level, with the Institution/Center being

the most referenced (71%).

• Program/Course: It includes value proposals related to the review and creation of pro-

grams or courses adapted to the needs of our digital society. In this category, 10 refe-

rences (38%) have been identified, 8 of them projected at the Institution/Center level, 3

at the National/International level, and 3 at the Classroom/Teacher level.

• Institution/Center: This third level is characterized by the adoption of digital transfor-

mation actions at the institutional level and experimentation with policies and practices

to support the development and growth of digitization. The number of references as-

signed to this level is the highest of all, with 21 (81%). Like in the previous levels, the num-

ber of articles solely assigned to this level is reduced to 4. The rest of the references

combine recommendations and implementation proposals at other levels, mainly at the

Program/Course (38.10%) and National/International (47.62%) levels.

• National/International: This last level is characterized by the definition or specification of

policies and recommendations for the promotion and development of digitization in the

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

higher continuing education sector. In this category, we find 12 references (46%), with 2

solely assigned to this level, while 10 are combined with the Institution/Center level.

4. Actors

Every digital transformation process in the educational context, besides considering the use of

technology, involves taking into account different actors, promoters, and/or recipients of the

transformation process itself. In our analysis context, the following actors have been identified:

Figure 8

Actors involved in digital transformation processes.

Note: Original source.

As shown in the preceding graph (Figure 8), the main actors are "Institutions/Centers," followed

by the group of "Students," "Society/Community," and "Teachers." In the last position would be

the "Government."

These data reinforce the results obtained previously, with 85% of the articles again focused at

the Institutional/Center level. In all articles in this block, the need for institutional-level changes

is defined to:

a) Promote teaching and curriculum improvement by applying innovative methods (100%).

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

b) Ensure the development of digital skills (86.36%).

c) Offer training proposals based on personalized or individualized learning (77.27%).

d) Implement digital platforms (72.72%) that enable self-directed learning (68.18%).

e) Reduce costs in existing traditional models and be more efficient by improving mana-

gement (59.09%).

f) Ensure the quality of digitized services (54.54%).

g) Institutionalize support services and training for teachers and students (40.91%).

To a lesser extent, institutional approaches are also found regarding the need for policies and

strategies related to internationalization, the use of Open Access resources, or the implemen-

tation of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (SDGs).

When examining the involvement of students (65.38%), it primarily relates to the challenge that

continuing education institutions face in training them in competencies (100%) to meet the

needs of a digitized society. To achieve this, the use of various digital platforms is proposed

(76.47%), employing innovative methods and tools (100%) that allow for personalized expe-

riences (88.24%) and the promotion of self-directed learning (58.82%), without compromising

on the quality provided (47.06%).

The same applies to teachers (61.54%), as they are responsible for promoting adequate training

in digital competencies and innovating both in curriculum and methodology (100%), while also

maintaining the quality of education (56.25%); performing their duties in digital environments

(81.25%). This requires them to develop the necessary methodological and digital competencies

through their own training/updating (68.75%).

At the level of society/community as actors (65.38%), the need to review teaching methodolo-

gies and existing curricula, adapting them to societal expectations by leveraging the benefits

offered by digitization (100%) emerges again as relevant. We particularly highlight the need for

digitally competent citizenship (82.35%). At the level of higher continuing education, there is

also a demonstrated need to maintain close alliances between higher education institutions

and companies or productive agents in society (29.41%), given their relationship with the curri-

culum (as providers of information on training needs or as facilitators of the necessary environ-

ments for their development, whether platforms or practices).

Finally, we only found 8 articles (30.77%) where the direct influence of governments is explicitly

indicated as promoters, promoting policies that foster lifelong learning (100%) or the necessary

technological infrastructure (75%). These policies may also extend to aspects related to MOOCs

- Massive Open Online Courses (37.5%) or intellectual property protection (25%).

Conclusions

The analysis conducted has shown that digital transformation is a complex and multidimensional

process, which encompasses dimensions (technological, organizational, and social), multiple

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

categories (business models, governance and management; support elements; technological

environment and platforms, open educational resources, digital competencies, curriculum, tea-

ching and learning processes, or enrollment, among others), and levels of development, ranging

from the micro level (Classroom/Teacher, Program/Course) to the macro level (National/Inter-

national), passing through the meso level (Institution/Center).

In this complexity, the Institution/Center level emerges as the one that garners the most interest

with the highest number of referenced articles (Figures 5 and 6). With 81% of the 26 analyzed ar-

ticles, there is a greater interest in surpassing the Classroom/Teacher and Program/Course levels

and establishing a more mature and institutional implementation of digitization processes through

the definition of policies and strategic plans that affect different elements within an institution.

As we have been discussing, transformation poses an organizational and cultural change that

even affects the business model linked to lifelong learning (Castro et al., 2020; Hanelt et al.,

2021; Rodrigues, 2017; Tekic & Koroteev,, 2019). These new business models must be capable of

generating value in a digitized society, thereby keeping the third mission of higher education

institutions relevant: social commitment (Carrión, 2018; Rojas et al., 2018). Some authors even

argue that higher education institutions should be leading this change, which they define as

cultural (Branch et al., 2020).

As observed in the analyzed articles, for the majority, the concept of adding value is conceived

as the need to ensure the development of digital competencies, personalized learning, and the

institutionalization of support and training services for both students and teachers. Under this

vision, it is logical to consider the revision of educational programs and include the use of te-

chnology and the development of competencies in isolation. However, this approach proves to

be ineffective and unsustainable. From our perspective, we believe that this process of genera-

ting value in a highly digitized society involves elements beyond the program or digital com-

petencies (Branch et al., 2020; Castro et al., 2020).

Similarly to any organization undergoing digital transformation, for a higher education institu-

tion, this process also entails structural, technological, and cultural changes; changes in strategy

and policies; processes, operations, and services (Gill et al., 2016; Ifenthaler & Egloffstein, 2020;

Newman, 2017; Reis et al. 2018; Venkatraman, 2017). However, considering its differential value

as a continuing education institution, we believe that to achieve this, it should (a) implement

innovative teaching practices, (b) offer flexible and customizable training proposals, focusing

on the student (c) through digital technologies that enable (d) self-directed learning models;

while aiming to (e) improve efficiency in management through agility and cost reduction, always

assessing (f) user experience and the quality of services once digitized. All these listed elements

have been identified in other studies on digital transformation in higher education institutions

(Branch et al., 2020; Castro et al., 2020; Kane et al., 2015; Matt et al., 2015; Mohamed et al. 2021;

Rodrigues, 2017; Shaughnessy, 2018).

On the other hand, we cannot forget that 46% of the analyzed articles referred to the need to

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

incorporate the National/International perspective. In this context, we encounter different ap-

proaches such as: a) the need for regulations on elements like data handling, b) the promotion

of a digital culture and/or society in a globalized context, or c) promoting national and inter-

national cooperation among different actors (educational institutions, productive sectors of so-

ciety, governments, among others).

Based on all the aforementioned points, and as a final conclusion, it is evident that digital trans-

formation processes cannot be attributed to a single dimension, category, or level of imple-

mentation. In the context of continuing education developed by higher education institutions,

this process must continue to be implemented and researched from a more institutional ap-

proach, with the existence of necessary policies and strategies, both at the national and inter-

national levels, and the activation of plans that allow the generation of new business models

focused on improving the student experience, teacher training, and the development of a true

digital culture.

Limitations

As a limitation of this study, the difficulty in obtaining a large sample of articles leads us to re-

commend further research on how higher education institutions, in terms of continuing educa-

tion, face the challenges arising from digital transformation while responding to the

requirements of our digitized society.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors wish to inform that there are no conflicts of interest associated with the current

study, nor does the research involve human participants requiring informed consent.

References

Aditya, B. R., Ferdiana, R., & Kusumawardani, S. S. (2021). Barriers to Digital Transformation in

Higher Education: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Journal of Innovation

and Technology Management, 18(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877021500243

Alenezi, M. (2021). Deep Dive into Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions. Edu-

cation Sciences, 11(12), 1-13. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/deep-dive-into-

digital-transformation-higher/docview/2612757545/se-2

Arnold, D., & Sangrà, A. (2018). Dawn or dusk of the 5th age of research in educational techno-

logy? A literature review on (e-)leadership for technology-enhanced learning in higher edu-

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

cation (2013-2017). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0104-3

Bade-Becker, U., Cendon, E., Dunkel, T., Faulstich, P., Geldermann, B., Gorys, B., GraeBner, G.,

Hanft, A., Knust, M., le Mouillour, I., Müskens, W., Pellert, A., Reith, A., Röbken, H., Schade,

S., Teichler, U., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Continuing higher education and lifelong lear-

ning: an international comparative study on structures, organisation and provisions (M.

Knust & A. Hanft, Eds.). Springer Netherlands,. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9676-

Branch Bedoya, J. W., Burgos, D., Arango Serna, M. D., & Pérez Ortega, G. (2020). Digital Trans-

formation in Higher Education Institutions: Between Myth and Reality. En D. Burgos (Ed.),

Radical Solutions and eLearning: Practical Innovations and Online Educational Technology

(pp. 41-50). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4952-6_3

Carrión G., A. (2018). Una universidad socialmente responsable. En M. L. Quintero G. & M. D. Sán-

chez F. (Eds.), Responsabilidad social corporativa: una mirada integral en América Latina (pp.

11-22). Universidad del Valle. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338623350_UNA_UNI-

VERSIDAD_SOCIALMENTE_RESPONSABLE

Castro Benavides, L. M., Tamayo Arias, J. A., Arango Serna, M. D., Branch Bedoya, J. W., & Burgos,

D. (2020). Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Literature

Review. Sensors, 20(3291), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113291

CEDEFOP. (2014). Terminology of European education and training. En CEDEFOP.

https://doi.org/10.2801/15877

Council of Europe. (2009). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for Eu-

ropean cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’). Official Journal of the European

Union, 119 (May), 2-9. https://doi.org/52007XG1221(02)

European Commission. (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning reality. En COM(2001)

678 Final, pp. 1-42. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52001DC0678

European Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18

December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning. En Official Journal of the Euro-

pean Union (2006/962/EC; Número Desember). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU-

riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF

Fawns, T. (2018). Postdigital Education in Design and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-

018-0021-8

Fernández Martínez, A., Llorens Largo, F., & Molina-Carmona, R. (2019). Modelo de madurez

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

digital para universidades (MD4U). En Cátedra Santander-UA de Transformación Digital -

Documentos de Trabajo. http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/99031

Giang, N. T. H., Hai, P. T. T., Tu, N. T. T., & Tan, P. X. (2021). Exploring the readiness for digital trans-

formation in a higher education institution towards industrial revolution 4.0. International

Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 11(2), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJEP.V11I2.17515

Gill, M., VanBoskirk, S., Freeman, P., Nail, J., Causey, A., & Glazer, L. (2016). The Digital Maturity

Model 4.0. En Forrester.

Gobble, M. A. M. (2018). Digital Strategy and Digital Transformation. Research-Technology Ma-

nagement, 61(5), 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1495969

González-Sanmamed, M., Sangrà, A., Souto-Seijo, A., & Blanco, I. E. (2018). Learning ecologies

in the digital age: Challenges for higher education [Ecologías de aprendizaje en la era digital:

Desafíos para la educación superior]. Publicaciones de la Facultad de Educacion y Humani-

dades del Campus de Melilla, 48(1), 11-38. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.7329

Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption

and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education,

18, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003

Grajek, S., & Reinitz, B. (2019). Getting Ready for Digital Transformation: Change Your Culture,

Workforce, and Technology. Educause Review, 1-10.

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2019/7/getting-ready-for-digital-transformation-change-your-

culture-workforce-and-technology?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_cam-

paign=ER#_zsroiWg1_zlEVOx5

Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A Systematic Review of the

Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organiza-

tional Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159-1197.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639

Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of

‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education,

42(8), 1567-1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946

Henriette, E., Mondher, F., & Boughzala, I. (2015). A systematic literature review of digital

transformation. MCIS 2015 Proceedings, 10, 1-13.

https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2015/10/?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fmcis2015%2F10

&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Ifenthaler, D., & Egloffstein, M. (2020). Development and Implementation of a Maturity Model

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

of Digital Transformation. TechTrends, 64(2), 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-

00457-4

Johnston, B., MacNeill, S., & Smyth, K. (2018). Conceptualising the Digital University. The inter-

section of Policy, Pedagogy and Practice (Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018, Ed.). Palgrave

Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99160-3

Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Philips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology,

drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press,

47, 1-25.

Kaputa, V., Loučanová, E., & Tejerina-Gaite, F. A. (2022). Digital Transformation in Higher

Education Institutions as a Driver of Social Oriented Innovations. Innovation, Techno-

logy and Knowledge Management, 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84044-

0_4

Khalid, J., Ram, B., & Khalee, M. (2018). Promising digital university : a pivotal need for higher education

transformation. 12(January), 13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324844227%0APromising

Lamb, J., Carvalho, L., Gallagher, M., & Knox, J. (2022). The Postdigital Learning Spaces of Higher

Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-

00279-9

Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation

arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. Journal of Strategic In-

formation Systems, 24(3), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002

Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business and Information

Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5

Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2021). Higher education strategy in digital

transformation. Education and Information Technologies, June 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1

Newman, M. (2017). Digital Maturity Model (DMM): A Blueprint for Digital Transformation. En

TM Forum White Paper (Número May). https://www.tmforum.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/05/DMM-WP-2017-Web.pdf

OECD. (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. En OECD Publishing. OECD

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264181045-en

OECD. (2017). Key issues for digital transformation in the G20 (Número January).

https://www.oecd.org/g20/key-issues-for-digital-transformation-in-the-g20.pdf

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer,

L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson,

A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The

PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ,

372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L.,

Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson,

A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., … Mckenzie, J. E. (2021).

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting

systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

Penprase, B. E. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Higher Education. En Higher Edu-

cation in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Vol. Chapter 9 (pp. 207-229).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0194-0_9

Pihir, I., Tomičić-Pupek, K., & Furjan, M. T. (2019). Digital transformation playground - literature

review and framework of concepts. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 43(1),

33-48. https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.43.1.3

Rampelt, F., Orr, D., & Knoth, A. (2019). Bologna Digital 2020. White Paper on Digitalisation in the

European Higher Education Area. https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/sites/default/files/da-

teien/2019-05_White_Paper_Bologna_Digital_2020.pdf

Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melao, N., & Matos, P. (2018). Digital transformation: A literature review

and guidelines for future research. En Trends and Advances in Information Systems and

Technologies (pp. 411-421). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77703-

0_41

Rodrigues, L. S. (2017). Challenges of digital transformation in higher education institutions: A

brief discussion. Proceedings of the 30th International Business Information Management

Association Conference, IBIMA 2017 - Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic development, Inno-

vation Management, and Global Growth, November (November 2017), 4490-4493.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601808_Challenges_of_Digital_Transforma-

tion_in_Higher_Education_Institutions_A_brief_discussion

Rojas, M., Canal, A., & Córdova, J. (2018). La Tercera Misión De La Universidad: Evolución Y Di-

versas Actividades. XXIII Congreso Internacional de Contaduría, Administración e Informática,

Octubre. http://congreso.investiga.fca.unam.mx/docs/xxiii/docs/11.02.pdf

Selwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: why education and technology is full of bullshit … and

what might be done about it. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(3), 437-443.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

Shaughnessy, H. (2018). Creating digital transformation: Strategies and steps. Strategy and Lea-

dership, 46(2), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-12-2017-0126

Tekic, Z., & Koroteev, D. (2019). From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic typology

of digital transformation strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683-693.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.002

Teslia, I., Yehorchenkova, N., Khlevna, I., Kataieva, Y., Latysheva, T., Yehorchenkov, O., Khlevnyi,

A., & Veretelnyk, V. (2020). Developing a systems engineering concept for digitalizing higher

education institutions. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 6(2-108), 6-20.

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2020.219260

Venkatraman, V. (2017). The Digital Matrix: New Rules for Business Transformation Through Te-

chnology. Greystone Books.

Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haen-

lein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research

agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus-

res.2019.09.022

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Appendix 1. List of analyzed articles

Asmyatullin, R. R. (2021). Digital Transformation of the World Market for Educational Services.

In A. V. Bogoviz & J. V. Ragulina (Eds.), International Conference on Integrated Science (pp.

178–185). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80485-5_23

Barman, L., McGrath, C., & Stöhr, C. (2019). Higher education; for free, for everyone, for real?

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and the responsible university: History and enacting

rationalities for MOOC Initiatives at three swedish universities. In M. P. Sørensen, L. Ges-

chwind, J. Kekäle, & R. Pinheiro (Eds.), The Responsible University: Exploring the Nordic Con-

text and Beyond (pp. 117–143). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25646-3_5

Bidzilya, Y. M., Rusynko-Bombyk, L. M., Solomin, Y. O., Hetsko, H. I., & Barchan, O. V. (2022). Im-

plementation of the of Lifelong Learning Principles as a Background for Quality Specialized

Education of Journalists. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 11(1), 142–153.

https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v11n1p142

Cendon, E. (2018). Lifelong learning at universities: Future perspectives for teaching and learning.

Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2), 81–87.

https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.7.320

Cesco, S., Zara, V., De Toni, A. F., Lugli, P., Evans, A., & Orzes, G. (2021). The future challenges of

scientific and technical higher education. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 8(2), 85–117.

https://doi.org/10.18543/TJHE-8(2)-2021PP85-117

Chakrabarti, S., Caratozzolo, P., Sjoer, E., & Norgaard, B. (2020). The future of continuing engi-

neering education in the era of digitalization and personalization. SEFI 48th Annual Confe-

rence Engaging Engineering Education Proceedings, November, 1414–1417.

Cowley, S., Humphrey, W., & Muñoz, C. (2021). Industry Certifications in Digital Marketing and

Media Education: An Examination of Perceptions and Use Among Educators. Journal of Mar-

keting Education, 43(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320948570

Ekren, B. Y., & Kumar, V. (2020). Next generation digital engineering education: Moocs. 5th In-

ternational Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, August, 64–

74.

Florea, A. (2019). Digital Design Skills for Factories of the Future. MATEC Web of Conferences

290, 14002, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201929014002

Föll, P., & Thiesse, F. (2017). Aligning IS curriculum with industry skill expectations: A text mining

approach. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2017,

June, 2949–2959.

Gürdür Broo, D., Kaynak, O., & Sait, S. M. (2022). Rethinking engineering education at the age

of industry 5.0. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 25(100311), 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100311

Gemma Mas Crespo and Josep Maria Duart Montoliu

Han, J. K., Baykaner, T., DeSimone, C. V., Etheridge, S. P., Futyma, P., Saha, S. A., Gopinathannair,

R., Kabra, R., & Merchant, F. M. (2021). Virtual Transformation and the Use of Social Media:

Cardiac Electrophysiology Education in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Current Treatment Options

in Cardiovascular Medicine, 23(70), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-021-00948-9

Kholiavko, N., Popelo, O., Melnychenko, A., Derhaliuk, M., & Grynevych, L. (2022). The role of

higher education in the digital economy development. Revista Tempos e Espaços Em Edu-

cação, 15(34, e16773), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v15i34.16773

Krasnova, L., & Shurygin, V. (2019). Blended learning of physics in the context of the professional

development of teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(23),

17–32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i23.11084

Kuznetsova, V., & Azhmukhamedov, I. (2020). Advantages and Risks of Using the Digital Educa-

tional Environment. VI International Forum on Teacher Education, 1, 1369–1381.

https://doi.org/10.3897/ap.2.e1369

Legan, M., Gobysh, A., & Afanaseva, O. (2021). Formation of a Digital Educational Ecosystem

for Lifelong Learning in the Field of Technosphere Safety. Proceedings of the 2021 Ural-Sibe-

rian Smart Energy Conference, USSEC, 62–66.

https://doi.org/10.1109/USSEC53120.2021.9655750

Li, N., Huijser, H., Xi, Y., Limniou, M., Zhang, X., & Kek, M. Y. C. A. (2022). Disrupting the Disrup-

tion: A Digital Learning HeXie Ecology Model. Education Sciences, 12(63), 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020063

Merzlikina, I. V., Oborotova, S. A., Sayutina, L. N., & Oborotov, A. A. (2020). Continuing Education

as a Teachers’ Professional Culture Component. VI International Forum on Teacher Education,

1, 1613–1628. https://doi.org/10.3897/ap.2.e1613

Minina, A., & Mabrouk, K. (2019). Transformation of University Communication Strategy in Terms

of Digitalization. 2019 IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar, ComSDS

2019, 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMSDS.2019.8709652

Nikitina, E. Y., Ovsyanitskaya, L. Y., Butenko, N. V., Zhukova, M. V., & Rulevskaya, L. P. (2021). On

the experience of health professionals’ information competence formation in the framework

of continuing professional education. Revista Tempos e Espaços Em Educação, 14(33, e16323),

1–12. https://doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v14i33.16323

Pachina, N., Polyakova, I., Blinnikova, O., & Ryazhenova, A. (2021). Digital transformation of the

management of the polyprofessional trajectory of the constituent entity of education. Pro-

ceedings - 2021 1st International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher

Education, TELE 2021, 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/TELE52840.2021.9482553

Poplavskyi, M., & Bondar, I. (2021). Application of Information Technologies for Lifelong Learning.

International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 21(6), 304–311.

https://doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2021.21.6.39

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(10) 33-57

Electronic ISSN: 2665-038X

Dimensions of digital transformation in higher education

institutions for continuing education

Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2020). Why Business Schools Need Radical Innovations: Drivers and Deve-

lopment Trajectories. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 93–107.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320922285

Vaulin, S. D., Shchurov, I. A., Voloshina, I. A., & Chuvashova, A. D. (2021). Engineers Training for

Digital Transformation of Space System Production Based on Information and Communica-

tion Technologies. IEEE International Conference “Quality Management, Transport and In-

formation Security, Information Technologies”, T and QM and IS 2021, 736–739.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ITQMIS53292.2021.9642770

Vezetiu, E. V., Petrishchev, I. O., Shubovich, V. G., Varnavskaya, O. O., & Kutepov, M. M. (2020).

Digital technologies in the organization of the educational process in the teachers’ training

system. Revista de La Universidad Del Zulia, 2(31), 450–460.

https://doi.org/10.46925/rdluz.3512

Vogt, P., Lesch, U., & Friese, N. (2019). Implementing Digital Methods into Project-Based Engi-

neering Courses. In M. E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), International Conference on Interactive

Collaborative Learning (Vol. 917, pp. 299–310). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-030-11935-5_29