Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Articles
DOI: 10.14254/1795-6889.2026.22-1.2
Submitted: 2026-03-12
Published: 2026-04-29

Pedagogical outcomes of a Polish K-12 digital transformation initiative

Jagiellonian University
AWSB University
Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce
Lodz University of Technology
AWSB University
digital transformation cloud-based education one-to-one computing student-centred learning K–12 pedagogy digital competencies

Abstract

Technological transformation and digital mimicry characterise the present day. Trends in digitisation, computerisation and robotisation have become firmly established in societies. This article is part of this trend, emphasising the role of digital transformation in primary and secondary education. The aim of the article is to evaluate the digital transformation of the educational process (K-12) using Chromebook laptops and the Google Workspace for Education platform to develop the practical digital skills and competences of students and their teachers. Achieving this goal required research of secondary sources using monographic methods with content analysis techniques and primary sources using mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. The analyses conducted have identified the benefits of introducing Chromebooks and Google Workspace for Education cloud technology, which are changing the learning and teaching process in Polish primary and secondary schools. The results obtained indicate a significant improvement in the effectiveness of both teachers and students. Particularly noteworthy is the shift towards increasing the teacher's focus on individual students on a 1:1 basis, with the possibility of personalising learning anywhere and anytime, and strengthening student collaboration in the process of learning from each other. These results are in line with the broader implications of pedagogy supported by new technologies in the context of international initiatives in the field of digital transformation of the education process.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Akhmedov, B. A. (2023). Innovative pedagogical technologies in the modern educational system. World Bulletin of Social Sciences, 19, 1–7.
  2. Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023). Educational technology: Exploring the convergence of technology and pedagogy through mobility, interactivity, AI, and learning tools. Cogent Engineering, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2283282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2283282
  3. Asad, M. M., Aftab, K., Sherwani, F., Churi, P., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & Pourshahian, B. (2021). Techno-pedagogical skills for 21st century digital classrooms: An extensive literature review. Education Research International, 2021, 8160084. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8160084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8160084
  4. Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computer settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5–15.
  5. Bilyk, V., Banak, R., Bardadym, O., Sokal, M., & Анічкіна, О. В. (2023). Introduction of interactive teaching methods in modern schools. Revista Eduweb, 17(2), 199–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2023.17.02.17
  6. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  7. Colombelli, A., Panelli, A., & Serraino, F. (2022). A learning-by-doing approach to entrepreneurship education: Evidence from a short intensive online international programme. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010016
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  9. Dainys, A., & Jašinauskas, L. (2023). Educational perspective: AI, deep learning, and creativity. Problemos, 103(1), 90–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2023.103.7
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
  11. Davidavičiene, V., Rymaniak, J., & Lis, K. (2023). Remote workplaces as a determinant of working conditions in education during COVID-19. Economics and Sociology, 16(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2023/16-2/8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2023/16-2/8
  12. Efremova, N., & Huseynova, A. (2022). Specifics of competence and skills assessment in the XXI century. EC Psychology and Psychiatry, 11(7), 11–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34660/INF.2022.20.38.044
  13. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  14. European Commission. (2018). Digital Education Action Plan. Brussels, Belgium
  15. European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021–2027: Bringing education and training into the digital age. Brussels, Belgium
  16. Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2022). DeepCreativity: Measuring creativity with deep learning techniques. Intelligenza Artificiale, 16(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.3233/IA-220136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IA-220136
  17. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto, Canada: Pearson.
  18. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K–12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004–2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564
  19. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for learners. Arlington, VA: Author.
  20. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
  21. Jurgelevičius, A., & Raišienė, A. G. (2025). University entrepreneurial ecosystems: Start-up founders’ perspectives on critical factors for student start-up success. Economics and Sociology, 18(2), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2025/18-2/12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2025/18-2/12
  22. Kokaj, A., Kurshumlia, M., Vala-Kendusi, V., & Maloku, B. (2023). The effect of ICT in education and teaching: Student evaluation based verification. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 13(5), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2023-0135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2023-0135
  23. Kołodziej, A., & Kołodziej-Durnaś, A. (2024). What about my future career after the pandemic? SARS-CoV-2 and distance learning in the evaluation of future professional opportunities. Economics and Sociology, 17(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-1/4
  24. Kruszewska, A., Nazaruk, S., & Szewczyk, K. (2022). Polish teachers of early education in the face of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: The difficulties experienced and suggestions for the future. Education 3–13, 50(3), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1849346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1849346
  25. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Springer/CERC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8928-2
  26. Mishchuk, H., Bilan, Y., & Mishchuk, V. (2023). Employment risks under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on changes in economic behaviour. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110211
  27. Mishchuk, H., Samoliuk, N., Krol, V., & Rącka, I. (2025). Digital competences of university graduates: Implications for career success. Human Technology, 21(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2025.21-2.2
  28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
  29. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
  30. OECD. (2020). Strengthening online teaching when schools are closed: A checklist for teachers. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
  31. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  32. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computer initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
  33. Potjanajaruwit, P. (2023). The influence of technology leadership on university lecturers integrating technology in Thailand. Human Technology, 19(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-3.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-3.7
  34. Riznyk, V., Kulko, V., Lebedyk, L., Dudko, S., & Strelnikov, V. (2024). Innovative methods in the design of the pedagogical process, based on constructive efficiency. Revista Conrado, 20(97), 332–338.
  35. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London, England: Continuum.
  36. Singh, S., Anand, S., Anandi, & Yadav, S. (2025). Integrating education, technology, and sustainable living: Advancing the circular economy for future generations. In P. Singh, S. Daga, K. Yadav, & V. Mishra (Eds.), Circular economy and sustainable innovation (pp. 165–187). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-00437-6_11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-00437-6_11
  37. Skulmowski, A. (2024). Learning by doing or doing without learning? The potentials and challenges of activity-based learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09869-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09869-y
  38. Spychalski, B. (2023). Socio-cultural factors shaping the attitude of Generation Z and Generation Alpha youth towards quality. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics, 8(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2023.8-2.23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2023.8-2.23
  39. Staniec, I., Kaczorowska-Spychalska, D., Kalinska-Kula, M., & Szczygiel, N. (2023). The need to work from home in higher education during the first phase of COVID-19: Employee productivity, autonomy, work relationships, job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of International Studies, 16(4), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2023/16-4/17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2023/16-4/17
  40. Stein, S., Ware, J., Laboy, J., & Schaffer, H. E. (2013). Improving K–12 pedagogy through a cloud designed for education. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 235–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.009
  41. Sułkowski, Ł., Kolasińska-Morawska, K., Brzozowska, M., & Morawski, P. (2023). Digital transformation of schools with Google: Research programme report. Unpublished research report, CCT Polska/Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
  42. Sułkowski, Ł., Kolasińska-Morawska, K., Seliga, R., & Morawski, P. (2021). Smart learning technologization in the economy 5.0: The Polish perspective. Applied Sciences, 11(11), 5261. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115261 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115261
  43. Taskan, B., Junça-Silva, B., & Caetano, A. (2022). Clarifying the conceptual map of VUCA: A systematic review. International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 30(7), 196–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2022-3136
  44. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the use of technology in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
  45. United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. New York, NY
  46. UNESCO. (2018). ICT competence framework for teachers (Version 3). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  47. Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international 21st-century competency frameworks: Implications for national curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
  48. Vovk, I., & Vovk, Y. (2024). Sustainable personnel management in the hospitality industry: Enhancing organizational performance through employee engagement and commitment. Economics, Management and Sustainability, 9(2), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.14254/jems.2024.9-2.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/jems.2024.9-2.4
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  50. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645

How to Cite

Sułkowski, Łukasz, Kolasińska-Morawska, K., Brzozowska, M., Morawski, P., & Seliga, R. (2026). Pedagogical outcomes of a Polish K-12 digital transformation initiative. Human Technology, 22(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2026.22-1.2