The use of digital learning aids, resources and tools in education consists of several different research fields encompassing a wide range of research designs, contexts, and perspectives (Lai & Bower, 2019). As part of a project commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Education, we aimed to scope the field as broadly as possible by conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews by answering the question: What is known about digitalization in compulsory education? (Munthe et al., 2022). We followed the PRISMA-guidelines (Page et al., 2021) in searching, screening, and coding the included articles. We had a total of 262 included international systematic reviews, which we synthetized thematically in our research report, targeted to the Directorate, and directed to school stakeholders, teachers, policy makers and researchers. In our presentation we will lift advantages and challenges in conducting and using review of reviews as a method to scope the field of digitalization in education. According to Gough et al. (2017) reviews of reviews able broader approaches than individual systematic reviews and they can be relevant for decision-makers to save them to assimilate multiple systematic reviews themselves. They can also be timesaving by enabling the processing of many primary studies in the same review. The included systematic reviews in our study included totally thousands of primary studies. Reviews of reviews thus enable sustainable use of research resources by systematizing and synthetizing the existing research and highlighting the research gaps. The deeper approach can be challenging with review of reviews. In our study, the results showed the huge potential of digital resources to transform learning processes in classrooms and contribute to students learning. However, a majority of the included systematic reviews pointed out it is not self-evident, and a successful transformation mostly handles the role of the teacher, without deeper discussions about teachers pedagogical and didactical choices. A deeper understanding about the role of the teacher was not possible with our approach. Another challenge handles the quality of systematic reviews, and the quality check of the primary studies included the reviews. In our study, only a few systematic reviews documented the quality check of the included primary studies. A challenge also lies in the time-consuming investigation of potential overlap of included primary studies. Unfortunately, not all reviews provide the references of included primary studies.

Gough, D. A., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (Second edition.). SAGE. Lai, J. W. M. & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 133, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.010. Munthe, E., Erstad, O., Njå, M.B., Forsström, S., Gilje, Ø., Amdam, S., Moltudal, S., Hagen, S.B. (2022). Digitalisering i grunnopplæring; kunnskap, trender og framtidig forskningsbehov. Kunnskapssenter for utdanning: Universitetet i Stavanger. Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2021;10:89