The rapid growth of information and communication technologies (ICT) at the end of 1990s accelerated globalization of the world economy, and innovation has become more important for economic growth (European Commission, 2013), which emphasized developing “human capital” for the economy (Popkewitz, 2012) and led to digital transformation of businesses (DT). DT is not limited to cutting-edge technologies (Hess et al., 2016; Kane et al., 2015), and occasional digital updates (De la Boutetiere et al., 2018; Libert et al., 2016). It refers to gaining and utilizing 21^st century skills ( Voogt & Roblin 2010; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012), which are seen as skills of today’s workforce by many international organizations recently (Williamson, 2013; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993). Broadly speaking, 21^st century skills can be grouped under “communication skills, collaborative skills, individual learning approaches, individual autonomy, ICT and digital literacy” as well as personal attributes and core knowledge areas such as literacy, numeracy and STEM associated fields of knowledge (Joynes et al., 2019). In developing 21^stcentury skills, ICTs are essential according to many commentators (Joynes et al., 2019) and acquiring 21^st century skills develops individuals’ capabilities holistically (UNESCO, 2015b). It is evident that 21^st century skills refer to ‘practical’ capabilities of individuals. 

    As the future of education  is “a network-based distributed system of learning rather than a strictly routinized series of teaching tasks” (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) and educational policies and reform ideas now routinely espouse “a science of future-building” (Gardner et al., 2009), technology-enhanced learning (TEL) comes to forefront. TEL requires decentralization of curriculum and experiential everyday knowledge so students actively prepare to deal with change (Williamson, 2013). Moreover, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have accelerated the process of TEL (Siemens, 2013). 

    It is now inevitable for higher education institutions (HEIs) to utilize TEL to help learners gain flexibility of the era (Wang et al., 2021; Benavides et al, 2020; Koehler et al., 2007) because universities are considered to raise qualified workforce which can answer to current needs of the sectors (Lauder & Mayhew, 2020; Kemp, 2016). However, graduates’ lack of experience in such skills are heavily criticized (Matsouka & Mihail, 2016; Pang et al, 2018; PIAAC, 2019). Moreover, universities and governments underline integrating work experience more broadly into academic programs more (Patrick et al., 2008; Leonard, 1999) because HE has been regarded as a personal investment for better work and life opportunities, so higher quality outcomes are expected of them (Devlin et al., 2008; Kirke et al., 2007). As Larkin and Hamilton suggested (2010), the transition from student to novice practitioner is necessitated and practice opportunities must help students to recognize the importance of fieldwork, the generic work attributes with the help of a tailored planning and delivery. On the other hand, Larkin and Watchorn (2012) clearly emphasized that there is an even pressing need for bridging practices of academia with the expectations of the workplace. 

    Systematic reviews conducted on TEL applied by HEIs reported success in equipping students with such practical skills; however, indicated a lack of direction; the facilitators and hinderers are not very well-understood, and a holistic approach towards TEL in HE is needed (Abedini et al., 2020; Benevides et al., 2020; Bernhard-Skala, 2019; Farias-Gaytan, 2022). This gap in the literature is aimed to be addressed by this study. To that aim, the following research question was formulated: 

1. When and how can TEL satisfy the experience/practice needs of students at HEIs?

1.1. What approaches and methods of TEL are used by HEIs?

1.2. What facilitators and hinderers are experienced by HEIs during the process of TEL?

The research question was addressed by a systematic review of all empirical evidence in line with pre-determined eligibility criteria. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies were included in the review. In the first phase, eligibility criteria were determined. For that, the researchers investigated the major trends appearing in the international literature. It is found that there has been an extensive amount of research conducted on TEL since the late 1990s. Also, in 2008 introduction of massive open online courses to universities made it possible to use TEL more commonly (Siemens, 2013). Moreover, HE has been vastly investigated because HE participation rates have been expanding and they are seen as institutions preparing students to professional life. In the second phase, systematic reviews on this topic were sought. When examined closely, they suggested a need to investigate how and when TEL efforts can fulfill the experience gap of university students, what approaches and methodologies are used and what facilitators and hinderers there are in the process In the next phase, an extensive literature search was conducted and screening results were obtained based on the pre-determined criteria. Then, studies to be included were assessed and identified. In the last phase, findings will be synthesized and finally discussed. A) Search Strategy, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Certain criteria were administered to narrow down the search results and come up with a facilitated analysis. The first criterion was to utilize two scientific databases; Web of Science and Scopus which make it possible to access peer-reviewed journals publishing empirical studies. Keywords such as “technology-enhanced learning”, “higher education” and “lack of experience” were searched. Databases were last accessed on 25 January, 2023. The second criterion was to limit the search results to peer-reviewed articles. The third criterion was to limit the results between 2008 (because MOOCs were first introduced then) and January 2023 (as databases were last accessed then). The fourth criterion was to limit the language, including studies conducted both in Turkish and English. The last criterion was to limit the search to “educational sciences” and/or “social sciences.” Finally, the abstracts were examined and irrelevant articles were removed. Zotero is being used to manage the literature (removal of the duplicates, etc.). As a result of this screening process, 37 studies were identified, ready for analysis.

Initial analysis conducted on the articles under investigation suggests that a clearer picture of HEIs’ understanding of TEL can be depicted. Namely, researchers might find out that approaches and methods of TEL used by HEIs are based on empirical findings existing in the literature. However, they expect to find that their understanding of TEL, approaches and methods of TEL used by them might lack the viewpoint that a larger institutional or change will be needed. It is also a possibility that articles reviewed in this study are mostly semi-experimental studies which are limited to one setting. Therefore, researchers might be able to propose an institution-wide understanding, approaches and methods of TEL based on the data found. Findings might indicate policy changes (state-wide or nation-wide) as well. A facilitator to the process can be that student participants of the studies might have been “born into technology” and therefore might have better adapting skills. Hinderers might be more in the direction to 1) HEIs’ infrastructure 2) lack of staff 3) staff training 4) time and money investments 5) reluctance to change policies.

Abedini, A., Abedin, B., & Zowghi, D. (2020). Adult learning in online communities of practice: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1663-1694. Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. (1993). Education still under siege. Praeger: The U.S. Benavides, L., Tamayo Arias, J., Arango Serna, M., Branch Bedoya, J., & Burgos, D. (2020). Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review. Sensors, 20(11), 3291. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20113291 Bernhard-Skala, C. (2019). Organizational perspectives on the digital transformation of adult and continuing education: A literature review from a German-speaking perspective. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419850840 Davidson, C. N. & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I. & Ramirez-Montoya. (2022). Transformation and digital literacy: Systematic literature mapping. Education and Information Technology, 27, pp.1417–1437 Kemp, N. (2016). The international education market: Some emerging trends. International Higher Education, 85, pp. 13-15. Kirke, P., Layton, N. & Sim, J. (2007). Informing fieldwork design: Key elements to quality in fieldwork education for undergraduate occupational therapy students. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, pp. 13–22. Larkin, H. & Watchorn, V. (2012). Changes and challenges in higher education: What is the impact on fieldwork education?, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (59), pp. 463-466 Lauder, H. & Mayhew, K. (2020). Higher education and the labor market: An introduction. Oxford Review of Education, 46. pp. 1-9. Leonard, D. C. (1999) The web, the millennium, and the digital evolution of distance education,Technical Communication Quarterly, 8:1, pp. 9-20, DOI: 10.1080/10572259909364645. Matsouka, K., & Mihail, D. M. (2016). Graduates’ employability: What do graduates and employers think? Industry and Higher Education, 30(5), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216663719. Pang, E., Wong, M., Leung, C. H., & Coombes, J. (2019). Competencies for fresh graduates’ success at work: Perspectives of employers. Industry and Higher Education, 33(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218792333 Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education. In McGreal, R., Kinuthia, W., & Marshall, S. (eds), Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice (pp. 5-16). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2010). 21st Century Skills. Enschede: Kennisnet. Wang, V., Torrisi-Steele, G., & Reinsfield, E. (2021). Transformative learning, epistemology and technology in adult education. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 324-340. Williamson, B. (2013). The future of the curriculum: school knowledge in digital age. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.