Digital technology, as a form of infrastructure, has greatly facilitated sharing of knowledge and information. However, these technologies were not invented for education but can be appropriated for it because researchers, including Henry Jenkins (Jenkins, 2006; Squire & Jenkins, 2003), have observed that learning can be developed through engagement in such platforms. Selwyn points out that the introduction of technology in education is often approached in a deterministic way, which leads to the polarisation of debates and practices. The role of teachers in such transformation is increasingly examined. They are acknowledged as having the capacity to practice agentively in their classroom for educational change (Severance et al., 2016; Van der Heijden et al., 2015), and they are considered the most important agent affecting the implementation of digital education. Teacher agency is commonly referred to as teachers' capacity to make choices and implement actions to realise changes (e.g., Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Although the number of publications on teacher agency has increased significantly in recent years, there is a lack of scholarly consensus on the relationship between digital technology and teacher agency, and mediating factors in shaping teacher agency within technology-integrated teaching. In order to address these gaps, a systematic review was conducted with the following objectives:

● Explore a comprehensive and clear understanding of the relationship between digital technology and teacher agency.

● Summarize factors that have been identified to impact teacher agency for implementing digital education.

The research questions of the review were:

1. What teacher agency has investigated in empirical research of digital education?

2. What factors influence the improvement of teacher agency for digital education?

3. How has the effectiveness of digital technology for teacher agency been measured?

   -What is the impact of digital technology on teacher agency? 

As it found that empirical studies on teacher agency regarding digital education are limited in scope, this review purposefully determined a broad search, there was no restriction on the time and place of publication. Studies conducted in any country and English publications were selected to gain a broad understanding of the topic. Moreover, this review is also conducted for a PhD project focusing on China. Therefore, as a subset of this review, the Chinese literature was searched. The process and methodology adopted in this study adhered to the PRISMA model (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al., 2009), and specifically focused on systematic review. The process was guided by Kitchenham (2004). Keywords and themes were concluded from relevant literature, including "teacher agency", "digital education", and "technology-integrated education". Then, based on these choosing keywords, search terms were further selected from three thesaurus: the UNBIS (United Nations Bibliographic Information System) Thesaurus; the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) Thesaurus; and the ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) Thesaurus. The concept of "teacher agency" were included by referring to the search strings "agency", "agent*", and "Teacher Decision-Making". The "digital education" was addressed by searching for "Digital classroom", “ICT (Information and communication technology) for education”, "Educational technology", etc. In addition, these terms were combined with operators such as AND and OR to refine the search with more relevant results. The search strategies were adapted from search instructions of selected databases: ERIC, Web of Science, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). A set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was utilised to screen for eligible studies to answer the review questions (Newman & Gough, 2020). In order to make the search more precise, filters were used to optimise search results further. Data about participants, definitions, outcomes, and quality of the studies were extracted from all the included papers using a standard template. The collected data were analysed by a thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The process of data analysis is both inductive and deductive. It is inductive in that the emerging themes are selected from the analysis of the collected papers. A checklist was used for the assessment of the quality of selected studies.

As yet, there has been no systematic review of teacher agency regarding the digital transformation of education, the expected outcome is to explore a comprehensive and clear understanding of the relationship between digital technology and teacher agency. It is also expected to develop a conceptual framework to explain this relationship.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. nyu Press. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1–26. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*, the. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application (pp. 3–22). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1 Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3(1), 5–33. Van der Heijden, H., Geldens, J. J., Beijaard, D., & Popeijus, H. L. (2015). Characteristics of teachers as change agents. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 681–699.