The platformization of education through school actors. A scoping review

The platformization of education through school actors. A scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review The platformization of education through school actors. A scoping review Ainara Moreno-González, Diego Calderón-Garrido, Pablo Rivera-Vargas, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Digital platforms have become central to contemporary schooling, often introduced with promises of innovation, efficiency, and connectivity. However, beneath this optimistic narrative lies a complex and contested terrain. This scoping review critically analyses how the educational community perceives and negotiates the growing platformisation of schools. To this end, a scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol, with searches in the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases, initially identifying 1,693 studies. After a rigorous selection process, a final sample of 34 articles was analyzed in depth and organized into two key analytical dimensions. The review identifies two core dimensions: the practical integration of platforms and the attitudes, concerns, and positions of stakeholders. While platforms are often praised for facilitating communication and personalized learning, they also introduce new forms of dependency, surveillance, and inequality. This review reveals the underlying tensions between digital enthusiasm and critical awareness within educational institutions, questioning the extent to which platformisation genuinely serves pedagogical and democratic aims. Digital platforms schools attitudes opinions scoping review Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction The digitisation of schooling has become a defining feature of contemporary educational systems, particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital technologies to sustain teaching and learning (Author 9, 2022). Among these technologies, digital platforms—whether proprietary or publicly developed—now play a central role in both the administrative and pedagogical dimensions of schooling. Their incorporation, however, is frequently framed through narratives of innovation and inevitability, which obscure the broader socio-technical and political-economic logics shaping their diffusion. To critically engage with this development, it is necessary to delineate what is meant by digital platforms. As De Pablos et al. ( 2019 ) explain, these are not merely neutral tools for instructional delivery, but digitally mediated environments designed to structure user interactions, data flows, and institutional processes. In the field of education, van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ) and Schenone ( 2022 ) describe their integration as part of what has been termed the "platformisation of education," a process that, according to Poell et al. ( 2019 ) and Decuypere et al. ( 2021 ), reorganises educational practices, relationships, and imaginaries in ways that are not only technical but also deeply cultural and political. Originally introduced as supports for learning, digital platforms have increasingly been reconfigured as infrastructures of control and governance, often shaped by the strategic interests of global technology firms (Helmond, 2015 ; Helmond et al., 2019 ; Sued, 2022 ). These firms, commonly grouped under the label Big Tech, have positioned themselves as central actors in education through the development of platforms tailored to institutional needs (Williamson, 2021 ; Author 1, 2022). As Selwyn et al. (2020) and Author 7 (2023) observe, this trend reflects a shift in the locus of educational decision-making, as private actors begin to shape the forms, contents, and metrics of schooling. A central mechanism through which this influence is exerted is what Van Dijck ( 2014 ) and Raffaghelli ( 2019 ) describe as datification—the conversion of educational interactions into data objects that can be stored, analyzed, and monetized. In this context, the platformisation of education entails not only the adoption of new tools but also the redefinition of pedagogical priorities and institutional responsibilities. According to van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ), Travkina ( 2022 ), and Author 2 (2023), this process has led to renewed scrutiny of how data practices intersect with issues of autonomy, surveillance, and the reconfiguration of public education under market logics. The implications of these transformations for educational communities—teachers, students, families, school administrators, and public authorities—have been examined in various empirical studies, such as those by Author 3 (2022), which reflect a diversity of experiences and perspectives. On one side, Burbat ( 2016 ) and Ramírez-Ramírez et al. ( 2020 ) document positive expectations regarding the use of digital tools, emphasizing their potential to foster student autonomy, while Briones et al. ( 2020 ) highlight their role in strengthening communication between schools and families. On the other side, Ariza et al. ( 2021 ), Author 5 ( 2024b ), and Massó-Guijarro et al. ( 2024 ) point to concerns about the opacity of platform governance, the lack of pedagogical deliberation in their implementation, and the risks associated with data exploitation, particularly in relation to children. Despite the growing volume of research on these issues, there remains a lack of systematic synthesis regarding how the educational community perceives and positions itself in relation to platformisation. While individual studies have provided insights into specific contexts or actors, there is limited comparative analysis of the range of stakeholder perspectives and their underlying tensions. This article addresses that gap by conducting a scoping review of empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2019 and 2023. The aim is not to evaluate the effectiveness of platforms, but to critically analyze the discursive and experiential configurations emerging from their adoption in schools. The review is guided by four research questions: How are digital platforms used in schools? What benefits and challenges do different members of the educational community perceive? What are the main opinions and concerns regarding the use of digital platforms in schools? What positions and attitudes shape the responses of educational stakeholders? For analytical purposes, the first two questions are associated with a dimension focused on the uses and functions attributed to digital platforms, while the latter two address the knowledge, discourses, and positions articulated by the educational community. In this study, the concept of “educational community” encompasses teachers, students, families, school leadership teams, and public administrations. Although other agents—such as policymakers, regulators, and technology companies—also influence educational systems, this review focuses on actors directly engaged in the daily life of schools. As Cermeño (2011) notes, schools cannot meet educational demands in isolation; they operate within a broader institutional and relational ecosystem. Families are central to this ecosystem, as are public administrations, which establish guidelines and influence educational practices and evaluation processes (Capcha, 2019 ). By attending to the perceptions and responses of educational communities, this review contributes to a more grounded and critical understanding of platformisation as a structural phenomenon—one that reshapes the cultural, pedagogical, and institutional conditions of contemporary schooling. Previous reviews: What has been systematised—and what remains conveniently ignored? A growing number of systematic reviews have examined the integration of digital technologies in education. Fernández-Sánchez et al. ( 2022 ) and Zhang and Tur ( 2024 ), for instance, investigate the use of digital platforms in schools, while Almalawi et al. ( 2024 ) and Hase and Kuhl ( 2024 ) analyze how data generated by platforms is exploited to personalise learning. In addition, Salas-Pilco et al. ( 2022 ) provide reviews that address artificial intelligence in education. While these contributions are valuable, they often frame digital platforms as pedagogical tools or technical artefacts, omitting the broader sociotechnical processes that accompany their adoption—particularly platformisation and datification. Most reviews focus on teacher-related aspects, especially digital competences (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022; Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2022 ; Revuelta-Domínguez et al., 2022 ). These works provide useful insights into professional development, but do not explore how digital platforms mediate educational relationships or shift institutional priorities. As such, they leave unexamined the increasing entanglement between pedagogical decisions and commercial infrastructures. Other studies assess the effectiveness of specific platforms or technologies across educational levels. Estrada-Molina et al. ( 2022 ) and Hidayat and Firmanti ( 2024 ) focus on subject-specific applications, particularly in mathematics education, while Palalas and Wark ( 2020 ) examine tools designed for mobile or self-regulated learning. Although these studies offer relevant findings, they typically remain within instrumentalist frameworks, measuring what platforms achieve without questioning what they represent or how they reorganise educational power. Only a small subset of reviews address the implications of datification. For example, Marín and Tur ( 2023 ) provide a conceptual synthesis of the term, while Salomão-Filho et al. ( 2023 ) explore the notion of data literacy for citizenship and propose directions for public policy. These exceptions highlight critical dimensions often sidelined in broader reviews. In short, while systematic reviews have contributed to mapping the use of digital platforms in education, few have questioned the underlying logics that drive platformisation or its impact on pedagogical autonomy, governance, and the everyday experiences of educational actors. This review addresses that gap by shifting the focus from technical functionality to critical engagement. It synthesizes how the educational community perceives and negotiates platformisation in schools—situating platforms not as neutral instruments, but as sites of tension, control, and contestation. Method: design and procedures To address the research questions outlined above, a scoping review was conducted using empirical studies indexed in the SCOPUS and Web of Science (JCR) databases. Scoping reviews are especially appropriate for exploring emerging fields of research, as they facilitate the identification of key concepts, knowledge gaps, and the current state of empirical literature without the constraints of a narrow research focus (Munn et al., 2018 ). This methodological approach has been widely used in educational research, as evidenced by studies such as Dennen et al. ( 2020 ). The review process followed the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) and adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ). To ensure methodological rigour, the quality standards proposed by Alexander ( 2020 ) for scoping reviews were also incorporated. Furthermore, the overall structure of the review was informed by the phases suggested by Zawacki-Richter et al. ( 2020 ), which allowed for a systematic and replicable research process. Phase I. Eligibility criteria and information sources The first step involved the selection of descriptors to conduct the database searches. These descriptors were established following a preliminary review of the scientific literature on the use of digital platforms in education and the associated data management practices in school contexts. The final search string used was as follows: digital* AND (platform* OR datafication) AND teach* AND (“Primary education” OR “Basic education” OR “Primary school” OR “Elementary school” OR “Elementary education” OR “K12” OR “Preparatory” OR “School”) This search was applied to the title, abstract, and keyword fields in both databases. Phase II. Search strategy and selection process The search was conducted in two databases: SCOPUS and the Core Collection of Web of Science (WoS), specifically within the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Access to these databases was granted through the portal of the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT). The initial search yielded a total of 1,421 records in SCOPUS and 272 in WoS (JCR), resulting in a preliminary pool of 1,693 publications. The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to refine this pool are summarised in Table 1 . Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria CI1. Language: English or Spanish CI2. Documents published in journals CE2. Documents from conference proceedings or scientific meetings CE3. Duplicate records CI4. Articles published between 2019 and 2023 CE5. No access to the study CI6. Empirical studies CE7. Not related to the object of study CE8. Retracted articles After applying these criteria, a total of 34 empirical studies were selected as the final sample. The selection process is illustrated in Fig. 1 following the PRISMA 2020 model. Phase III. Coding and synthesis. After the first search, an Excel document was created with information on all the articles found (Author 11, 2024). Once the final sample of studies was selected, as shown in Fig. 1 , the documents were coded and analyzed. In order to do that, an exhaustive reading of all the articles was carried out. In this first reading process, the intention was to identify the following data: 1) Country and year in which the study takes place, 2) Type of methodology used in the article, 3) Group with which the research was conducted. All this information is detailed in Table 2 below. Table 2 Specification table of articles Article Country Year Methodology Study group Ahmad et al. ( 2023 ) Malaysia 2023 Quantitative Secondary teachers Area-Moreira et al. ( 2023 ) Spain 2023 Qualitative Industry specialists and representatives of educational institutions Balaban & Sobodić, ( 2022 ) Croatia 2022 Quantitative Primary and secondary teachers Balaganesh et al. ( 2021 ) India 2021 Quantitative Secondary teachers Author 6 (2023) Spain 2023 Quantitative Families Chacón et al. ( 2022 ) Spain 2022 Qualitative Families Çimen & Hangül ( 2021 ) Turkey 2021 Qualitative Teachers Courtney et al. ( 2022 ) United States 2022 Quantitative Teachers and teaching specialists Cuskelly et al. ( 2023 ) Australia 2023 Qualitative Management teams of educational institutions Dadhe & Patil ( 2021 ) India 2021 Quantitative Primary and secondary teachers Díaz-Ronceros et al. ( 2021 ) Peru 2021 Quantitative Students DiGiacomo et al. ( 2022 ) United States 2022 Quantitative Students and management teams Escola et al. ( 2022a ) Portugal 2022 Quantitative Teachers and students Escola et al. ( 2022b ) Portugal 2022 Mixed Teachers Feldman & Czerniewicz ( 2023 ) South Africa 2023 Qualitative Teachers, management teams, Department of Education and higher education graduates Hase et al. ( 2022 ) Germany 2022 Quantitative Primary teachers Höper & Schulte ( 2023 ) Germany 2023 Quantitative Students Hsu & Chen ( 2023 ) Taiwan, China 2023 Quantitative Families Ideland ( 2021 ) Sweden 2021 Qualitative School administrators, education-related companies, and NGOs Author 3 (2022) Spain 2022 Qualitative Policymakers, expert activists, technology companies and stakeholders Author 2 (2023) Spain 2023 Qualitative Management teams, teachers, students and families Kansal et al. ( 2021 ) India 2021 Analysis of Google Trends Schools Lai et al. ( 2023 ) Denmark 2023 Platform analysis Primary education digital tools and services Lupton ( 2021 ) Australia 2021 Qualitative Management teams, teachers and other school staff Michos et al. ( 2023 ) Switzerland 2023 Quantitative Teachers Oloo (2022) Kenya 2022 Qualitative Students Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ) Australia and Uruguay 2020 Mixed Students Pavić et al. ( 2022 ) Croatia, Poland, Serbia and Germany 2022 Quantitative Students and teachers Jarquín & Díez-Gutiérrez (2023) Spain and Mexico 2023 Website analysis Benchmark schools Rennie et al. ( 2019 ) Australia 2019 Computational, qualitative and interpretive methods Students and teachers Rodríguez & Area-Moreira ( 2022 ) Spain 2022 Mixed Teachers and families Peraza & Jarquín ( 2023 ) Mexico 2023 Mixed Management teams, teachers and families Stoilova et al. ( 2020 ) United Kingdom 2020 Qualitative Students Yazici & Özerbaş ( 2021 ) Turkey 2021 Quantitative Primary teachers Later, a second reading was carried out in an attempt to identify different aspects related to the research questions of this study. In this phase, all of the articles were introduced into the Atlas.ti analysis software, with the intention of carrying out a content analysis based on the main topics present in the research questions of the study which were: 1) Use of digital platforms in schools, 2) Benefits and challenges of using digital platforms in schools, 3) Opinions and concerns of the educational community, 4) Positions and attitudes of the education community. Content analysis consists of studying the manifest content of the material based on categories established by the researcher (Ander-Egg, 1995). After this process of categorizing the information, two study dimensions, each composed of five categories, were defined. Figure 2 below details the dimension and categories analyzed in this study and the relationships between them. Figure 2 shows two major dimensions (digital platforms and knowledge and positioning) that are related to each other, and to which the rest of the categories are linked. On the one hand, five categories were found related to the “Digital platforms” dimension, which are: types of platforms; uses; benefits; challenges; and data management and use. On the other hand, the categories found for the “Knowledge and positioning” dimension were a total of five: public administration; schools; teachers; students; and families. The results found in each of the dimensions are presented separately below and then linked in the discussion. Results As noted in the methodological section, the results of this scoping review are structured into two core analytical dimensions. The first, “Digital Platforms”, focuses on the types of platforms adopted in schools, their everyday functions, the perceived benefits and challenges associated with their use, and the governance of the data they generate. The second, “Knowledge and Positioning”, explores how various members of the educational community interpret, evaluate, and respond to the processes of platformisation. These two dimensions were developed inductively through thematic coding and reflect both converging trends and areas of tension across diverse educational contexts. What are digital platforms? This analytical dimension addresses the infrastructural, pedagogical and governance roles that digital platforms play in schools. Drawing from the reviewed studies, five categories were identified: types of platforms, uses, benefits, challenges, and data management and use. Together, these categories offer insight into how platforms are not merely added tools but structural agents that mediate educational practices, redistribute authority, and shape the very conditions of schooling. Types of platforms This category refers to the digital tools implemented in schools and analysed in the reviewed studies. Cuskelly et al. ( 2023 ), Escola et al. ( 2022a , b ), Author 2 (2023), Pavić et al. ( 2022 ), Jarquín and Díez-Gutiérrez (2023), Rennie et al. ( 2019 ), and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) consistently identify Google for Education and Microsoft 365 Education as the most frequently cited platforms across the literature. According to these studies, such platforms have become infrastructural standards, central to organising both administrative and instructional activities, often without pedagogical deliberation or contextual adaptation. Complementary tools such as Kahoot, Canva, Zoom, and Innovamat are also documented by Balaganesh et al. ( 2021 ), Pavić et al. ( 2022 ), and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ), who note that they are usually integrated as plug-ins within larger commercial ecosystems. However, these studies indicate that their inclusion reinforces a platform logic of modular consumption, where schools rely on externally designed tools that reflect global corporate priorities rather than local educational values. The dominance of a small number of providers points to a structural dependency that constrains educational autonomy. As Escola et al. ( 2022a ) and Author 2 (2023) warn, platform selection is often driven by administrative decisions with little teacher input. Moreover, Rennie et al. ( 2019 ) argue that the internal workings of these platforms—algorithms, data flows, and decision-making protocols—remain largely opaque, which limits schools’ capacity to assess their ethical and pedagogical impact. Uses The reviewed studies show that digital platforms are primarily used for organisational, evaluative, and communicative purposes, rather than for transformative pedagogical innovation. Courtney et al. ( 2022 ) observe that teachers commonly use them to share content, assign tasks, manage grades, and maintain contact with families. According to Chacón et al. ( 2022 ), students initially engage with platforms through gamified or recreational functions, gradually shifting toward communication and academic submission tools—particularly via social media and integrated chat systems. Meanwhile, Oloo (2022), Hsu and Chen ( 2023 ), and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) report that families use platforms to monitor attendance, progress, and updates from school administrations. These uses reflect a broader trend: the functional normalisation of platforms as infrastructural tools that shape everyday educational routines. However, studies like those of Lai et al. ( 2023 ) and Ahmad et al. ( 2023 ) highlight how such uses rarely involve reflection on the pedagogical implications of digital mediation. Instead, platforms are adopted pragmatically, reinforcing task-based logic, procedural compliance, and unidirectional communication—often without fostering collaborative inquiry, critical digital literacies, or culturally responsive teaching. Benefits The reviewed articles highlight several perceived benefits of digital platforms. DiGiacomo et al. (2020) and Hsu and Chen ( 2023 ) emphasise their role in enhancing communication between schools and families, while Ahmad et al. ( 2023 ) and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) point to their potential for promoting student autonomy through flexible, asynchronous learning environments. Additionally, Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ) credit platforms with facilitating faster information access and increasing student motivation, particularly when social media and interactive tools are involved. However, these benefits are often framed in individualistic and operational terms, without addressing the deeper pedagogical or institutional conditions that make such outcomes possible—or uneven. For instance, Balaganesh et al. ( 2021 ) and Chacón et al. ( 2022 ) reveal how the promise of autonomy depends heavily on students’ age, socio-digital support, and prior familiarity with platform logic. Rather than fostering inclusive pedagogies, platforms may reinforce pre-existing digital divides by rewarding those already equipped to navigate them. Challenges The reviewed literature highlights a wide range of challenges linked to the incorporation of digital platforms in schools. Cuskelly et al. ( 2023 ), Díaz-Ronceros et al. ( 2021 ), Lai et al. ( 2023 ), and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) emphasise that a central concern is the reproduction of socioeconomic inequalities, particularly regarding connectivity, access to devices, and the availability of digital resources in under-resourced school contexts. According to these studies, such disparities limit not only students’ ability to participate on equal footing, but also schools’ capacity to implement platforms meaningfully. For teachers, challenges are particularly acute. Dadhe and Patil ( 2021 ), Escola et al. ( 2022b ), Ideland ( 2021 ), and Author 2 (2023) point to the lack of time, insufficient professional development, and the absence of institutional support for integrating platforms into pedagogical practice. In parallel, these studies note that the shift toward platform-centred instruction has led to a redefinition of the teaching role, often framed in terms of managerial functions rather than pedagogical agency. The deprofessionalisation of teaching emerges as a recurring theme, with Lupton ( 2021 ) and Author 6 (2023) emphasising that this trend is exacerbated by the widespread perception that educators are not adequately prepared to handle the data these platforms generate. Students face another set of challenges that go beyond access. The literature points to risks of addiction, cybersecurity threats, and negative impacts on mental and emotional well-being, particularly in relation to surveillance practices and reduced opportunities for genuine digital socialisation (Chacón et al., 2022 ; Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso, 2020 ; Author 2, 2023). While platforms are often framed as tools of empowerment, these studies reveal that for many students, they function instead as mechanisms of visibility, control, and exclusion. Data management and use This category addresses the pervasive yet often invisible process of datafication, which DiGiacomo et al. (2021) and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) describe as the transformation of user behaviour and interaction into data points subject to analysis and prediction. Far from a neutral shift, Lai et al. ( 2023 ) and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) argue that datafication in education is inseparable from commercial surveillance infrastructures that extract, store, and monetise educational data—often without informed consent and under regulatory vacuums. While Hase et al. ( 2022 ) and Rennie et al. ( 2019 ) report that some institutions claim to use data for personalising learning or optimising administration, these justifications often mask a deeper absence of critical interrogation regarding who controls the data and for what purposes. Across the literature, there is consistent evidence of institutional unpreparedness and discursive disempowerment. Stoilova et al. ( 2020 ), Feldman and Czerniewicz ( 2023 ), and Jarquín and Díez-Gutiérrez (2023) show that while schools acknowledge the use of commercial platforms, they remain either unaware—or deliberately disengaged—from the implications of the embedded data practices. According to these studies, this dynamic fosters an environment of delegated responsibility, where data governance is outsourced to external actors, while educators and administrators operate under conditions of informed ignorance. In this context, the data infrastructure becomes a black box: indispensable yet inaccessible, powerful yet unaccountable. For students, this dynamic translates into a heightened sense of vulnerability and constraint. Cuskelly et al. ( 2023 ), Kansal et al. ( 2021 ), Lai et al. ( 2023 ), Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ), and Rennie et al. ( 2019 ) reveal growing concern about privacy, behavioural prediction, and algorithmic classification. According to these studies, such concerns are not only technical but epistemic, since the ways in which data circulates shape how students are known, categorised, and acted upon within digital educational systems. In this sense, platforms are not neutral mediators but active agents of subjectivation and control, conditioning students’ educational trajectories while rendering their resistance practically invisible. Knowledge and positions The "Knowledge and Positions" dimension addresses the attitudes, opinions, and concerns of stakeholders regarding the platformisation in education. The content was grouped into five categories that represent the main actors of the educational community identified in the study: teachers, students, families, school management teams, and the public administration. Teachers The reviewed studies reveal that teachers generally adopt a pragmatic view of digital platforms, with Courtney et al. ( 2022 ) and Rodríguez and Area-Moreira ( 2022 ) noting that educators value them as useful supports to sustain their work, particularly during times of educational uncertainty. However, this instrumental acceptance coexists with a spectrum of positionalities shaped by age, motivation, confidence, and perceived digital competence. Chacón et al. ( 2022 ) and Yazici and Özerbaş ( 2021 ) observe that younger teachers tend to exhibit more favourable attitudes toward technology integration, while Ahmad et al. ( 2023 ) and Escola et al. ( 2022a , b ) report that those with greater self-perceived competence experience higher levels of satisfaction and openness. Yet beneath these factors lies a more complex terrain of professional vulnerability. Lupton ( 2021 ) and Pavić et al. ( 2022 ) report that teachers frequently express concern over the use and governance of student data, acknowledging both their limited knowledge and the absence of institutional training on digital privacy and security. Feldman and Czerniewicz ( 2023 ) and Lupton ( 2021 ) further note that these anxieties extend to personal risks—cyberbullying, data leaks, and unauthorised access to digital records. In addition, Hase et al. ( 2022 ) and Michos et al. ( 2023 ) emphasise that ethical dilemmas also arise regarding the collection of student data without pedagogical mediation. Importantly, many teachers recognise a growing pedagogical asymmetry: students often possess higher levels of digital fluency, which creates tension around authority and control in the classroom (Çimen & Hangül, 2021 ; Jarquín & Díez-Gutiérrez, 2023). At the same time, teachers fear that their own lack of digital competence may unintentionally reproduce forms of digital exclusion, especially when they adopt either uncritical enthusiasm or excessive scepticism toward platform use. In sum, teachers’ positionings reflect not just attitudes toward technology, but deeper concerns about their role, legitimacy, and agency in increasingly datafied school environments. Students Students generally express a positive or neutral stance toward the use of digital platforms in school, with DiGiacomo et al. ( 2022 ) and Yazici and Özerbaş ( 2021 ) noting that this position is often shaped by students’ familiarity and daily immersion in technology from an early age. Their self-perception reveals confidence in managing digital environments, particularly regarding everyday online issues. However, Stoilova et al. ( 2020 ) observe that this confidence is frequently coupled with a tendency to minimise the need for adult intervention, relegating the role of teachers and families to exceptional cases. This apparent digital fluency coexists with more ambivalent and precarious experiences. Oloo (2022) notes that students are frequently reluctant to report safety concerns to adults, fearing punitive restrictions or disconnection from platforms. While many claim to employ basic self-protection strategies—such as blocking users—Oloo (2022) also shows that there is a lack of structured education on how to critically navigate risks and exercise digital agency. Regarding data privacy, students show an ambiguous relationship with their own data. As noted by Höper & Schulte ( 2023 ), many do not perceive digital data as personally meaningful, often disconnecting what is collected online from their real lives. This detachment is reinforced by a lack of understanding about how platforms store, profile, or exploit their data—an issue also highlighted by Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ). Nonetheless, a subset of students expresses growing concern and frustration about these practices, sensing the loss of control over their digital identities but lacking the knowledge or support to respond (Höper & Schulte, 2023 ). These tensions reflect a critical gap: while students are expected to be "digitally native", they are often digitally disempowered when it comes to understanding and contesting platform logics. Families The reviewed studies reveal that families adopt diverse positions regarding the use of digital platforms in schools, reflecting both expectations of improvement and concerns about ethical and pedagogical implications. First, many families express a positive view of digital technologies in education. Chacón et al. ( 2022 ), Hsu and Chen ( 2023 ), Author 3 (2022), Oloo (2022), and Rodríguez and Area-Moreira ( 2022 ) emphasise that this acceptance is grounded primarily in the practical benefits of strengthening communication with schools and teachers, as well as in the belief that such tools help motivate students in their academic tasks. In this discourse, these studies suggest that platforms are perceived as functional extensions of the school–family relationship, enabling more continuous oversight of the educational process and facilitating parental engagement that would otherwise be limited. A second position reflects a more protective and risk-oriented stance, particularly when families perceive digital technologies as exposing their children to potential harm. Kansal et al. ( 2021 ), Author 3 (2022), and Author 6 (2023) identify concerns that include data privacy, excessive online exposure, and access to inappropriate content or unsafe social interactions. As Oloo (2022) explains, some families respond by adopting monitoring or deterrence strategies, often grounded more in fear than in critical mediation. According to these studies, such reactions reveal an informational asymmetry: although families play a vital role in mediating technology use, they frequently lack the tools or digital literacy needed to support their children in safe and meaningful ways. A third, less common but significant position expresses structural distrust toward teachers and educational institutions. Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) note that in such cases, families do not necessarily question the platforms themselves but rather suspect that their use serves to offload teaching responsibilities or reduce professional effort. This critical perspective is also evident in Burbat ( 2016 ), who shows that parents perceive digital platforms as transferring educational tasks to the household without fostering shared responsibility. Similarly, Michos et al. ( 2023 ) identify growing frustration among families who view digital tools as one-way communication devices, with limited space for feedback or genuine dialogue. In this view, technology becomes a symbolic interface for latent tensions around task distribution, transparency, and institutional trust within digital schooling. School management teams The reviewed literature suggests that school management teams have generally adopted a pragmatic and instrumental approach to platform adoption, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuskelly et al. ( 2023 ) and Feldman and Czerniewicz ( 2023 ) explain that, faced with the need to ensure pedagogical continuity, many schools turned to commercial solutions offered by major technology corporations, embedding them into daily school operations with limited time for critical deliberation. While these studies acknowledge that some concerns emerged regarding privacy and surveillance in digital environments, they also show that such issues were often subordinated to managerial efficiency. In most cases, digital platforms were not perceived as educational threats but rather as practical aids to improve organisation, streamline communication, and support classroom logistics. DiGiacomo et al. ( 2022 ) and Author 3 (2022) emphasise that this managerial framing contributes to the naturalisation of platform use, as if its implementation were a neutral process devoid of structural implications. However, this apparent neutrality masks a deeper tension between digital convenience and institutional autonomy. As Feldman & Czerniewicz ( 2023 ) argue, outsourcing core functions to commercial platforms may result in subtle forms of governance displacement, where key decisions about school practices become dependent on external infrastructures, proprietary logics, and technical constraints. In this scenario, school management teams—intentionally or not—become agents of platform entrenchment, facilitating the diffusion of corporate norms within public education without fully questioning their pedagogical or ethical consequences. Public administration The literature highlights the central role of public administration in the digitisation and platformisation of schools, primarily through the implementation of digital education policies, funding mechanisms, and the establishment of public–private partnerships. Feldman and Czerniewicz ( 2023 ), Author 2 (2023), and Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ) emphasise that far from being passive enablers, public authorities act as active mediators between educational institutions and technology providers, often legitimising the widespread integration of platforms as part of broader modernisation agendas. Author 2 (2023) further underlines that this legitimisation reinforces the structural embedding of platforms in school systems. However, this involvement reveals an ambivalent positioning. On one hand, administrations have shown flexibility and adaptability in enabling schools to respond to the pressures of digital transition, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Cuskelly et al., 2023 ). On the other hand, several studies draw attention to the dependencies created between governments and global technology corporations, particularly in the absence of strong public alternatives or robust regulatory frameworks (Author 2, 2023). Rather than leading platform adoption through pedagogical reflection or democratic debate, public authorities often operate within a logic of technological inevitability, endorsing tools whose implications for autonomy, equity, and privacy remain insufficiently addressed. This tension is particularly evident in the way platformisation is framed: not as a political or pedagogical issue, but as a neutral and technical solution to administrative and infrastructural challenges. As a result, public administrations become agents of policy depoliticisation, aligning educational governance with corporate infrastructures while leaving schools to navigate the ethical and practical consequences. In doing so, they contribute to entrenching platform logics in public education, while simultaneously diluting their own responsibility in critically guiding digital transformation. Discussion and conclusions Far from being neutral tools or simple technical add-ons, digital platforms are emerging as infrastructures that reorder the very conditions of contemporary schooling. As argued in the introduction, they do not merely mediate content delivery: they structure relationships among actors, channel data flows, and reorganize institutional processes (De Pablos et al., 2019 ; van Dijck et al., 2018 ; Poell et al., 2019 ). The studies reviewed in this scoping review confirm this perspective by showing that digital platforms act as structuring agents with organizational, evaluative, and communicative functions. Jacovkis et al. (2023), Rennie et al. ( 2019 ), and Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso ( 2020 ) emphasise that these platforms also have profound implications for governance, pedagogical autonomy, and the production of subjectivities. Stoilova et al. ( 2020 ), Feldman and Czerniewicz ( 2023 ), and Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ) further argue that in many cases their implementation lacks pedagogical deliberation and contextual adaptation, resulting not only in altered school dynamics but also in a shift of decision-making power towards opaque and globalised commercial infrastructures. From this perspective, the following section analytically addresses the four research questions that guided the development of this review, as formulated in the introduction. The discussion is structured around each of them, connecting the findings extracted from the literature with current debates on the uses, benefits, challenges, and tensions posed by platformisation in schooling. How are digital platforms used in schools? The studies reviewed show that digital platforms are mainly used for three purposes: institutional and pedagogical communication among teachers, students, and families; academic performance monitoring through assessments, homework, and grades; and student socialisation or entertainment activities. Courtney et al. ( 2022 ), Oloo (2022), and Chacón et al. ( 2022 ) document these uses as recurrent practices across schools. This multifaceted functionality aligns with what van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ) and Decuypere et al. ( 2021 ) define as "platform infrastructures", capable of reshaping school practices, flows, and timeframes. In many studies, platform use is normalized as part of daily school routines, with little reflection on its structural implications. In this sense, the findings resonate with authors such as Williamson et al. (2022) and Perrotta (2022), who argue that the expansion of platforms cannot be understood solely through the lens of operational efficiency but must be analysed as part of a broader logic of digital governmentality. These infrastructures promote a pedagogy oriented towards traceability, performance, and standardization, which, as noted by Selwyn (2021) and Peraza & Jarquín ( 2023 ), quietly transforms school culture. Thus, the widespread use of platforms is not a neutral phenomenon, but part of a structural shift in the organisation and regulation of schools. What benefits and challenges do different educational actors perceive regarding the use of digital platforms in schools? The identified benefits include improved home–school communication (Hsu & Chen, 2023 ; Peraza & Jarquín, 2023 ), greater student autonomy in managing their learning (DiGiacomo et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., 2023 ), and increased organisational efficiency within schools (Briones et al., 2020 ). These perceptions align with earlier work by Ramírez-Ramírez et al. ( 2020 ) and Burbat ( 2016 ), where platforms are seen as facilitators of administrative and pedagogical tasks. Briones et al. ( 2020 ) also highlight how this functional efficiency can foster greater coordination among school actors. However, these benefits are offset by significant challenges. Socioeconomic inequalities limit access to platforms (Díaz-Ronceros et al., 2021 ; Cuskelly et al., 2023 ; Lai et al., 2023 ), exacerbating existing digital divides. Additional challenges include insufficient teacher training, lack of time for tool adaptation, and a shortage of institutional support (Dadhe & Patil, 2021 ; Escola et al., 2022b ). Ethically, several studies warn of opaque data management practices, the extensive use of algorithmic surveillance, and the commercialization of educational interactions (Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso, 2020 ; Selwyn, 2021; Massó-Guijarro et al., 2024 ). These concerns echo what Van Dijck ( 2014 ) and Raffaghelli ( 2022 ) describe as the risk of structural datafication—a process through which pedagogical interactions are transformed into quantifiable data for third-party exploitation. As such, functional benefits must not be assessed in isolation, as the challenges identified point to a profound reconfiguration of the educational ecosystem. What are the main concerns expressed by different stakeholders regarding the use of digital platforms in schools? The concerns identified in the reviewed literature are multiple and unequally distributed among stakeholders. From teachers’ perspectives, a key issue is the loss of autonomy in planning and guiding teaching processes, as platforms impose rigid frameworks and predefined formats (Jacovkis et al., 2023; Escola et al., 2022b ). This phenomenon, also documented by Selwyn (2021), aligns with the concept of "digital deprofessionalisation", where pedagogical expertise becomes subordinated to technocratic logics. Families, in turn, express concerns about information overload, the pressure to respond across multiple channels, and the difficulty of supporting their children’s schooling (Hsu & Chen, 2023 ). This concern is heightened in contexts of inequality, where digital literacy and technological resources are not guaranteed (Díaz-Ronceros et al., 2021 ). Students’ voices tend to be marginal in the literature. Their concerns often relate to the control platforms exert over their time and behaviour, and the lack of agency in decisions regarding the digital tools that structure their schooling (Chacón et al., 2022 ; Rennie et al., 2019 ). The absence of participatory mechanisms reinforces what Van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ) and Feldman & Czerniewicz ( 2023 ) describe as a loss of educational sovereignty. More broadly, one of the most consistent concerns is the opaque management of educational data. The inability to determine who accesses the data, for what purposes, and under which regulations, generates institutional vulnerability (Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso, 2020 ; Raffaghelli, 2019 ). In this regard, platformisation appears less as a pedagogical tool and more as a surveillance and commercial infrastructure that shapes educational practice. What are the main alignments and misalignments among educational stakeholders regarding the use of digital platforms in education? Alignments are primarily found around the perception of platforms as tools that facilitate communication and management. Hsu and Chen ( 2023 ), Peraza and Jarquín ( 2023 ), and Briones et al. ( 2020 ) note that teachers, families, and school leaders alike acknowledge that platforms enable more efficient student monitoring, smoother communication between actors, and more agile organisation of school tasks.This shared functional perspective aligns with what Poell et al. ( 2019 ) term a logic of technological convenience, where platforms are introduced as practical solutions to daily operational challenges without necessarily altering deep institutional structures. However, beyond these surface-level agreements, the studies reviewed reveal significant misalignments that highlight platformisation as a non-neutral process that asymmetrically redistributes educational power. One of the most consistent findings is the systematic exclusion of teachers, families, and students from decision-making processes regarding platform adoption (Rennie et al., 2019 ; Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso, 2020 ; Jacovkis et al., 2023). This exclusion challenges discourses of participatory innovation and supports critiques by Van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ) and Feldman & Czerniewicz ( 2023 ), who argue that platforms restructure institutional relations by shifting educational sovereignty toward opaque, commercial, and transnational logics. Tensions also emerge between school leaders and teachers regarding the pedagogical use of platforms. While the former often adopt a managerial approach that promotes platforms as tools for control and assessment, many teachers resist their impact on professional autonomy and pedagogical practices (Escola et al., 2022b ; Author 2023 ). These divergences reflect a clash between technocratic management models and pedagogical approaches that demand more contextualisation and educational deliberation, as highlighted by Ideland ( 2021 ) and Author 10. Further disagreements exist around the risks of datafication. While some actors—especially teachers and families—express concern about intensive data use and lack of transparency (Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso, 2020 ), other actors—such as school leaders or platform providers—tend to downplay these risks by prioritising organisational efficiency. This tension reproduces what Raffaghelli ( 2019 ) calls a “structural informational asymmetry”, in which those who generate data (teachers and students) lack control over its use and exploitation. This concern resonates with Van Dijck ( 2014 ) and Raffaghelli ( 2019 ), who argue that datafication—the transformation of educational interactions into quantifiable data—is a central mechanism through which platforms exert power. Finally, students remain the most absent stakeholders in terms of agency and representation. Their perspectives are typically marginalised, often limited to analyses of consumption patterns or academic performance, without recognition of their capacity to influence the digital environments that mediate their schooling. This epistemic omission, as critiqued by Livingstone et al. (2023), underscores a deep misalignment with discourses that promote student-centred learning and reveals a unilateral governance logic in which students are objects rather than subjects of platformisation. In sum, the findings show that while alignments centre on shared operational functions, the misalignments reveal deeper tensions related to governance, participation, and the production of subjectivities in platform-mediated school contexts. As Van Dijck et al. ( 2018 ) and Poell et al. ( 2019 ) caution, platforms not only mediate education but also reconfigure the very rules of participation and educational agency, reinforcing new regimes of control and exclusion. These findings reaffirm the need to approach platformisation not solely through its functional effectiveness, but as a political-pedagogical phenomenon that demands critical analysis and democratic deliberation. Ultimately, this review highlights the importance of conducting scoping studies that systematically map and organise existing knowledge in order to clarify, in this case, how educational platformisation is being problematised within academic research. While it is never possible to include all available publications across languages, countries, and disciplinary traditions, this type of review aims to offer a structured yet open-ended approach—one that seeks to expand rather than narrow the analytical lens. Rather than providing definitive conclusions, it seeks to open new lines of inquiry and identify conceptual, methodological, and political gaps in the literature. In this sense, the review does not represent a final word on the subject, but a critical contribution to ongoing debates about the role of digital platforms in the reconfiguration of contemporary schooling. Declarations Ethical approval Not applicable. This study is based on a scoping review of published literature and did not involve human participants, animals, or primary data collection. Consent to participate Not applicable. This article does not involve human participants. Consent to publish Not applicable. This article does not include any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos). Data availability The dataset generated and analysed during the current study (coding database of all texts included in the scoping review) is openly available in Zenodo: Moreno-González, A., Calderón-Garrido, D., Rivera-Vargas, P., & Blanco-Navarro, M. (2024). Dataset Scoping review digital platforms and data management in Education [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14230525 Funding This publication is the result of grant PREP2022-000923, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the State Research Agency (10.13039/501100011033), and the European Social Fund Plus. Author Contribution Ainara Moreno-González: carried out the scoping review and wrote the introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions of the article.Diego Calderón-Garrido: participated in the methodological design of the scoping review, as well as in the systematization of the information. He wrote the study’s methodology and reviewed the rest of the article.Pablo Rivera-Vargas: participated in the design of the data analysis, wrote the introduction of the article, and reviewed the rest of the manuscript.Mercedes Blanco-Navarro: participated in the data analysis and contributed to writing the results section of the article. References Ahmad NL, Yahaya R, Wahid HA, Fazil NSM. Role of social factors, self-efficacy and technological support on the use of virtual learning environment among teachers. Int J Evaluation Res Educ. 2023;12(1):369–76. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22628 . Alexander PA. Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews. Rev Educ Res. 2020;90(1):6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352 . Almalawi A, Soh B, Li A, Samra H. Predictive Models for Educational Purposes: A Systematic Review. Big Data Cogn Comput. 2024;8(12):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8120187 . Area-Moreira M, Rodríguez-Rodríguez J, Peirats-Chacón J, Santana-Bonilla P. The Digital Transformation of Instructional Materials: Views and Practices of Teachers, Families and Editors. Tech Know Learn. 2023;28:1661–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09664-8 . Ariza AC, Monzonís NC, Magaña EC, Méndez VG. Jóvenes y uso problemático de las tecnologías durante la pandemia: una preocupación familiar. Hachetetepé Revista científica de educación y comunicación. 2021;221–12. https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2021.i22.1204 . Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 . Balaban I, Sobodić A. From Teachers’ Perspective: Can an online digital competence certification system be successfully implemented in schools? Appl Sci. 2022;12(8):3785–801. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083785 . Balaganesh S, Doraikannan S, Indiran MA. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards teaching on a virtual platform among private school teachers in Chennai. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2021;8(7):3381–6. https://doi.org/10.19070/2377-8075-21000688 . Briones E, García-Lastra M, Gómez-Pérez EM. Las TIC en las comunicaciones en la escuela. Percepción de profesorado y familias. Int J Dev Educational Psychol. 2020;1(2):103–14. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2020.n1.v2.1823 . Burbat R. El aprendizaje autónomo y las TIC en la enseñanza de una lengua extranjera: ¿Progreso o retroceso? Porta Linguarum. 2016;26:37–51. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53922 . Author 4. (2024a). Author 5. (2024b). Author. 6. (2023). Capcha YAH. Gestión por procesos hacia la calidad educativa en el Perú. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía. 2019;4(8):243–61. Cermeño EO, Maquilón Sánchez AB, Mirete Ruiz A, Escarbajal, Frutos, Giménez AM, Gualdo. Cambios educativos y formativos para el desarrollo humano y sostenible , 71. Editum, Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia. Chacón JP, Reguerio PD, Alonso ASM. Dilemas y preocupaciones de las familias sobre el uso de recursos educativos digitales en la etapa de la Educación Infantil. Digit Educ Rev. 2022;41:91–113. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.41.93-113 . Çimen B, Hangül S. Digital immigrant teachers’ perceptions about digital native students: an investigation into turkish school context. Eur J Educ Psychol. 2021;14(2):1–21. https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v14i2.1576 . Author. 1. (2022). Courtney SA, Miller ME, Gisondo MJ. The impact of COVID-19 on teachers’ integration of digital technology. Contemp Educational Technol. 2022;14(4). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12420 . Cuskelly L, Hogan A, Thompson G. Commercial triage in public schooling: COVID-19, autonomy and within system inequality. J Educational Adm History. 2023;1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2174953 . Dadhe PP, Patil SM. (2021). An empirical study of awareness and use of ICT by school teachers before and during lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. Libr Philos Pract, 5482. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5482 De Pablos JM, Colás MP, López Gracia A, García-Lázaro I. Los usos de las plataformas digitales en la enseñanza universitaria. Perspectivas desde la investigación educativa. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 2019;17(1):59–72. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2019.11177 . Decuypere M, Grimaldi E, Landri P. Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Crit Stud Educ. 2021;62(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050 . Dennen VP, Choi H, Word K. Social media, teenagers, and the school context: a scoping review of research in education and related fields. Education Tech Research Dev. 2020;68:1635–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09796-z . Díaz-Ronceros E, Marín-Rodríguez WJ, Meleán-Romero RA, Ausejo-Sánchez JL. Enseñanza virtual en tiempos de pandemia: Estudio en universidades públicas del Perú. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. 2021;27(3):428–40. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28068740028 . DiGiacomo DK, Greenhalgh S, Barriage S. How students and principals understand ClassDojo: Emerging insights. TechTrends. 2022;66:172–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00640-6 . Escofet A, Gros B, López M, Marimon-Martí M. Percepción del profesorado sobre la integración de la tecnología en el espacio escolar. RiiTE Revista interuniversitaria de investigación en Tecnología Educativa. 2019;637–47. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.360631 . Escola J, Lopes N, Catarino P, Aires AP. Microsoft 365 as a Tool for Teaching During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Perceptions of Portuguese Teachers of Basic and Secondary Education. Open Educ Stud. 2022a;4(1):241–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0015 . Escola J, Lopes N, Catarino P, Aires AP. Portuguese Teachers' Conceptions of the Use of Microsoft 365 during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Computers. 2022b;11:185. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11120185 . Estrada-Molina O, Fuentes-Cancell DR, García-Hernández A. Evaluating usability in educational technology: A systematic review from the teaching of mathematics. LUMAT: Int J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2022;10(1):65–88. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1686 . Feldman J, Czerniewicz L. Transitions in education: Educators, digitalisation, and datafication. J Educ. 2023;92:41–57. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i92a03 . Fernández-Batanero JM, Montenegro-Rueda M, Fernández-Cerero J, García-Martínez I. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. Eur J Teacher Educ. 2020;45(4):513–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389 . Fernández-Sánchez MR, Garrido-Arroyo MC, Porras-Masero I. Curricular integration of digital technologies in teaching processes. Front Educ. 2022;7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1005499 . Hase A, Kahnbach L, Kuhl P, Lehr D. To use or not to use learning data: A survey study to explain German primary school teachers’ usage of data from digital learning platforms for purposes of individualization. Front Educ. 2022;7:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.920498 . Hase A, Kuhl P. Teachers’ use of data from digital learning platforms for instructional design: a systematic review. Education Tech Research Dev. 2024;72:1925–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10356-y . Helmond A. The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Soc. 2015;1(2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080 . Helmond A, Nieborg DB, van der Vlist FN. Facebook’s evolution: Development of a platform-as-infrastructure. Internet Histories. 2019;3(2):123–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2019.1593667 . Author. 8. (2023). Hidayat A, Firmanti P. Navigating the tech frontier: a systematic review of technology integration in mathematics education. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559 . Höper L, Schulte C. The data awareness framework as part of data literacies in K-12 education. Inform Learn Sci. 2023;125(7):491–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0075 . Hsu P, Chen R. Analyzing the mechanisms by which digital platforms influence family-school partnerships among parents of young children. Sustainability. 2023;15(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416708 . Ideland M. Google and the end of the teacher? How a figuration of the teacher is produced through and ed-tech discourse. Learn Media Technol. 2021;46(1):33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1809452 . Author. 2. (2023). Author. 3. (2022). Jarquín-Ramírez MR, Díez-Gutiérrez EJ. Google en Iberoamérica:expansión corporativa y capitalismo digital en educación. Revista Española de Educación Comparada. 2023;42:240–60. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.42.2023.34322 . Kansal AK, Gautam J, Chintalapudi N, Jain S, Battineni G. Google Trend Analysis and Paradigm Shift of Online Education Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Infect disease Rep. 2021;13(2):418–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/idr13020040 . Lai SS, Andelsman V, Flensburg S. Datafied school life: the hidden commodification of digital learning. Learn Media Technol. 2023;1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2219063 . Lupton D. Honestly no, I’ve never looked at it’: teachers’ understandings and practices related to students’ personal data in digitised health and physical education. Learn Media Technol. 2021;46(3):281–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1896541 . Marín VI, Tur G. La privacidad de los datos en Tecnología Educativa: resultados de una revisión de alcance. Edutec Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa. 2023;83:7–23. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2701 . Massó-Guijarro B, Herrera-Urízar G, Folguera-Álvarez S, Alonso-Cano C. (2024). Potencialidades y desafíos del uso de plataformas digitales educativas desde las voces de la comunidad educativa catalana. Edutec, Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa , (87), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2024.87.3023 Michos K, Schmitz ML, Petko D. Teachers’ data literacy for learning analytics: a central predictor for digital data use in upper secondary schools. Educ Inform Technol. 2023;28:14453–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11772-y . Author. 11. (2024). Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x . Oloo O. Online digital platform use by adolescents in Kenya. J Child Media. 2021;16(3):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1969254 . Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . Palalas A, Wark N. The relationship between mobile learning and self-regulated learning: A systematic review. Australasian J Educational Technol. 2020;36(4):151–72. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5650 . Pangrazio L, Cardozo-Gaibisso L. Beyond cybersafety: The need to develop social media literacies in pre-teens. Digit Educ Rev. 2020;37:49–63. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.49-63 . Author. 9. (2022). Pavić I, Mijušković VM, Žager L. Which digital tools dominate secondary and higher education in economics: Google, Microsoft or Zoom? Bus Syst Res J. 2022;13(2):117–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0018 . Peraza C, Jarquín M. Digital leap in the New Mexican school since the pandemic lockdown: Challenges for governance and pedagogical processes. Educ Policy Anal Archives. 2023;31(136):1–28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7912 . Poell T, Nieborg D, Van Dijck J. Platformisation. Internet Policy Rev. 2019;8(4):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481876 . Raffaghelli JE. (2022). Educators' data literacy: Understanding the bigger picture. In L. Pangrazio & J. Sefton-Green. Learning to live with datafication (pp. 80–99). Routledge. Raffaghelli JE. Datificación y Educación Superior: Hacia la construcción de un marco para la alfabetización en datos del profesorado universitario. Revista Interamericana de Investigacion Educ y Pedagogia. 2019;13(1):177–205. https://doi.org/10.15332/25005421/5466 . Ramírez-Ramírez LN, Claudio-Martínez C, Ramírez-Arias V. Usabilidad de las TIC en la Enseñanza Secundaria: Investigación-Acción con Docentes y Estudiantes de México. Revista Científica Hallazgos. 2020;21(1):85–101. 5 . Rennie E, Schmieder K, Thomas J, Howard SK, Ma J, Yang J. Privacy and app use in Australian primary schools: insights into school-based internet governance. Media Int Australia. 2019;170(1):78–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19828368 . Revuelta-Domínguez FI, Guerra-Antequera J, González-Pérez A, Pedrera-Rodríguez MI, González-Fernández A. Digital Teaching Competence: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116428 . Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, Buntins K. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer Nature; 2020. Author. 10. (2024). Rodríguez JR, Area-Moreira M. Digital resources in early childhood education. What are they like and what do teachers and families think? Digit Educ Rev. 2022;41:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.41.4-18 . Ruiz JRR. Los recursos TIC favorecedores de estrategias de aprendizaje autónomo: el estudiante autónomo y autorregulado. Crescendo. 2014;5(2):233–52. Salas-Pilco SZ, Xiao K, Hu X. Artificial Intelligence and Learning Analytics in Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. Educ Sci. 2022;12(8):569. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080569 . Salomão-Filho A, Wasson B, Lameras P, Maloszek R. Alfabetización de datos para la ciudadanía: Formulación de algunas recomendaciones políticas a través de una revisión sistemática. Edutec Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa. 2023;866–21. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.86.2877 . Sánchez-García AB, Galindo-Villardón P. Uso e integración de las tic en el aula y dificultades del profesorado en activo de cara a su integración. Profesorado Revista De Currículum y Formación Del Profesorado. 2018;22(3):341–58. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8005 . Schenone M. La plataformización de la educación: un esquema conceptual sobre la base de tres axiomas. Revista Latinoam de Economía y Sociedad Digit. 2022. https://doi.org/10.53857/khhh3185 . 3. Selwyn N, Hillman T, Eynon R, Ferreira G, Knox J, Macgilchrist F, Sancho-Gil JM. What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learn Media Technol. 2019;45(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945 . Stoilova M, Livingstone S, Nandagiri R. Digital by default: Children’s capacity to understand and manage online data and privacy. Media Communication. 2020;8(4):197–207. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3407 . Author. 7. (2023). Sued GE. Coursera y la plataformización de la educación: operación de mercados, datificación y gobernanza. Transdigital. 2022;3(5):1–24. https://doi.org/10.56162/transdigital95 . Travkina NM. Digitization of Society: Alternative Projections of the Future. Her Russ Acad Sci. 2022;92:S483–91. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622120115 . Van Dijck J. Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance Soc. 2014;12(2):197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 . Van Dijck J, de Waal M, Poell T. The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press; 2018. Viñoles-Cosentino V, Sánchez-Caballé A, Esteve-Mon FM. Desarrollo de la Competencia Digital Docente en Contextos Universitarios. Una Revisión Sistemática. REICE Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad Eficacia Y Cambio En Educación. 2022;20(2). https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2022.20.2.001 . Williamson B. Making markets through digital platforms: Pearson, edu-business, and the (e) valuation of higher education. Crit Stud Educ. 2021;62(1):50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1737556 . Yazici EB, Özerbaş MA. The analysis of the efficiency of digital education platforms based on various variables. Participatory Educational Res. 2021;9(3):383–402. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.72.9.3 . Zhang P, Tur G. A systematic review of e-Portfolio use during the pandemic: Inspiration for Post-COVID-19 practices. Open Praxis. 2024;16(3):429–44. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.656 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 29 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 25 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 23 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7094472","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":516709341,"identity":"678352d9-8aac-45ff-806a-c838a397ebad","order_by":0,"name":"Ainara Moreno-González","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ainara","middleName":"","lastName":"Moreno-González","suffix":""},{"id":516709343,"identity":"5476cd45-8583-47e5-91b2-f333ff3f8ac1","order_by":1,"name":"Diego Calderón-Garrido","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Diego","middleName":"","lastName":"Calderón-Garrido","suffix":""},{"id":516709345,"identity":"03eb4863-55a0-4d7b-939a-006728ae4bb9","order_by":2,"name":"Pablo Rivera-Vargas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pablo","middleName":"","lastName":"Rivera-Vargas","suffix":""},{"id":516709347,"identity":"1d52fb5a-0b45-4954-a183-d151e875615a","order_by":3,"name":"Mercedes Blanco-Navarro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mercedes","middleName":"","lastName":"Blanco-Navarro","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-10 15:23:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91649520,"identity":"778b323a-a9a5-4a1b-a6aa-0ef0b0c05b2f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 16:41:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":176339,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA 2020 Flow chart\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7094472/v1/d73ed82fc2a0bd8f7bf3cf9b.png"},{"id":91648940,"identity":"69c244b6-ba32-420b-a794-526cf633404d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 16:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66979,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNetwork of dimensions and categories created through Atlas.ti\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7094472/v1/48cf440e0e09c3413bbcbfca.png"},{"id":91649874,"identity":"2842b438-4ce3-4ab1-b9cd-2b34b4624baf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 16:49:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1232442,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7094472/v1/b4824168-5128-44e6-95a6-940098e1fda8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The platformization of education through school actors. A scoping review","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe digitisation of schooling has become a defining feature of contemporary educational systems, particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital technologies to sustain teaching and learning (Author 9, 2022). Among these technologies, digital platforms\u0026mdash;whether proprietary or publicly developed\u0026mdash;now play a central role in both the administrative and pedagogical dimensions of schooling. Their incorporation, however, is frequently framed through narratives of innovation and inevitability, which obscure the broader socio-technical and political-economic logics shaping their diffusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo critically engage with this development, it is necessary to delineate what is meant by digital platforms. As De Pablos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) explain, these are not merely neutral tools for instructional delivery, but digitally mediated environments designed to structure user interactions, data flows, and institutional processes. In the field of education, van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Schenone (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) describe their integration as part of what has been termed the \"platformisation of education,\" a process that, according to Poell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Decuypere et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), reorganises educational practices, relationships, and imaginaries in ways that are not only technical but also deeply cultural and political.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginally introduced as supports for learning, digital platforms have increasingly been reconfigured as infrastructures of control and governance, often shaped by the strategic interests of global technology firms (Helmond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Helmond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Sued, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These firms, commonly grouped under the label Big Tech, have positioned themselves as central actors in education through the development of platforms tailored to institutional needs (Williamson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Author 1, 2022). As Selwyn et al. (2020) and Author 7 (2023) observe, this trend reflects a shift in the locus of educational decision-making, as private actors begin to shape the forms, contents, and metrics of schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA central mechanism through which this influence is exerted is what Van Dijck (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Raffaghelli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) describe as datification\u0026mdash;the conversion of educational interactions into data objects that can be stored, analyzed, and monetized. In this context, the platformisation of education entails not only the adoption of new tools but also the redefinition of pedagogical priorities and institutional responsibilities. According to van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Travkina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and Author 2 (2023), this process has led to renewed scrutiny of how data practices intersect with issues of autonomy, surveillance, and the reconfiguration of public education under market logics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe implications of these transformations for educational communities\u0026mdash;teachers, students, families, school administrators, and public authorities\u0026mdash;have been examined in various empirical studies, such as those by Author 3 (2022), which reflect a diversity of experiences and perspectives. On one side, Burbat (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Ram\u0026iacute;rez-Ram\u0026iacute;rez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) document positive expectations regarding the use of digital tools, emphasizing their potential to foster student autonomy, while Briones et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlight their role in strengthening communication between schools and families. On the other side, Ariza et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Author 5 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e), and Mass\u0026oacute;-Guijarro et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) point to concerns about the opacity of platform governance, the lack of pedagogical deliberation in their implementation, and the risks associated with data exploitation, particularly in relation to children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the growing volume of research on these issues, there remains a lack of systematic synthesis regarding how the educational community perceives and positions itself in relation to platformisation. While individual studies have provided insights into specific contexts or actors, there is limited comparative analysis of the range of stakeholder perspectives and their underlying tensions. This article addresses that gap by conducting a scoping review of empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2019 and 2023. The aim is not to evaluate the effectiveness of platforms, but to critically analyze the discursive and experiential configurations emerging from their adoption in schools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review is guided by four research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow are digital platforms used in schools?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat benefits and challenges do different members of the educational community perceive?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the main opinions and concerns regarding the use of digital platforms in schools?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat positions and attitudes shape the responses of educational stakeholders?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor analytical purposes, the first two questions are associated with a dimension focused on the uses and functions attributed to digital platforms, while the latter two address the knowledge, discourses, and positions articulated by the educational community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the concept of \u0026ldquo;educational community\u0026rdquo; encompasses teachers, students, families, school leadership teams, and public administrations. Although other agents\u0026mdash;such as policymakers, regulators, and technology companies\u0026mdash;also influence educational systems, this review focuses on actors directly engaged in the daily life of schools. As Cerme\u0026ntilde;o (2011) notes, schools cannot meet educational demands in isolation; they operate within a broader institutional and relational ecosystem. Families are central to this ecosystem, as are public administrations, which establish guidelines and influence educational practices and evaluation processes (Capcha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy attending to the perceptions and responses of educational communities, this review contributes to a more grounded and critical understanding of platformisation as a structural phenomenon\u0026mdash;one that reshapes the cultural, pedagogical, and institutional conditions of contemporary schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePrevious reviews: What has been systematised—and what remains conveniently ignored?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA growing number of systematic reviews have examined the integration of digital technologies in education. Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-S\u0026aacute;nchez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Zhang and Tur (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, investigate the use of digital platforms in schools, while Almalawi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Hase and Kuhl (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) analyze how data generated by platforms is exploited to personalise learning. In addition, Salas-Pilco et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) provide reviews that address artificial intelligence in education. While these contributions are valuable, they often frame digital platforms as pedagogical tools or technical artefacts, omitting the broader sociotechnical processes that accompany their adoption\u0026mdash;particularly platformisation and datification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost reviews focus on teacher-related aspects, especially digital competences (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Batanero et al., 2022; Vi\u0026ntilde;oles-Cosentino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Revuelta-Dom\u0026iacute;nguez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These works provide useful insights into professional development, but do not explore how digital platforms mediate educational relationships or shift institutional priorities. As such, they leave unexamined the increasing entanglement between pedagogical decisions and commercial infrastructures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther studies assess the effectiveness of specific platforms or technologies across educational levels. Estrada-Molina et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Hidayat and Firmanti (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) focus on subject-specific applications, particularly in mathematics education, while Palalas and Wark (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) examine tools designed for mobile or self-regulated learning. Although these studies offer relevant findings, they typically remain within instrumentalist frameworks, measuring what platforms achieve without questioning what they represent or how they reorganise educational power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnly a small subset of reviews address the implications of datification. For example, Mar\u0026iacute;n and Tur (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) provide a conceptual synthesis of the term, while Salom\u0026atilde;o-Filho et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) explore the notion of data literacy for citizenship and propose directions for public policy. These exceptions highlight critical dimensions often sidelined in broader reviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn short, while systematic reviews have contributed to mapping the use of digital platforms in education, few have questioned the underlying logics that drive platformisation or its impact on pedagogical autonomy, governance, and the everyday experiences of educational actors. This review addresses that gap by shifting the focus from technical functionality to critical engagement. It synthesizes how the educational community perceives and negotiates platformisation in schools\u0026mdash;situating platforms not as neutral instruments, but as sites of tension, control, and contestation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method: design and procedures","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address the research questions outlined above, a scoping review was conducted using empirical studies indexed in the SCOPUS and Web of Science (JCR) databases. Scoping reviews are especially appropriate for exploring emerging fields of research, as they facilitate the identification of key concepts, knowledge gaps, and the current state of empirical literature without the constraints of a narrow research focus (Munn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This methodological approach has been widely used in educational research, as evidenced by studies such as Dennen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review process followed the framework proposed by Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure methodological rigour, the quality standards proposed by Alexander (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) for scoping reviews were also incorporated. Furthermore, the overall structure of the review was informed by the phases suggested by Zawacki-Richter et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which allowed for a systematic and replicable research process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase I. Eligibility criteria and information sources\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first step involved the selection of descriptors to conduct the database searches. These descriptors were established following a preliminary review of the scientific literature on the use of digital platforms in education and the associated data management practices in school contexts. The final search string used was as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003edigital* AND (platform* OR datafication) AND teach* AND (\u0026ldquo;Primary education\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Basic education\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Primary school\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Elementary school\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Elementary education\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;K12\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Preparatory\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;School\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis search was applied to the title, abstract, and keyword fields in both databases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase II. Search strategy and selection process\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe search was conducted in two databases: SCOPUS and the Core Collection of Web of Science (WoS), specifically within the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Access to these databases was granted through the portal of the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initial search yielded a total of 1,421 records in SCOPUS and 272 in WoS (JCR), resulting in a preliminary pool of 1,693 publications. The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to refine this pool are summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion and exclusion criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCI1. Language: English or Spanish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCI2. Documents published in journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCE2. Documents from conference proceedings or scientific meetings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCE3. Duplicate records\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCI4. Articles published between 2019 and 2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCE5. No access to the study\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCI6. Empirical studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCE7. Not related to the object of study\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCE8. Retracted articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter applying these criteria, a total of 34 empirical studies were selected as the final sample. The selection process is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e following the PRISMA 2020 model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase III. Coding and synthesis.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter the first search, an Excel document was created with information on all the articles found (Author 11, 2024). Once the final sample of studies was selected, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the documents were coded and analyzed. In order to do that, an exhaustive reading of all the articles was carried out. In this first reading process, the intention was to identify the following data: 1) Country and year in which the study takes place, 2) Type of methodology used in the article, 3) Group with which the research was conducted. All this information is detailed in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecification table of articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAhmad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMalaysia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArea-Moreira et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndustry specialists and representatives of educational institutions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBalaban \u0026amp; Sobodić, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCroatia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary and secondary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBalaganesh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor 6 (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamilies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamilies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026Ccedil;imen \u0026amp; Hang\u0026uuml;l (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTurkey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCourtney et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers and teaching specialists\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCuskelly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement teams of educational institutions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDadhe \u0026amp; Patil (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary and secondary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eD\u0026iacute;az-Ronceros et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeru\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiGiacomo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents and management teams\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEscola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePortugal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers and students\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEscola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePortugal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeldman \u0026amp; Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers, management teams, Department of Education and higher education graduates\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHase et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u0026ouml;per \u0026amp; Schulte (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHsu \u0026amp; Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaiwan, China\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamilies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdeland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchool administrators, education-related companies, and NGOs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor 3 (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicymakers, expert activists, technology companies and stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor 2 (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement teams, teachers, students and families\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKansal et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of Google Trends\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchools\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDenmark\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlatform analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary education digital tools and services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLupton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement teams, teachers and other school staff\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMichos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwitzerland\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOloo (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKenya\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia and Uruguay\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePavić et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCroatia, Poland, Serbia and Germany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents and teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJarqu\u0026iacute;n \u0026amp; D\u0026iacute;ez-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain and Mexico\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWebsite analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenchmark schools\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComputational, qualitative and interpretive methods\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents and teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez \u0026amp; Area-Moreira (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers and families\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeraza \u0026amp; Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMexico\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement teams, teachers and families\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStoilova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYazici \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zerbaş (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTurkey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary teachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLater, a second reading was carried out in an attempt to identify different aspects related to the research questions of this study. In this phase, all of the articles were introduced into the Atlas.ti analysis software, with the intention of carrying out a content analysis based on the main topics present in the research questions of the study which were: 1) Use of digital platforms in schools, 2) Benefits and challenges of using digital platforms in schools, 3) Opinions and concerns of the educational community, 4) Positions and attitudes of the education community. Content analysis consists of studying the manifest content of the material based on categories established by the researcher (Ander-Egg, 1995). After this process of categorizing the information, two study dimensions, each composed of five categories, were defined. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below details the dimension and categories analyzed in this study and the relationships between them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows two major dimensions (digital platforms and knowledge and positioning) that are related to each other, and to which the rest of the categories are linked. On the one hand, five categories were found related to the \u0026ldquo;Digital platforms\u0026rdquo; dimension, which are: types of platforms; uses; benefits; challenges; and data management and use. On the other hand, the categories found for the \u0026ldquo;Knowledge and positioning\u0026rdquo; dimension were a total of five: public administration; schools; teachers; students; and families.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results found in each of the dimensions are presented separately below and then linked in the discussion.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs noted in the methodological section, the results of this scoping review are structured into two core analytical dimensions. The first, \u0026ldquo;Digital Platforms\u0026rdquo;, focuses on the types of platforms adopted in schools, their everyday functions, the perceived benefits and challenges associated with their use, and the governance of the data they generate. The second, \u0026ldquo;Knowledge and Positioning\u0026rdquo;, explores how various members of the educational community interpret, evaluate, and respond to the processes of platformisation. These two dimensions were developed inductively through thematic coding and reflect both converging trends and areas of tension across diverse educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat are digital platforms?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis analytical dimension addresses the infrastructural, pedagogical and governance roles that digital platforms play in schools. Drawing from the reviewed studies, five categories were identified: types of platforms, uses, benefits, challenges, and data management and use. Together, these categories offer insight into how platforms are not merely added tools but structural agents that mediate educational practices, redistribute authority, and shape the very conditions of schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTypes of platforms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis category refers to the digital tools implemented in schools and analysed in the reviewed studies. Cuskelly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Escola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003eb\u003c/span\u003e), Author 2 (2023), Pavić et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Jarqu\u0026iacute;n and D\u0026iacute;ez-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez (2023), Rennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) consistently identify Google for Education and Microsoft 365 Education as the most frequently cited platforms across the literature. According to these studies, such platforms have become infrastructural standards, central to organising both administrative and instructional activities, often without pedagogical deliberation or contextual adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplementary tools such as Kahoot, Canva, Zoom, and Innovamat are also documented by Balaganesh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Pavić et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who note that they are usually integrated as plug-ins within larger commercial ecosystems. However, these studies indicate that their inclusion reinforces a platform logic of modular consumption, where schools rely on externally designed tools that reflect global corporate priorities rather than local educational values.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dominance of a small number of providers points to a structural dependency that constrains educational autonomy. As Escola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e) and Author 2 (2023) warn, platform selection is often driven by administrative decisions with little teacher input. Moreover, Rennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) argue that the internal workings of these platforms\u0026mdash;algorithms, data flows, and decision-making protocols\u0026mdash;remain largely opaque, which limits schools\u0026rsquo; capacity to assess their ethical and pedagogical impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies show that digital platforms are primarily used for organisational, evaluative, and communicative purposes, rather than for transformative pedagogical innovation. Courtney et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) observe that teachers commonly use them to share content, assign tasks, manage grades, and maintain contact with families. According to Chac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), students initially engage with platforms through gamified or recreational functions, gradually shifting toward communication and academic submission tools\u0026mdash;particularly via social media and integrated chat systems. Meanwhile, Oloo (2022), Hsu and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) report that families use platforms to monitor attendance, progress, and updates from school administrations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese uses reflect a broader trend: the functional normalisation of platforms as infrastructural tools that shape everyday educational routines. However, studies like those of Lai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Ahmad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) highlight how such uses rarely involve reflection on the pedagogical implications of digital mediation. Instead, platforms are adopted pragmatically, reinforcing task-based logic, procedural compliance, and unidirectional communication\u0026mdash;often without fostering collaborative inquiry, critical digital literacies, or culturally responsive teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBenefits\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed articles highlight several perceived benefits of digital platforms. DiGiacomo et al. (2020) and Hsu and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise their role in enhancing communication between schools and families, while Ahmad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) point to their potential for promoting student autonomy through flexible, asynchronous learning environments. Additionally, Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) credit platforms with facilitating faster information access and increasing student motivation, particularly when social media and interactive tools are involved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, these benefits are often framed in individualistic and operational terms, without addressing the deeper pedagogical or institutional conditions that make such outcomes possible\u0026mdash;or uneven. For instance, Balaganesh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Chac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reveal how the promise of autonomy depends heavily on students\u0026rsquo; age, socio-digital support, and prior familiarity with platform logic. Rather than fostering inclusive pedagogies, platforms may reinforce pre-existing digital divides by rewarding those already equipped to navigate them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eChallenges\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature highlights a wide range of challenges linked to the incorporation of digital platforms in schools. Cuskelly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), D\u0026iacute;az-Ronceros et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Lai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that a central concern is the reproduction of socioeconomic inequalities, particularly regarding connectivity, access to devices, and the availability of digital resources in under-resourced school contexts. According to these studies, such disparities limit not only students\u0026rsquo; ability to participate on equal footing, but also schools\u0026rsquo; capacity to implement platforms meaningfully.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor teachers, challenges are particularly acute. Dadhe and Patil (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Escola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e), Ideland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and Author 2 (2023) point to the lack of time, insufficient professional development, and the absence of institutional support for integrating platforms into pedagogical practice. In parallel, these studies note that the shift toward platform-centred instruction has led to a redefinition of the teaching role, often framed in terms of managerial functions rather than pedagogical agency. The deprofessionalisation of teaching emerges as a recurring theme, with Lupton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Author 6 (2023) emphasising that this trend is exacerbated by the widespread perception that educators are not adequately prepared to handle the data these platforms generate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents face another set of challenges that go beyond access. The literature points to risks of addiction, cybersecurity threats, and negative impacts on mental and emotional well-being, particularly in relation to surveillance practices and reduced opportunities for genuine digital socialisation (Chac\u0026oacute;n et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Author 2, 2023). While platforms are often framed as tools of empowerment, these studies reveal that for many students, they function instead as mechanisms of visibility, control, and exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData management and use\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis category addresses the pervasive yet often invisible process of datafication, which DiGiacomo et al. (2021) and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) describe as the transformation of user behaviour and interaction into data points subject to analysis and prediction. Far from a neutral shift, Lai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) argue that datafication in education is inseparable from commercial surveillance infrastructures that extract, store, and monetise educational data\u0026mdash;often without informed consent and under regulatory vacuums. While Hase et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Rennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) report that some institutions claim to use data for personalising learning or optimising administration, these justifications often mask a deeper absence of critical interrogation regarding who controls the data and for what purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross the literature, there is consistent evidence of institutional unpreparedness and discursive disempowerment. Stoilova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Feldman and Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n and D\u0026iacute;ez-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez (2023) show that while schools acknowledge the use of commercial platforms, they remain either unaware\u0026mdash;or deliberately disengaged\u0026mdash;from the implications of the embedded data practices. According to these studies, this dynamic fosters an environment of delegated responsibility, where data governance is outsourced to external actors, while educators and administrators operate under conditions of informed ignorance. In this context, the data infrastructure becomes a black box: indispensable yet inaccessible, powerful yet unaccountable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor students, this dynamic translates into a heightened sense of vulnerability and constraint. Cuskelly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Kansal et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Lai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and Rennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reveal growing concern about privacy, behavioural prediction, and algorithmic classification. According to these studies, such concerns are not only technical but epistemic, since the ways in which data circulates shape how students are known, categorised, and acted upon within digital educational systems. In this sense, platforms are not neutral mediators but active agents of subjectivation and control, conditioning students\u0026rsquo; educational trajectories while rendering their resistance practically invisible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eKnowledge and positions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \"Knowledge and Positions\" dimension addresses the attitudes, opinions, and concerns of stakeholders regarding the platformisation in education. The content was grouped into five categories that represent the main actors of the educational community identified in the study: teachers, students, families, school management teams, and the public administration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTeachers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies reveal that teachers generally adopt a pragmatic view of digital platforms, with Courtney et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Rodr\u0026iacute;guez and Area-Moreira (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) noting that educators value them as useful supports to sustain their work, particularly during times of educational uncertainty. However, this instrumental acceptance coexists with a spectrum of positionalities shaped by age, motivation, confidence, and perceived digital competence. Chac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Yazici and \u0026Ouml;zerbaş (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) observe that younger teachers tend to exhibit more favourable attitudes toward technology integration, while Ahmad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Escola et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003eb\u003c/span\u003e) report that those with greater self-perceived competence experience higher levels of satisfaction and openness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYet beneath these factors lies a more complex terrain of professional vulnerability. Lupton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Pavić et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) report that teachers frequently express concern over the use and governance of student data, acknowledging both their limited knowledge and the absence of institutional training on digital privacy and security. Feldman and Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Lupton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) further note that these anxieties extend to personal risks\u0026mdash;cyberbullying, data leaks, and unauthorised access to digital records. In addition, Hase et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Michos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that ethical dilemmas also arise regarding the collection of student data without pedagogical mediation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, many teachers recognise a growing pedagogical asymmetry: students often possess higher levels of digital fluency, which creates tension around authority and control in the classroom (\u0026Ccedil;imen \u0026amp; Hang\u0026uuml;l, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jarqu\u0026iacute;n \u0026amp; D\u0026iacute;ez-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez, 2023). At the same time, teachers fear that their own lack of digital competence may unintentionally reproduce forms of digital exclusion, especially when they adopt either uncritical enthusiasm or excessive scepticism toward platform use. In sum, teachers\u0026rsquo; positionings reflect not just attitudes toward technology, but deeper concerns about their role, legitimacy, and agency in increasingly datafied school environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudents\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents generally express a positive or neutral stance toward the use of digital platforms in school, with DiGiacomo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Yazici and \u0026Ouml;zerbaş (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) noting that this position is often shaped by students\u0026rsquo; familiarity and daily immersion in technology from an early age. Their self-perception reveals confidence in managing digital environments, particularly regarding everyday online issues. However, Stoilova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) observe that this confidence is frequently coupled with a tendency to minimise the need for adult intervention, relegating the role of teachers and families to exceptional cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis apparent digital fluency coexists with more ambivalent and precarious experiences. Oloo (2022) notes that students are frequently reluctant to report safety concerns to adults, fearing punitive restrictions or disconnection from platforms. While many claim to employ basic self-protection strategies\u0026mdash;such as blocking users\u0026mdash;Oloo (2022) also shows that there is a lack of structured education on how to critically navigate risks and exercise digital agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding data privacy, students show an ambiguous relationship with their own data. As noted by H\u0026ouml;per \u0026amp; Schulte (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), many do not perceive digital data as personally meaningful, often disconnecting what is collected online from their real lives. This detachment is reinforced by a lack of understanding about how platforms store, profile, or exploit their data\u0026mdash;an issue also highlighted by Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, a subset of students expresses growing concern and frustration about these practices, sensing the loss of control over their digital identities but lacking the knowledge or support to respond (H\u0026ouml;per \u0026amp; Schulte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These tensions reflect a critical gap: while students are expected to be \"digitally native\", they are often digitally disempowered when it comes to understanding and contesting platform logics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFamilies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies reveal that families adopt diverse positions regarding the use of digital platforms in schools, reflecting both expectations of improvement and concerns about ethical and pedagogical implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, many families express a positive view of digital technologies in education. Chac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Hsu and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Author 3 (2022), Oloo (2022), and Rodr\u0026iacute;guez and Area-Moreira (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that this acceptance is grounded primarily in the practical benefits of strengthening communication with schools and teachers, as well as in the belief that such tools help motivate students in their academic tasks. In this discourse, these studies suggest that platforms are perceived as functional extensions of the school\u0026ndash;family relationship, enabling more continuous oversight of the educational process and facilitating parental engagement that would otherwise be limited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA second position reflects a more protective and risk-oriented stance, particularly when families perceive digital technologies as exposing their children to potential harm. Kansal et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Author 3 (2022), and Author 6 (2023) identify concerns that include data privacy, excessive online exposure, and access to inappropriate content or unsafe social interactions. As Oloo (2022) explains, some families respond by adopting monitoring or deterrence strategies, often grounded more in fear than in critical mediation. According to these studies, such reactions reveal an informational asymmetry: although families play a vital role in mediating technology use, they frequently lack the tools or digital literacy needed to support their children in safe and meaningful ways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA third, less common but significant position expresses structural distrust toward teachers and educational institutions. Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) note that in such cases, families do not necessarily question the platforms themselves but rather suspect that their use serves to offload teaching responsibilities or reduce professional effort. This critical perspective is also evident in Burbat (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), who shows that parents perceive digital platforms as transferring educational tasks to the household without fostering shared responsibility. Similarly, Michos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) identify growing frustration among families who view digital tools as one-way communication devices, with limited space for feedback or genuine dialogue. In this view, technology becomes a symbolic interface for latent tensions around task distribution, transparency, and institutional trust within digital schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSchool management teams\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature suggests that school management teams have generally adopted a pragmatic and instrumental approach to platform adoption, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuskelly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Feldman and Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) explain that, faced with the need to ensure pedagogical continuity, many schools turned to commercial solutions offered by major technology corporations, embedding them into daily school operations with limited time for critical deliberation. While these studies acknowledge that some concerns emerged regarding privacy and surveillance in digital environments, they also show that such issues were often subordinated to managerial efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn most cases, digital platforms were not perceived as educational threats but rather as practical aids to improve organisation, streamline communication, and support classroom logistics. DiGiacomo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Author 3 (2022) emphasise that this managerial framing contributes to the naturalisation of platform use, as if its implementation were a neutral process devoid of structural implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, this apparent neutrality masks a deeper tension between digital convenience and institutional autonomy. As Feldman \u0026amp; Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) argue, outsourcing core functions to commercial platforms may result in subtle forms of governance displacement, where key decisions about school practices become dependent on external infrastructures, proprietary logics, and technical constraints. In this scenario, school management teams\u0026mdash;intentionally or not\u0026mdash;become agents of platform entrenchment, facilitating the diffusion of corporate norms within public education without fully questioning their pedagogical or ethical consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePublic administration\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe literature highlights the central role of public administration in the digitisation and platformisation of schools, primarily through the implementation of digital education policies, funding mechanisms, and the establishment of public\u0026ndash;private partnerships. Feldman and Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Author 2 (2023), and Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that far from being passive enablers, public authorities act as active mediators between educational institutions and technology providers, often legitimising the widespread integration of platforms as part of broader modernisation agendas. Author 2 (2023) further underlines that this legitimisation reinforces the structural embedding of platforms in school systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, this involvement reveals an ambivalent positioning. On one hand, administrations have shown flexibility and adaptability in enabling schools to respond to the pressures of digital transition, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Cuskelly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, several studies draw attention to the dependencies created between governments and global technology corporations, particularly in the absence of strong public alternatives or robust regulatory frameworks (Author 2, 2023). Rather than leading platform adoption through pedagogical reflection or democratic debate, public authorities often operate within a logic of technological inevitability, endorsing tools whose implications for autonomy, equity, and privacy remain insufficiently addressed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis tension is particularly evident in the way platformisation is framed: not as a political or pedagogical issue, but as a neutral and technical solution to administrative and infrastructural challenges. As a result, public administrations become agents of policy depoliticisation, aligning educational governance with corporate infrastructures while leaving schools to navigate the ethical and practical consequences. In doing so, they contribute to entrenching platform logics in public education, while simultaneously diluting their own responsibility in critically guiding digital transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and conclusions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFar from being neutral tools or simple technical add-ons, digital platforms are emerging as infrastructures that reorder the very conditions of contemporary schooling. As argued in the introduction, they do not merely mediate content delivery: they structure relationships among actors, channel data flows, and reorganize institutional processes (De Pablos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; van Dijck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Poell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The studies reviewed in this scoping review confirm this perspective by showing that digital platforms act as structuring agents with organizational, evaluative, and communicative functions. Jacovkis et al. (2023), Rennie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and Pangrazio and Cardozo-Gaibisso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that these platforms also have profound implications for governance, pedagogical autonomy, and the production of subjectivities. Stoilova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Feldman and Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) further argue that in many cases their implementation lacks pedagogical deliberation and contextual adaptation, resulting not only in altered school dynamics but also in a shift of decision-making power towards opaque and globalised commercial infrastructures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, the following section analytically addresses the four research questions that guided the development of this review, as formulated in the introduction. The discussion is structured around each of them, connecting the findings extracted from the literature with current debates on the uses, benefits, challenges, and tensions posed by platformisation in schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHow are digital platforms used in schools?\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe studies reviewed show that digital platforms are mainly used for three purposes: institutional and pedagogical communication among teachers, students, and families; academic performance monitoring through assessments, homework, and grades; and student socialisation or entertainment activities. Courtney et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Oloo (2022), and Chac\u0026oacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) document these uses as recurrent practices across schools. This multifaceted functionality aligns with what van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Decuypere et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) define as \"platform infrastructures\", capable of reshaping school practices, flows, and timeframes. In many studies, platform use is normalized as part of daily school routines, with little reflection on its structural implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this sense, the findings resonate with authors such as Williamson et al. (2022) and Perrotta (2022), who argue that the expansion of platforms cannot be understood solely through the lens of operational efficiency but must be analysed as part of a broader logic of digital governmentality. These infrastructures promote a pedagogy oriented towards traceability, performance, and standardization, which, as noted by Selwyn (2021) and Peraza \u0026amp; Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), quietly transforms school culture. Thus, the widespread use of platforms is not a neutral phenomenon, but part of a structural shift in the organisation and regulation of schools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWhat benefits and challenges do different educational actors perceive regarding the use of digital platforms in schools?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe identified benefits include improved home\u0026ndash;school communication (Hsu \u0026amp; Chen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Peraza \u0026amp; Jarqu\u0026iacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), greater student autonomy in managing their learning (DiGiacomo et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and increased organisational efficiency within schools (Briones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These perceptions align with earlier work by Ram\u0026iacute;rez-Ram\u0026iacute;rez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Burbat (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), where platforms are seen as facilitators of administrative and pedagogical tasks. Briones et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) also highlight how this functional efficiency can foster greater coordination among school actors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, these benefits are offset by significant challenges. Socioeconomic inequalities limit access to platforms (D\u0026iacute;az-Ronceros et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Cuskelly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), exacerbating existing digital divides. Additional challenges include insufficient teacher training, lack of time for tool adaptation, and a shortage of institutional support (Dadhe \u0026amp; Patil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Escola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e). Ethically, several studies warn of opaque data management practices, the extensive use of algorithmic surveillance, and the commercialization of educational interactions (Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Selwyn, 2021; Mass\u0026oacute;-Guijarro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese concerns echo what Van Dijck (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Raffaghelli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) describe as the risk of structural datafication\u0026mdash;a process through which pedagogical interactions are transformed into quantifiable data for third-party exploitation. As such, functional benefits must not be assessed in isolation, as the challenges identified point to a profound reconfiguration of the educational ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWhat are the main concerns expressed by different stakeholders regarding the use of digital platforms in schools?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concerns identified in the reviewed literature are multiple and unequally distributed among stakeholders. From teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives, a key issue is the loss of autonomy in planning and guiding teaching processes, as platforms impose rigid frameworks and predefined formats (Jacovkis et al., 2023; Escola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e). This phenomenon, also documented by Selwyn (2021), aligns with the concept of \"digital deprofessionalisation\", where pedagogical expertise becomes subordinated to technocratic logics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamilies, in turn, express concerns about information overload, the pressure to respond across multiple channels, and the difficulty of supporting their children\u0026rsquo;s schooling (Hsu \u0026amp; Chen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This concern is heightened in contexts of inequality, where digital literacy and technological resources are not guaranteed (D\u0026iacute;az-Ronceros et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; voices tend to be marginal in the literature. Their concerns often relate to the control platforms exert over their time and behaviour, and the lack of agency in decisions regarding the digital tools that structure their schooling (Chac\u0026oacute;n et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rennie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of participatory mechanisms reinforces what Van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Feldman \u0026amp; Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) describe as a loss of educational sovereignty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore broadly, one of the most consistent concerns is the opaque management of educational data. The inability to determine who accesses the data, for what purposes, and under which regulations, generates institutional vulnerability (Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Raffaghelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In this regard, platformisation appears less as a pedagogical tool and more as a surveillance and commercial infrastructure that shapes educational practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWhat are the main alignments and misalignments among educational stakeholders regarding the use of digital platforms in education?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlignments are primarily found around the perception of platforms as tools that facilitate communication and management. Hsu and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Peraza and Jarqu\u0026iacute;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Briones et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) note that teachers, families, and school leaders alike acknowledge that platforms enable more efficient student monitoring, smoother communication between actors, and more agile organisation of school tasks.This shared functional perspective aligns with what Poell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) term a logic of technological convenience, where platforms are introduced as practical solutions to daily operational challenges without necessarily altering deep institutional structures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, beyond these surface-level agreements, the studies reviewed reveal significant misalignments that highlight platformisation as a non-neutral process that asymmetrically redistributes educational power. One of the most consistent findings is the systematic exclusion of teachers, families, and students from decision-making processes regarding platform adoption (Rennie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jacovkis et al., 2023). This exclusion challenges discourses of participatory innovation and supports critiques by Van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Feldman \u0026amp; Czerniewicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who argue that platforms restructure institutional relations by shifting educational sovereignty toward opaque, commercial, and transnational logics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTensions also emerge between school leaders and teachers regarding the pedagogical use of platforms. While the former often adopt a managerial approach that promotes platforms as tools for control and assessment, many teachers resist their impact on professional autonomy and pedagogical practices (Escola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e; Author \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These divergences reflect a clash between technocratic management models and pedagogical approaches that demand more contextualisation and educational deliberation, as highlighted by Ideland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Author 10.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther disagreements exist around the risks of datafication. While some actors\u0026mdash;especially teachers and families\u0026mdash;express concern about intensive data use and lack of transparency (Pangrazio \u0026amp; Cardozo-Gaibisso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), other actors\u0026mdash;such as school leaders or platform providers\u0026mdash;tend to downplay these risks by prioritising organisational efficiency. This tension reproduces what Raffaghelli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) calls a \u0026ldquo;structural informational asymmetry\u0026rdquo;, in which those who generate data (teachers and students) lack control over its use and exploitation. This concern resonates with Van Dijck (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Raffaghelli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who argue that datafication\u0026mdash;the transformation of educational interactions into quantifiable data\u0026mdash;is a central mechanism through which platforms exert power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, students remain the most absent stakeholders in terms of agency and representation. Their perspectives are typically marginalised, often limited to analyses of consumption patterns or academic performance, without recognition of their capacity to influence the digital environments that mediate their schooling. This epistemic omission, as critiqued by Livingstone et al. (2023), underscores a deep misalignment with discourses that promote student-centred learning and reveals a unilateral governance logic in which students are objects rather than subjects of platformisation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the findings show that while alignments centre on shared operational functions, the misalignments reveal deeper tensions related to governance, participation, and the production of subjectivities in platform-mediated school contexts. As Van Dijck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Poell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) caution, platforms not only mediate education but also reconfigure the very rules of participation and educational agency, reinforcing new regimes of control and exclusion. These findings reaffirm the need to approach platformisation not solely through its functional effectiveness, but as a political-pedagogical phenomenon that demands critical analysis and democratic deliberation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUltimately, this review highlights the importance of conducting scoping studies that systematically map and organise existing knowledge in order to clarify, in this case, how educational platformisation is being problematised within academic research. While it is never possible to include all available publications across languages, countries, and disciplinary traditions, this type of review aims to offer a structured yet open-ended approach\u0026mdash;one that seeks to expand rather than narrow the analytical lens. Rather than providing definitive conclusions, it seeks to open new lines of inquiry and identify conceptual, methodological, and political gaps in the literature. In this sense, the review does not represent a final word on the subject, but a critical contribution to ongoing debates about the role of digital platforms in the reconfiguration of contemporary schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This study is based on a scoping review of published literature and did not involve human participants, animals, or primary data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This article does not involve human participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This article does not include any individual person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dataset generated and analysed during the current study (coding database of all texts included in the scoping review) is openly available in Zenodo:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreno-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, A., Calder\u0026oacute;n-Garrido, D., Rivera-Vargas, P., \u0026amp; Blanco-Navarro, M. (2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDataset Scoping review digital platforms and data management in Education\u003c/em\u003e [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14230525\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis publication is the result of grant PREP2022-000923, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the State Research Agency (10.13039/501100011033), and the European Social Fund Plus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAinara Moreno-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez: carried out the scoping review and wrote the introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions of the article.Diego Calder\u0026oacute;n-Garrido: participated in the methodological design of the scoping review, as well as in the systematization of the information. He wrote the study\u0026rsquo;s methodology and reviewed the rest of the article.Pablo Rivera-Vargas: participated in the design of the data analysis, wrote the introduction of the article, and reviewed the rest of the manuscript.Mercedes Blanco-Navarro: participated in the data analysis and contributed to writing the results section of the article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad NL, Yahaya R, Wahid HA, Fazil NSM. Role of social factors, self-efficacy and technological support on the use of virtual learning environment among teachers. Int J Evaluation Res Educ. 2023;12(1):369\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlexander PA. Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews. Rev Educ Res. 2020;90(1):6\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/0034654319854352\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmalawi A, Soh B, Li A, Samra H. Predictive Models for Educational Purposes: A Systematic Review. Big Data Cogn Comput. 2024;8(12):187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8120187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/bdcc8120187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArea-Moreira M, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez J, Peirats-Chac\u0026oacute;n J, Santana-Bonilla P. The Digital Transformation of Instructional Materials: Views and Practices of Teachers, Families and Editors. Tech Know Learn. 2023;28:1661\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09664-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10758-023-09664-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAriza AC, Monzon\u0026iacute;s NC, Maga\u0026ntilde;a EC, M\u0026eacute;ndez VG. J\u0026oacute;venes y uso problem\u0026aacute;tico de las tecnolog\u0026iacute;as durante la pandemia: una preocupaci\u0026oacute;n familiar. Hachetetep\u0026eacute; Revista cient\u0026iacute;fica de educaci\u0026oacute;n y comunicaci\u0026oacute;n. 2021;221\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2021.i22.1204\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25267/Hachetetepe.2021.i22.1204\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArksey H, O\u0026rsquo;Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1364557032000119616\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalaban I, Sobodić A. From Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perspective: Can an online digital competence certification system be successfully implemented in schools? Appl Sci. 2022;12(8):3785\u0026ndash;801. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/app12083785\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/app12083785\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalaganesh S, Doraikannan S, Indiran MA. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards teaching on a virtual platform among private school teachers in Chennai. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2021;8(7):3381\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19070/2377-8075-21000688\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19070/2377-8075-21000688\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriones E, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Lastra M, G\u0026oacute;mez-P\u0026eacute;rez EM. Las TIC en las comunicaciones en la escuela. Percepci\u0026oacute;n de profesorado y familias. Int J Dev Educational Psychol. 2020;1(2):103\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2020.n1.v2.1823\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17060/ijodaep.2020.n1.v2.1823\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurbat R. El aprendizaje aut\u0026oacute;nomo y las TIC en la ense\u0026ntilde;anza de una lengua extranjera: \u0026iquest;Progreso o retroceso? Porta Linguarum. 2016;26:37\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53922\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30827/Digibug.53922\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor 4. (2024a).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor 5. (2024b).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 6. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCapcha YAH. Gesti\u0026oacute;n por procesos hacia la calidad educativa en el Per\u0026uacute;. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinon\u0026iacute;a. 2019;4(8):243\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCerme\u0026ntilde;o EO, Maquil\u0026oacute;n S\u0026aacute;nchez AB, Mirete Ruiz A, Escarbajal, Frutos, Gim\u0026eacute;nez AM, Gualdo. \u003cem\u003eCambios educativos y formativos para el desarrollo humano y sostenible\u003c/em\u003e, 71. Editum, Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChac\u0026oacute;n JP, Reguerio PD, Alonso ASM. Dilemas y preocupaciones de las familias sobre el uso de recursos educativos digitales en la etapa de la Educaci\u0026oacute;n Infantil. Digit Educ Rev. 2022;41:91\u0026ndash;113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.41.93-113\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1344/der.2022.41.93-113\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;imen B, Hang\u0026uuml;l S. Digital immigrant teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions about digital native students: an investigation into turkish school context. Eur J Educ Psychol. 2021;14(2):1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v14i2.1576\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32457/ejep.v14i2.1576\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 1. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourtney SA, Miller ME, Gisondo MJ. The impact of COVID-19 on teachers\u0026rsquo; integration of digital technology. Contemp Educational Technol. 2022;14(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/cedtech/12420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCuskelly L, Hogan A, Thompson G. Commercial triage in public schooling: COVID-19, autonomy and within system inequality. J Educational Adm History. 2023;1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2174953\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220620.2023.2174953\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDadhe PP, Patil SM. (2021). An empirical study of awareness and use of ICT by school teachers before and during lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. Libr Philos Pract, 5482. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5482\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5482\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Pablos JM, Col\u0026aacute;s MP, L\u0026oacute;pez Gracia A, Garc\u0026iacute;a-L\u0026aacute;zaro I. Los usos de las plataformas digitales en la ense\u0026ntilde;anza universitaria. Perspectivas desde la investigaci\u0026oacute;n educativa. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 2019;17(1):59\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2019.11177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4995/redu.2019.11177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDecuypere M, Grimaldi E, Landri P. Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Crit Stud Educ. 2021;62(1):1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDennen VP, Choi H, Word K. Social media, teenagers, and the school context: a scoping review of research in education and related fields. Education Tech Research Dev. 2020;68:1635\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09796-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11423-020-09796-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026iacute;az-Ronceros E, Mar\u0026iacute;n-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez WJ, Mele\u0026aacute;n-Romero RA, Ausejo-S\u0026aacute;nchez JL. Ense\u0026ntilde;anza virtual en tiempos de pandemia: Estudio en universidades p\u0026uacute;blicas del Per\u0026uacute;. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. 2021;27(3):428\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28068740028\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28068740028\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiGiacomo DK, Greenhalgh S, Barriage S. How students and principals understand ClassDojo: Emerging insights. TechTrends. 2022;66:172\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00640-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11528-021-00640-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscofet A, Gros B, L\u0026oacute;pez M, Marimon-Mart\u0026iacute; M. Percepci\u0026oacute;n del profesorado sobre la integraci\u0026oacute;n de la tecnolog\u0026iacute;a en el espacio escolar. RiiTE Revista interuniversitaria de investigaci\u0026oacute;n en Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Educativa. 2019;637\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6018/riite.360631\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6018/riite.360631\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscola J, Lopes N, Catarino P, Aires AP. Microsoft 365 as a Tool for Teaching During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Perceptions of Portuguese Teachers of Basic and Secondary Education. Open Educ Stud. 2022a;4(1):241\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/edu-2022-0015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscola J, Lopes N, Catarino P, Aires AP. Portuguese Teachers' Conceptions of the Use of Microsoft 365 during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Computers. 2022b;11:185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/computers11120185\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/computers11120185\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstrada-Molina O, Fuentes-Cancell DR, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez A. Evaluating usability in educational technology: A systematic review from the teaching of mathematics. LUMAT: Int J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2022;10(1):65\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1686\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1686\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeldman J, Czerniewicz L. Transitions in education: Educators, digitalisation, and datafication. J Educ. 2023;92:41\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i92a03\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17159/2520-9868/i92a03\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Batanero JM, Montenegro-Rueda M, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Cerero J, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Mart\u0026iacute;nez I. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. Eur J Teacher Educ. 2020;45(4):513\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-S\u0026aacute;nchez MR, Garrido-Arroyo MC, Porras-Masero I. Curricular integration of digital technologies in teaching processes. Front Educ. 2022;7:1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1005499\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2022.1005499\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHase A, Kahnbach L, Kuhl P, Lehr D. To use or not to use learning data: A survey study to explain German primary school teachers\u0026rsquo; usage of data from digital learning platforms for purposes of individualization. Front Educ. 2022;7:1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.920498\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2022.920498\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHase A, Kuhl P. Teachers\u0026rsquo; use of data from digital learning platforms for instructional design: a systematic review. Education Tech Research Dev. 2024;72:1925\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10356-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11423-024-10356-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelmond A. The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Soc. 2015;1(2):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2056305115603080\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelmond A, Nieborg DB, van der Vlist FN. Facebook\u0026rsquo;s evolution: Development of a platform-as-infrastructure. Internet Histories. 2019;3(2):123\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2019.1593667\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/24701475.2019.1593667\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 8. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHidayat A, Firmanti P. Navigating the tech frontier: a systematic review of technology integration in mathematics education. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026ouml;per L, Schulte C. The data awareness framework as part of data literacies in K-12 education. Inform Learn Sci. 2023;125(7):491\u0026ndash;512. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0075\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0075\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsu P, Chen R. Analyzing the mechanisms by which digital platforms influence family-school partnerships among parents of young children. Sustainability. 2023;15(24). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su152416708\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su152416708\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIdeland M. Google and the end of the teacher? How a figuration of the teacher is produced through and ed-tech discourse. Learn Media Technol. 2021;46(1):33\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1809452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2020.1809452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 2. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 3. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJarqu\u0026iacute;n-Ram\u0026iacute;rez MR, D\u0026iacute;ez-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez EJ. Google en Iberoam\u0026eacute;rica:expansi\u0026oacute;n corporativa y capitalismo digital en educaci\u0026oacute;n. Revista Espa\u0026ntilde;ola de Educaci\u0026oacute;n Comparada. 2023;42:240\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5944/reec.42.2023.34322\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5944/reec.42.2023.34322\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKansal AK, Gautam J, Chintalapudi N, Jain S, Battineni G. Google Trend Analysis and Paradigm Shift of Online Education Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Infect disease Rep. 2021;13(2):418\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/idr13020040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/idr13020040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLai SS, Andelsman V, Flensburg S. Datafied school life: the hidden commodification of digital learning. Learn Media Technol. 2023;1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2219063\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2023.2219063\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLupton D. Honestly no, I\u0026rsquo;ve never looked at it\u0026rsquo;: teachers\u0026rsquo; understandings and practices related to students\u0026rsquo; personal data in digitised health and physical education. Learn Media Technol. 2021;46(3):281\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1896541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2021.1896541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMar\u0026iacute;n VI, Tur G. La privacidad de los datos en Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Educativa: resultados de una revisi\u0026oacute;n de alcance. Edutec Revista Electr\u0026oacute;nica De Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Educativa. 2023;83:7\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2701\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2701\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMass\u0026oacute;-Guijarro B, Herrera-Ur\u0026iacute;zar G, Folguera-\u0026Aacute;lvarez S, Alonso-Cano C. (2024). Potencialidades y desaf\u0026iacute;os del uso de plataformas digitales educativas desde las voces de la comunidad educativa catalana. \u003cem\u003eEdutec, Revista Electr\u0026oacute;nica De Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Educativa\u003c/em\u003e, (87), 43\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2024.87.3023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21556/edutec.2024.87.3023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichos K, Schmitz ML, Petko D. Teachers\u0026rsquo; data literacy for learning analytics: a central predictor for digital data use in upper secondary schools. Educ Inform Technol. 2023;28:14453\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11772-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-023-11772-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 11. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOloo O. Online digital platform use by adolescents in Kenya. J Child Media. 2021;16(3):1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1969254\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17482798.2021.1969254\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.n71\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalalas A, Wark N. The relationship between mobile learning and self-regulated learning: A systematic review. Australasian J Educational Technol. 2020;36(4):151\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5650\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14742/ajet.5650\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePangrazio L, Cardozo-Gaibisso L. Beyond cybersafety: The need to develop social media literacies in pre-teens. Digit Educ Rev. 2020;37:49\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.49-63\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1344/der.2020.37.49-63\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 9. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePavić I, Mijušković VM, Žager L. Which digital tools dominate secondary and higher education in economics: Google, Microsoft or Zoom? Bus Syst Res J. 2022;13(2):117\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2478/bsrj-2022-0018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeraza C, Jarqu\u0026iacute;n M. Digital leap in the New Mexican school since the pandemic lockdown: Challenges for governance and pedagogical processes. Educ Policy Anal Archives. 2023;31(136):1\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7912\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14507/epaa.31.7912\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoell T, Nieborg D, Van Dijck J. Platformisation. Internet Policy Rev. 2019;8(4):1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/146144481876\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/146144481876\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaffaghelli JE. (2022). Educators' data literacy: Understanding the bigger picture. In L. Pangrazio \u0026amp; J. Sefton-Green. \u003cem\u003eLearning to live with datafication\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 80\u0026ndash;99). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaffaghelli JE. Datificaci\u0026oacute;n y Educaci\u0026oacute;n Superior: Hacia la construcci\u0026oacute;n de un marco para la alfabetizaci\u0026oacute;n en datos del profesorado universitario. Revista Interamericana de Investigacion Educ y Pedagogia. 2019;13(1):177\u0026ndash;205. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15332/25005421/5466\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15332/25005421/5466\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRam\u0026iacute;rez-Ram\u0026iacute;rez LN, Claudio-Mart\u0026iacute;nez C, Ram\u0026iacute;rez-Arias V. Usabilidad de las TIC en la Ense\u0026ntilde;anza Secundaria: Investigaci\u0026oacute;n-Acci\u0026oacute;n con Docentes y Estudiantes de M\u0026eacute;xico. Revista Cient\u0026iacute;fica Hallazgos. 2020;21(1):85\u0026ndash;101. \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRennie E, Schmieder K, Thomas J, Howard SK, Ma J, Yang J. Privacy and app use in Australian primary schools: insights into school-based internet governance. Media Int Australia. 2019;170(1):78\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19828368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1329878X19828368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRevuelta-Dom\u0026iacute;nguez FI, Guerra-Antequera J, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-P\u0026eacute;rez A, Pedrera-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez MI, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez A. Digital Teaching Competence: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6428. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14116428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su14116428\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, Buntins K. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer Nature; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 10. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez JR, Area-Moreira M. Digital resources in early childhood education. What are they like and what do teachers and families think? Digit Educ Rev. 2022;41:5\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.41.4-18\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1344/der.2022.41.4-18\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz JRR. Los recursos TIC favorecedores de estrategias de aprendizaje aut\u0026oacute;nomo: el estudiante aut\u0026oacute;nomo y autorregulado. Crescendo. 2014;5(2):233\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalas-Pilco SZ, Xiao K, Hu X. Artificial Intelligence and Learning Analytics in Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. Educ Sci. 2022;12(8):569. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080569\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/educsci12080569\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalom\u0026atilde;o-Filho A, Wasson B, Lameras P, Maloszek R. Alfabetizaci\u0026oacute;n de datos para la ciudadan\u0026iacute;a: Formulaci\u0026oacute;n de algunas recomendaciones pol\u0026iacute;ticas a trav\u0026eacute;s de una revisi\u0026oacute;n sistem\u0026aacute;tica. Edutec Revista Electr\u0026oacute;nica De Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Educativa. 2023;866\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.86.2877\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21556/edutec.2023.86.2877\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Garc\u0026iacute;a AB, Galindo-Villard\u0026oacute;n P. Uso e integraci\u0026oacute;n de las tic en el aula y dificultades del profesorado en activo de cara a su integraci\u0026oacute;n. Profesorado Revista De Curr\u0026iacute;culum y Formaci\u0026oacute;n Del Profesorado. 2018;22(3):341\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchenone M. La plataformizaci\u0026oacute;n de la educaci\u0026oacute;n: un esquema conceptual sobre la base de tres axiomas. Revista Latinoam de Econom\u0026iacute;a y Sociedad Digit. 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.53857/khhh3185\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.53857/khhh3185\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelwyn N, Hillman T, Eynon R, Ferreira G, Knox J, Macgilchrist F, Sancho-Gil JM. What\u0026rsquo;s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learn Media Technol. 2019;45(1):1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStoilova M, Livingstone S, Nandagiri R. Digital by default: Children\u0026rsquo;s capacity to understand and manage online data and privacy. Media Communication. 2020;8(4):197\u0026ndash;207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3407\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17645/mac.v8i4.3407\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 7. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSued GE. Coursera y la plataformizaci\u0026oacute;n de la educaci\u0026oacute;n: operaci\u0026oacute;n de mercados, datificaci\u0026oacute;n y gobernanza. Transdigital. 2022;3(5):1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.56162/transdigital95\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.56162/transdigital95\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTravkina NM. Digitization of Society: Alternative Projections of the Future. Her Russ Acad Sci. 2022;92:S483\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622120115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1134/S1019331622120115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Dijck J. Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance Soc. 2014;12(2):197\u0026ndash;208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Dijck J, de Waal M, Poell T. The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVi\u0026ntilde;oles-Cosentino V, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Caball\u0026eacute; A, Esteve-Mon FM. Desarrollo de la Competencia Digital Docente en Contextos Universitarios. Una Revisi\u0026oacute;n Sistem\u0026aacute;tica. REICE Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad Eficacia Y Cambio En Educaci\u0026oacute;n. 2022;20(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15366/reice2022.20.2.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15366/reice2022.20.2.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliamson B. Making markets through digital platforms: Pearson, edu-business, and the (e) valuation of higher education. Crit Stud Educ. 2021;62(1):50\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1737556\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17508487.2020.1737556\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYazici EB, \u0026Ouml;zerbaş MA. The analysis of the efficiency of digital education platforms based on various variables. Participatory Educational Res. 2021;9(3):383\u0026ndash;402. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.72.9.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17275/per.22.72.9.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang P, Tur G. A systematic review of e-Portfolio use during the pandemic: Inspiration for Post-COVID-19 practices. Open Praxis. 2024;16(3):429\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.656\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.656\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Digital platforms, schools, attitudes, opinions, scoping review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDigital platforms have become central to contemporary schooling, often introduced with promises of innovation, efficiency, and connectivity. However, beneath this optimistic narrative lies a complex and contested terrain. This scoping review critically analyses how the educational community perceives and negotiates the growing platformisation of schools. To this end, a scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol, with searches in the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases, initially identifying 1,693 studies. After a rigorous selection process, a final sample of 34 articles was analyzed in depth and organized into two key analytical dimensions. The review identifies two core dimensions: the practical integration of platforms and the attitudes, concerns, and positions of stakeholders. While platforms are often praised for facilitating communication and personalized learning, they also introduce new forms of dependency, surveillance, and inequality. This review reveals the underlying tensions between digital enthusiasm and critical awareness within educational institutions, questioning the extent to which platformisation genuinely serves pedagogical and democratic aims.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The platformization of education through school actors. A scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-18 16:32:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7094472/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-29T15:20:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T05:23:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"255135289927868136621804074273739073520","date":"2025-09-29T18:17:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"179253614808979539418321300408123918737","date":"2025-09-29T07:14:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-17T19:35:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"313531136409514508320558265437525796408","date":"2025-09-16T14:48:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T10:32:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-25T04:33:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-23T18:12:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-08-23T18:09:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1a2c3a9d-0b83-4f84-93ec-76de8eb86103","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-20T17:39:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-18 16:32:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7094472","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7094472","identity":"rs-7094472","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}