Over the past five years, the DigiTraS II study has examined the state of digital transformation in Swiss upper secondary schools. The study combines a representative survey of school principals (N = 225), teachers (N = 2248), and students (N = 8915) from all parts of the country with case studies of highly digitalized schools and a follow-up survey on the use of artificial intelligence by students in all school types (N = 2357). The study resulted in more than 20 publications, which, however, require overarching interpretation. This paper presents the final report of the study and tries to draw a coherent picture from the various findings.

The study shows that only few students experience a real improvement in the quality of teaching and learning when using digital technologies in class (Consoli et al., 2024). It also shows that the immediate dangers of using digital media in schools are addressed rather frequently (e.g. credibility, online fraud, cyberbullying), while more complex implications (e.g. changes in the world of work, the economy or sustainability issues) are hardly ever discussed (Schmitz et al., 2024). Teachers tend to adopt a critical stance towards artificial intelligence, and only a few students report that the majority of teachers use these technologies productively in class. In general, teachers use digital technologies primarily for simple information transfer, and much less frequently for active, constructive or interactive learning activities (Antonietti et al., 2024). These findings are similar for all school levels examined.

Whether and how teachers use digital technologies is primarily dependent upon their self-reported skills and beliefs (Cattaneo et al., 2025). In contrast, technological equipment seems to play a subordinate role. However, cooperation among teachers and the role of school leadership do have an indirect influence. If digital transformation is driven forward with clear goals and appropriate strategic priority, this has an influence on the skills and attitudes of teachers which in turn influences a more demanding use of digital technology in the classroom (Schmitz et al., 2023). From the perspective of teachers, however, the main obstacles to increased digital transformation are still primarily to be found in the lack of time for planning digitally supported teaching units. The often-noted lack of suitable teaching models and digital resources also shows that more support would be needed in this regard. On the positive side, when comparing these results with previous surveys, the available computer infrastructure and the lack of skills and attitudes of teachers seem to be a diminishing problem. In view of rapid technological developments, the digital transformation in schools will remain an ongoing challenge in the coming years.

Theoretical background

During the emergency shift from face-to-face to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, most teachers replicated their classroom practices to online teaching and some of them even went back to a teacher-centered, transmissive teaching style (Ewing&Cooper, 2021). However, studies have shown that teaching in an online setting requires different pedagogical approaches. For example, online teaching has to be designed for interactivity and engagement rather than as a heavy content delivery (Bond&Bergdahl, 2022; Borup&Archambault, 2023). Historically, students are used to teachers as the fount of all knowledge and proving content in the classroom (Prestridge et al., 2024). With the shift to online learning, students also needed to adapt to the new situation and become even more responsible for their learning and making choices for their learning.

Research question

This paper focuses on the perspective of students and how they considered the responsibility for learning during and after the shift to remote teaching.

- How do students report their responsibilities for online learning?

- Are there differences between year levels and over time (2020 vs. 2022)?

Design and method

Year 7-12 students from one school were surveyed during emergency remote teaching (2020; n=698) and two years later (2022; n=589). The survey contains closed and open questions. This study reports on the quantitative data.

Findings

In 2020, the majority of the students indicated that it is a shared responsibility for learning (Us) rather than their own responsibility. In 2022, more than half of the students said that they are responsible for their learning (Me) and only about 5% said that the teacher is responsible for their learning (You). The majority of students indicated that both, themselves and the teacher, were responsible for their learning (We). Students in Years 11 and 12 tended to perceive themselves as more responsible for their learning than younger students.

For students, there is also evidence of a move to needing greater choice in online learning. While in 2020 most students perceived that they had flexibility in choosing when and how to do their learning from home, 60% wanted even more flexibility. Those students also generally disliked the timetabled live video sessions and found them to be disruptive to their study flow. Critically, other students craved more structure than was provided, and this included wanting more real-time teacher-led direct instruction. In 2022, more than half of the students wanted more or a lot more choice when learning online at home. Slightly less than a quarter of the students wanted all choices (e.g., decision on when and how to complete a task). Interestingly, students from Years 7 and 8 wanted less choice than their older counterparts.

Conclusions

The desire for flexibility to learn at one’s own pace and being free to self-determine the order of activities was repeatedly raised by students throughout both surveys. This is in contrast to a small number of students who do not take responsibility for their learning and assign it entirely to the teachers. There is a tension between students who are less responsible for their own learning wanting more structure and traditional delivery and students who want to be responsible, flexible and also collaborative and engage with others (see e.g., Community of Inquiry in Sun&Chen, 2016). The question arises now on how teachers design for a Me, You or We approach. From a student directive, a Me approach is wholly self-determinant and flexible; a You approach is teacher-directed and a We approach is collaborating together online. Is it more important to support students who require classroom-based delivery online or is it more important to help students shift towards an anytime collaborative engagement model?