Saudi Arabia is one of the Gulf countries in the Middle East region. Alphabetically, the rest include Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. This region is distinguished by its religious, linguistic, and social homogeneity. When it comes to technological development and adoption, Middle East countries have their own set of socioeconomic factors. These traits either help or hinder the adoption and growth of information technology in the region (Jafar, 2004). This is because the Middle East region encompasses both impoverished and underdeveloped economies with enormous populations, such as Egypt. There are also rich and sparsely populated countries like United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The Middle East region is also known for its volatile and unpredictable environments (Aghimien, 2016; Niazi and Hassan, 2016). Only a few Middle Eastern countries inspire business investments, particularly in technology—for instance, Jordan is one of the safest and most attractive destinations for such investments (Moideenkutty et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2017). The unique regional context of the Middle East region presents a challenge for the current study to investigate the opportunities associated with blockchain technology, especially in the education sector of Saudi Arabia which experiences continuous socio-economic transformation and sustainable development.

The body of knowledge on the problems and potentials of technological acceptance, implementation, and development in the Middle East region is quickly expanding. Certain studies explored the Arab world’s pioneering government systems (Pons, 2004; AlAwadhi and Morris, 2012), especially in Dubai and Jordan (Awan, 2008). Other studies looked into e-banking adoption and implementation in Oman (Khalfan and Alshawaf, 2004), Lebanon (Hammoud et al., 2018), and Jordan (AbuShanab and Pearson, 2007). Furthermore, several other studies focused on computing in the Middle East (Goodman and Green, 1998); the culture of Arab and information technology transfer (Hill et al., 1998; Straub et al., 2001); the efficacy of information systems in countries like Egypt (Khalil and Elkordy, 1999; Seliem et al., 2003) and Saudi Arabia (Al-Khaldi and Wallace, 1999); and the applicability of technology acceptance in the Arab world (Al-Gahtani, 2001), such as Kuwait (Almutairi, 2007). A few other studies explored specific topics on health information technology in the Middle East (Bennett et al., 2015) and internet fraud in Saudi Arabia (Algarni, 2013).

Although blockchain technology offers enormous potential for building the future of Internet infrastructure and smart transactions or contracts, the technology also encounters several technical (Beck et al., 2018) and social hurdles (Zheng et al., 2018). A substantial body of literature revealed the challenges of blockchain at various levels, which include obstacles for enterprises (Hamida et al., 2017), business process management (Mendling et al., 2017), logistics and supply chain (Hackius and Petersen, 2017), and educational systems (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Chen et al., 2018).

At the same time, only a few studies explored the societal issues and potentials presented by blockchains such as the benefits of blockchain technologies to the developing world’s population (Kshetri and Voas, 2018), the emergence of blockchain as a tool to alleviate poverty in the Global South (Kshetri, 2017), and global blockchain initiatives, such as Sweden, Denmark, Malta, United States, United Kingdom, China, and Australia (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Jun, 2018).

On the other hand, there is a growing body of literature on the adoption, implementation, and development of blockchain technology in Middle Eastern countries (Jafar, 2004). Prior studies covered the instigation of e-government systems (Pons, 2004; Awan, 2008; AlAwadhi and Morris, 2012), the adoption and implementation of e-banking systems (Khalfan and Alshawaf, 2004; AbuShanab and Pearson, 2007; Hammoud et al., 2018), computing and information technology transfer (Goodman and Green, 1998; Hill et al., 1998; Straub et al., 2001), and the effectiveness of information systems in the regions (Al-Khaldi and Wallace, 1999; Khalil and Elkordy, 1999; Seliem et al., 2003).

More importantly, education has the potential to play a vital role in the future realisation of a vision of sustainability that integrates economic well-being with respect for cultural variety, the Earth, and its resources (Little and Green, 2009). This is recognised at the second World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 (UNESCO, 2007). Following that, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 57/254, designating the years 2005–2014 as the International Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The overall goal of the ESD is to integrate values, activities, and principles that are inherently linked to sustainable development into all forms of education and learning, as well as to help usher in a change in attitudes, behaviours, and values that will ensure a more sustainable future in terms of social, environmental, and economic terms.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is essentially a demand for a shift in how we educate our children and ourselves to ensure a long-term future. While governments and stakeholders are already interpreting this appeal in a variety of ways, UNESCO describes ESD as a development project with four goals and four thrusts. The goals are to facilitate ESD stakeholders’ networking, linkages, exchange, and interaction; foster improved teaching and learning in education for sustainable development; assist countries in making progress towards and achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ESD efforts; and provide countries with new opportunities to incorporate ESD into education reform efforts (UNESCO, 2007, p. 6).

Nonetheless, only a few studies explored the role of blockchain technology in the education sector of Saudi Arabia. Thus, the current study focused on the difficulties and prospects of blockchain technology in the education sector for its sustainable development. With that, a substantial literature search related to the investment opportunity of blockchain technology in the education sector of Saudi Arabia was conducted. But it is crucial to keep in mind that the use of blockchain in education is still a relatively new topic, which has an impact on the quantity and calibre of the study done on it.

Although the amount of research on blockchain’s potential applications in education has grown recently, it is still dispersed, and no thorough investigation of the topic has yet been conducted (Chivu et al., 2022). The blockchain technology of today might not be sufficiently advanced to scale for all use cases. This is especially concerning for use scenarios involving educational platforms such as blockchain record-keeping or digital asset use cases. Many of the most significant blockchain-in-education projects have yet to be extensively studied and recorded due to the relative youth of blockchain investigation in the education sector. Hence, this study implies that investigating the role of blockchain-related education for sustainable development is considered timely and important.

Overall, this article is organised into several sub-topics. It begins with an overview of related literature and a conceptual discussion on blockchain technology. This is followed by a description of the methodology, which includes defining the research questions, searching for relevant articles, inclusion and exclusion of articles, data extraction, and data analysis. The findings are then presented in the form of a related literature review, followed by a discussion with respect to the research questions. Areas for future research and limitations of the study are discussed accordingly. Finally, the analysis of challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology in the education sector of Saudi Arabia are outlined as key conclusions.

Since its emergence in 2008, blockchain technology has developed into several stages, namely Blockchain 1.0, Blockchain 2.0, and Blockchain 3.0 (Gatteschi et al., 2018). The first stage, which was designed to ease simple monetary transactions, was utilised for cryptocurrencies. Following that, the second stage was introduced for properties and smart contracts. Prior to being registered in the blockchain, these smart contracts would impose precise rules and criteria that must be followed. The registration process can be completed without the involvement of a third party. The third stage involves the development of many applications of blockchains in numerous sectors, including but not limited to government, education, health, and science.

Meanwhile, the application of blockchain in the education sector is still in its infancy. Only a few educational institutions use blockchain technology to validate and share academic certifications and/or learning outcomes of students (Chen et al., 2018). Therefore, blockchain technology has so much more to offer and has the potential to transform the education sector and its sustainable development. Nespor (2019) believed that blockchain potentially erodes the central position of educational institutions as certification agencies, giving students more responsibilities to study. Despite the growing number of studies on the application of blockchain in the education sector in recent years, findings are still fragmented. A systematic review on this subject, especially within the context of Saudi Arabia, has remained scarce. This type of review is deemed critical, especially in providing a current state-of-the-art overview of the topic and informing evidence-based practices.

As a result, by studying the use of blockchain technology in the education sector and its sustainable development, the current study offered novel contributions to the literature on educational technology. The main target audiences of this study are those who are interested in learning about this developing technology and its significant impact on the education sector such as managers, policymakers, academics, and researchers. The remaining sections of this paper are organised in the following manner. The subsequent section describes the systematic review techniques used in this study. The review’s findings are presented in Section “Research methodology,” and Section “Descriptive results” further discusses the results in detail. Section “Discussion and analysis” presents areas for future research. The limitations of the review are discussed in Section “Future research agenda.” Finally, Section “Conclusion and limitations” concludes the overall review.

The following research questions were developed based on the objectives of the study:

In this systematic review, nine significant scientific databases were examined to identify relevant publications on the topic under study: (1) ACM Digital Library, (2) IEEE Xplore, (3) ScienceDirect, (4) Taylor & Francis Online, (5) SAGE Journals, (6) ProQuest, (7) Springer, (8) Web of Science, and (9) Scopus. These nine databases were used because these databases are notable for indexing high-impact, high-quality educational and information technology content. For this systematic review, the most recent literature search took place at the end of June 2021.

For the execution of the search for relevant articles in the listed databases, the following specific terms were used: “Blockchain AND Investment,” “Blockchain AND Education,” and “Blockchain and Saudi Arabia.” However, as each database has its unique search syntax, query strings were created for each database separately. Table 2 presents the adapted query strings.

For this step, the titles and abstracts of the obtained articles were assessed using the predefined criteria for the purpose of inclusion and exclusion of articles. First, there were four criteria for the exclusion of articles in this study: (1) non-English article; (2) no online full text; (3) it does not present a blockchain application in education; and (4) the application is not practical (in the forms of opinions or viewpoints). The remaining articles were imported into EndNote, and the duplicates were removed. Finally, the full text of each article was evaluated to ensure that the article had all data needed for this systematic review.

A quality assessment was conducted for this systematic review. The quality of the review was ensured by relying on these scientific databases as the primary source for locating relevant publications. Only peer-reviewed articles published by prominent publishers were included in the systematic review. With that, the study was able to include articles of excellent quality for review.

Data from the included articles were then extracted using a data extraction form. The form was specifically created for this systematic review and tested on a group of four publications. Table 3 lists all 11 points considered for data extraction.

Once the data from the articles were extracted, data analysis was carried out. With respect to the research questions, key themes were used to analyse the extracted data. The themes included application, benefits, problems, and future application areas. Additionally, several subthemes of each key theme were developed.

From the above-mentioned nine scientific databases, a total of 1,342 articles were found: (1) 53 articles from ACM Digital Library; (2) 270 articles from IEEE Xplore; (3) 60 articles from ScienceDirect; (4) 23 articles from Taylor & Francis Online; (5) 64 articles from SAGE Journals; (6) 76 articles from ProQuest; (7) 87 articles from Springer; (8) 354 articles from Web of Science; and (9) 355 articles from Scopus.

Based on the title and abstract, the initial screening resulted in the elimination of 1,118 articles. Most of these articles were excluded because these studies did not demonstrate blockchain-based educational applications. In the second stage, another 175 articles were omitted due to the impractical nature of the applications (in the form of opinions or viewpoints). Finally, the remaining 49 articles were examined, and 29 duplicated articles were excluded. As a result, only 20 articles remained and were used for further analysis in this systematic review.

Following that, five more articles were removed during the full-text reading. These articles were eliminated because these articles did not provide sufficient data related to the topic under study. Conclusively, 15 articles were found to be suitable for this systematic review and were included for data extraction. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the systematic review process in the search and extraction of relevant articles for the study.

A total of 15 articles were included in the systematic review. The articles are listed according to the year of publication, as follows: (1) Grech and Camilleri (2017); (2) Hamida et al. (2017); (3) Ojo and Adebayo (2017); (4) AlSubaei (2019); (5) Chen et al. (2018); (6) Kshetri and Voas (2018); (7) Zheng et al. (2018); (8) Al-Otaibi et al. (2019); (9) Ghazawneh (2019); (10) Khan et al. (2019); (11) Alam and Benaida (2020); (12) Anisiuba (2020); (13) Asiri (2020); (14) Fedorova and Skobleva (2020); and (15) Ma and Fang (2020) (Table 4).

Figure 2 shows the distribution of articles by year of publication. All included articles for review were published during the recent 5 years. In general, there was no significant increase in the number of publications. In 2017, only three articles were published, and the number of articles slightly increased in 2018 and 2020. The number of articles remained the same in 2019. Overall, the distribution of articles by year of publication is as follows: three articles (20%) in 2017; four articles (27%) in 2018; three articles (20%) in 2019; and five articles (33%) in 2020.

It is worth noting that three other articles were included in this systematic review, but not presented in Figure 2 as these articles were published in the first 6 months of 2021 when the data collection for the study was concluded. This is because it does not reflect an accurate picture of the entire year 2021.

Figure 3 depicts the distribution of articles by publication venue. Out of 15 articles, eight articles (53%) were published in journals, and three articles (20%) were published in conference proceedings. The remaining articles were published in books (n = 2, 13%), policy papers (n = 1, 7%), and dissertations (n = 1, 7%).

Previous studies revealed the development of several blockchain applications in education. For this systematic review, these applications were categorised into seven categories: (1) managing educational certificates; (2) handling financial transactions; (3) designing smart contracts; (4) establishing blockchain ecosystems; (5) creating an LMS; (6) transforming students’ records; and (7) tracking learning performance. Table 5 presents the seven applications of blockchain technology in education.

As presented in Table 5, some classifications of the articles fall into different categories. The gathered articles revealed that most of the applications were geared towards the category of managing educational certificates. For instance, Grech and Camilleri (2017) reported ways of verifying students’ diplomas and professional certificates. Chen et al. (2018) and Kshetri and Voas (2018) used blockchain technology for academic degree management. Furthermore, Ma and Fang (2020) described certificate management in higher learning institutions. Similarly, Fedorova and Skobleva (2020) explained diploma certificates, while Asiri (2020) discussed the distribution of educational certificates.

In terms of handling financial transactions using blockchain technology, Grech and Camilleri (2017) noted student payment, while Kshetri and Voas (2018) focused on students’ financial transactions. Besides that, Alam and Benaida (2020) included student loans in the application of blockchain technology in the educational sector. Furthermore, Hamida et al. (2017), Ojo and Adebayo (2017), Zheng et al. (2018), and Al-Otaibi et al. (2019) also promoted the use of smart contracts in the management of higher education institutions.

Apart from that, blockchain technology can be used to establish blockchain ecosystems (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Zheng et al., 2018; Ghazawneh, 2019) and create an LMS (Khan et al., 2019; Alam and Benaida, 2020; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020; Ma and Fang, 2020). These applications include but are not limited to teaching educational courses, massive open online courses, teaching and learning platforms, and the online educational market. Finally, blockchain technology in the educational sector can be used to transform students’ records (Ma and Fang, 2020) and track their learning performance (Chen et al., 2018; Anisiuba, 2020) such as learning record keeper, evaluation of learning outcomes, and learning performance tracking.

The selected articles revealed five different benefits that blockchain technology provides for the education sector. Figure 4 shows the benefits of adopting blockchain technology in the education sector. The first advantage is associated with authentication, which was mentioned in eight articles (53%) as a key benefit of incorporating blockchain technology into education. According to these articles, blockchain technology can be highly valuable in certifying students’ identities and their digital certificates. The second important advantage of blockchain in the education sector is that it allows for more control over student evaluations. Seven articles (47%) stressed the benefit in which blockchain technology can improve the way students’ learning outcomes and performance are assessed.

Furthermore, improving the efficiency of data sharing and maintenance of student records is the third benefit, which was reported in five articles (33%). Enhancing trust is the fourth benefit that blockchain technology can offer to the education sector. Five articles (33%) described that blockchain technology can build confidence among all parties involved and make communication easier. Finally, the fifth advantage of using blockchain in education is that it reduces costs. This benefit was mentioned in three articles (20%), which described that blockchain technology can naturally assist in eliminating the excessive costs connected with data transactions and storage.

The reviewed articles emphasised four main challenges of adopting blockchain technology in education, which are depicted in Figure 5. The first challenge is related to the privacy and security of blockchain. Nine articles (60%) highlighted malicious attacks and data leaking, which are the most common examples of security and privacy risks that potentially arise when blockchain technology is used. The expense of implementing blockchain technology in education is the second main challenge. Seven articles (47%) addressed this issue from various perspectives, including the cost of processing power, the cost of altering current infrastructure, the cost of time due to slow-moving transactions, and the cost of managing a large amount of data.

Additionally, setting the boundaries of blockchain technology adoption is the third main challenge, which was mentioned in four articles (27%). These studies highlighted that educational institutions may have difficulty deciding which data and services should be made available over the blockchain network. Lastly, the fourth challenge is related to the weakening of the significance of traditional school credentials. According to one of the studies (7%), blockchain technology allows students to function as their own registrar of educational achievements; thereby, undermining the central role of educational institutions as certification agents.

Recently, a growing number of blockchain-based educational applications have been developed in Saudi Arabia. However, only a few applications have been released to the public (Hamida et al., 2017; Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; AlSubaei, 2019; Ghazawneh, 2019; Anisiuba, 2020; Asiri, 2020). As mentioned in the previous part of this systematic review, these applications are divided into seven different categories: (1) managing educational certificates; (2) handling financial transactions; (3) designing smart contracts; (4) establishing blockchain ecosystems; (5) creating an LMS; (6) transforming students’ records; and (7) tracking learning performance. Each category focuses on different aspects of trust, privacy, or security in educational settings.

The first category focuses on certain certificate management-related applications. This category includes all types of academic credentials, transcripts, academic certificates, and other achievement records (Kshetri and Voas, 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020). Currently, blockchain has been used in many applications in the education sector to create digital certificates. Such high levels of trust and secrecy afforded by blockchain technology have improved the majority of these applications. Almost similarly, Nespor (2019) proposed a blockchain certification platform that rewards institutions for acting as certifying agents. This programme would allow higher education institutions or employers to issue official certificates to students while maintaining a high level of data protection. As a result, students can present certificates to anyone who needs the official documents. Likewise, Han et al. (2018) utilised the decentralised nature of blockchain technology in the creation of new blockchain-based education records to check and provide authentic transcripts or certificates. Individuals may have access to their personal data records. Nevertheless, only certified organisations, under certain conditions and criteria, are allowed to access and edit the system’s stored data.

Handling financial transactions falls into the second category. Considering the great security and trust of blockchain, it contains certain applications with similar qualities to transfer credential data or fees across institutions, corporations, or even universities (Chen et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2018; Ma and Fang, 2020). Typically, educational institutions entrust the handling and approval of credit or fee transfers to a third party or intermediary. Due to its high-security level, blockchain may be utilised as an efficient way to share information and eliminate the need for third or intermediary parties. Similarly, the EduCTX system (Hölbl et al., 2018) used tokens to facilitate the transfer procedure. For learning units like certificates, courses, and diplomas, these tokens can take any digital form. Therefore, to ensure a secure transfer process, each educational institution has its own EduCTX address.

The third category of using the blockchain involves designing smart contracts, which is related to copyright management and ownership rights (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020). In line with that, Hori et al. (2018) explored the use of a decentralised learning system called “CHiLO” to preserve the copyrights and ownerships of e-books. Furthermore, protecting learning objects is another category that underlines the need of using the blockchain application to safeguard any new information or learning objects collected from students or faculty members. Furthermore, Sychov and Chirtsov (2018), for example, created a unified bank of learning elements that includes the electronic educational environment (EEE). As a resource protection approach is required due to the large number of resources available, the study deployed a legal blockchain method to preserve essential scientific resources.

The fourth category involves establishing blockchain ecosystems. For example, blockchain technology has been useful in boosting the components of lifelong learning, such as skills, knowledge, and efficiency (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Kshetri and Voas, 2018; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020). In line with this, Mikroyannidis et al. (2018) discussed how blockchain technology has influenced real-world learning and presented an ecosystem that places learners at the centre of the learning process and data. The study also specifically noted how blockchain technology can be used to establish accreditation, tutoring, and ePortfolios within this lifelong learning ecosystem. By giving learners the entire control and ownership over their learning processes, the suggested model can help them create an effective strategy for their educational journey based on their desired career path.

Creating an LMS is the fifth category of application that embraces blockchain technology to solve various challenges related to students’ interactivity in an e-learning environment (Khan et al., 2019). In this sense, Zhong et al. (2018) proposed a potential application based on the blockchain approach. This application was created to increase student involvement in the classroom. Based on specified regulations deployed on the blockchain network, top-ranked learners are awarded in the form of virtual money.

The sixth category is related to students’ professionalism with the specific aim of transforming students’ records (Zheng et al., 2018; AlSubaei, 2019; Asiri, 2020). In a different study, Liu et al. (2018) used blockchain technology to create a link between educational institutions and employment firms, allowing them to share all required information about recruiting and industry requirements. Similarly, Zhao et al. (2019) built a blockchain-based application software to evaluate students’ professional talents based on their academic achievements and performances, which could subsequently be shared with any interested industry. Based on the blockchain’s clustering algorithm, the evaluation system was created to measure and analyse students’ talents.

Finally, the seventh category focuses on tracking learning performance. Building certain blockchain applications have received more attention to improve learning objectives and increase competency attainment within the educational scope (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; Ghazawneh, 2019). This would serve to improve the learning process and broaden the scope of instructions. Several applications can measure and evaluate the performance of students based on qualitative and quantitative metrics due to the great efficiency of the blockchain. For example, Farah et al. (2018) developed a method to track students’ multi-learning activity performance. The developed method accumulates all traces for each activity into a block on its own. This learning block is known as self-descriptive, as it contains all metadata for a variety of activities. Through this application, a high level of self-efficiency is achieved. Almost similarly, Williams (2019) offered a learning environment for students through another application. The system provides immediate or direct assistance as well as useful feedback. The study designed the system to improve the learning process by encouraging critical thinking and problem-solving, as well as better teamwork and communication.

Education and sustainable development in Saudi Arabia can benefit greatly from blockchain technology in the following five areas: certifying identity authentication, improving learning assessment, maintaining student records, enhancing trust, and reducing costs.

First, blockchain technology ensures the validity of digital certificates as well as the users’ identities (Chen et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Asiri, 2020). In line with that, Bandara et al. (2018) explained that the digital syllabus is stored in a blockchain. The constructed blocks are signed with a private key by the authorised university. Following that, a cryptographic hash of the course curriculum is issued to verify that the materials cannot be tampered with. The hash and key that belong to the originating institution are used by the university to authenticate the legitimacy of the data.

Second, improving learning assessment is one of the main features and benefits of the blockchain (Zheng et al., 2018; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020; Ma and Fang, 2020). Many other studies support this assumption. Arenas and Fernandez (2018), for instance, presented an excellent example of how a permissioned blockchain platform can be utilised to limit access to academic credentials to only the intended participants. In line with that, Han et al. (2018) believed that only accredited organisations with certain permissions can access and modify the data stored on the blockchain platform. Furthermore, employing blockchain technology improves both accountability and transparency. Keeping all educational or school records in a single location, where they can be easily accessed, improves the accountability and openness of the application. Additionally, Bore et al. (2017) used the School Information Hub (SIH) system, which is built on a blockchain, to gather and store school reports and records. This technology was said to have aided in increasing the transparency of shared data as well as the flexibility of analysing, correlating, and disseminating the data.

Third, another significant advantage of blockchain technology is that it improves the efficiency of maintaining student records. The use of blockchain in education reduces the possibility of trade errors between intended parties (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; Anisiuba, 2020). Blockchain technology uses a single ledger to share data quicker and more efficiently. Due to its flexibility and openness, blockchain increases the effectiveness of handling digital records and certificates. Almost similarly, Gresch et al. (2018) presented “UZHBC,” a blockchain system at the University of Zurich, which handles the degrees while taking into account many stakeholder requirements. Furthermore, educational institutions, students, and employment agencies can achieve efficiency and transparency in advising recommendations by exchanging student information using the blockchain system (Liu et al., 2018).

Fourth, another benefit of blockchain technology is the ability to enhance trust. Only trustworthy parties can add blocks to the network, and only trusted parties can access the network (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Kshetri and Voas, 2018; Asiri, 2020). Trust is a major challenge when one is required to interact with officials from several places. By deploying secure and dependable blockchain-based solutions, universities and other educational institutions can create a trustworthy community. In another study, Turkanoviæ et al. (2018) introduced EduCTX, a blockchain-based platform for credit and grading. It sends tokens to trusted third parties. These tokens are based on the number of completed credits in the students’ records, resulting in the development of a worldwide trusted and unified system for higher education organisations.

Finally, the use of blockchain to minimise expenses in the education sector can be rather beneficial. Storage fees associated with transaction charges and the cost of administering and maintaining educational records are all included in the total expenses (Zheng et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Ma and Fang, 2020). The cost of typical cloud-based storage is considerably reduced when a public or private distributed network that can be accessed from anywhere is employed. In this sense, according to Han et al. (2018), verifying and processing academic certifications generally incur additional costs, which can be lowered using blockchain. Furthermore, using blockchain technology in the classroom can improve student evaluations. Duan et al. (2017) used blockchain to quantify learning performance based on the students’ learning outcomes. Grades, course name, learning outcome name, course weight, and graduation requirement indicators are all contained in each block. Other universities or institutions can obtain the information and communicate accordingly after assessing the learning outcome successes.

Although blockchain has demonstrated its potential in the education sector, there are several issues to consider before this technology can be implemented. This systematic review divided the challenges into four fundamental categories: leaking privacy and security, processing cost, setting the boundaries, and weakening school credentials.

First, blockchain technology is known for its security, but the possibility of malicious attacks cannot be eliminated (Zheng et al., 2018; Ma and Fang, 2020). On the other hand, other studies showed that it is extremely difficult to offer security while maintaining privacy (Arenas and Fernandez, 2018; Han et al., 2018). This issue becomes even more critical when one’s job is in jeopardy (online authorisation of educational credentials and certificates). Many blockchain architectures utilise public and private keys to maintain anonymity. However, as the data of each public key is publicly viewable (Farah et al., 2018), blockchain cannot guarantee transactional privacy. As a result, those transactions can be linked, and personal information would be revealed. The proper storage and safeguarding of all members’ private keys are also part of the security issues that should be resolved amicably (Turkanoviæ et al., 2018). Data leaking is a security issue that occurs because of frequent data modifications, which should be taken into account (Gilda and Mehrotra, 2018).

Second, blockchain is a new technology that must be integrated with the existing systems. The costs of acceptance and execution, on the other hand, can be rather expensive (Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; AlSubaei, 2019; Anisiuba, 2020). Apart from the installation cost, many blockchain solutions have substantial transaction or processing costs (Farah et al., 2018). As previously stated, the costs of managing and storing such large amounts of student data would increase with the size of block size in tandem with the number of users (Han et al., 2018). It is difficult to incorporate this technology into conventional education systems without regulating the development and operational costs (Bore et al., 2017; Purdon and Erturk, 2017).

Third, there is also a lack of clarity in setting the boundaries. It is plausible that some businesses do not want to use blockchain technology for their operations (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Ghazawneh, 2019; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020). Without articulating the possible benefits of blockchain in the existing systems, a major hurdle will be established (Sharples and Domingue, 2016). It is also crucial to determine who sets the boundaries on the extent of an institution requiring technology transfer and the number of blockchain processes the institution should implement (Turkanoviæ et al., 2018). Early regulatory compliance partnership between the government or higher education and the private sector can set the pace for blockchain implementation in the education sector.

Fourth, decentralised blockchain technology can affect the centralised character of any educational system’s process (Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; AlSubaei, 2019; Asiri, 2020). The availability of a continuously aggregating ledger, such as blockchain, can influence the value of a conventional school diploma (Nespor, 2019). Since blockchain technology is one of the most significant advancements in recent history, it will most likely take a long time for the technology to gain widespread acceptance because there are several issues related to blockchain adoption that must be addressed before the technology can be used in the education sector.

Blockchain technology can be used in the education and sustainable development sector in a variety of novel ways, even beyond diploma management and success evaluation (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Hamida et al., 2017; Ojo and Adebayo, 2017). It has significant potential for both learners and teachers in terms of formative evaluation, learning activity design and implementation, and keeping track of the entire learning process (Chen et al., 2018; Kshetri and Voas, 2018; AlSubaei, 2019). This section discusses some investment opportunities of blockchain technology in the sphere of education.

Blockchain can be used in educational contracts and transactions. For example, a smart contract running on the Ethereum blockchain network is simply a computer programme that simulates a genuine contract (such as economic transactions, employment, etc.). It can help with contract negotiations, contract terms, contract execution, and contract fulfilment verification. The programme can digitally identify the unique and precise identity of parties in a transaction (contract subjects) and codify the rights and obligations of both parties (contract terms) (Zheng et al., 2018; Ghazawneh, 2019). This presents a good opportunity for an organisation to invest in this programme.

For a typical transaction, for instance, the smart contract not only saves “third party costs” but also drastically increases transaction security and reliability. Another example is in the case of automobile installation. Rather than taking out a bank loan, the buyer can directly negotiate with the seller, avoiding any additional processing fees. The code is then performed, and the smart contract will be cancelled if the buyer breaks the rules. The smart contract outperforms the regular contract in terms of executive power and fairness (Khan et al., 2019; Anisiuba, 2020). As a result, several educational challenges can be resolved if teachers and students carry out teaching and learning activities based on a smart contract.

Blockchain can be used to inspire students through the concept of “learning is earning” (Sharples and Domingue, 2016) due to its currency property. This presents a good opportunity to invest in blockchain technology for the education sector considering that there are certain negative subjective or objective factors affecting students’ poor learning outcomes, such as the lack of desire and financial pressure. In educational settings, a smart contract between teachers and students can be used. Instructors can issue students real-time prizes with a few simple clicks. As for the reward, students receive an amount of digital money based on the smart contract (Asiri, 2020; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020; Ma and Fang, 2020). In this sense, money can be kept in their digital wallet, which can be spent for tuition, and even swapped for actual money.

Another good investment opportunity in blockchain technology involves educational evaluation. Evaluation can be a challenge in the educational system. For example, formative assessment has long been supported, but it is still not fully adopted because it is difficult to follow every detail of teaching and learning. This problem can be solved by using blockchain and smart contracts. Due to the immutability, traceability, and trustworthiness of blockchain, all the stored data are more particular, authentic, and anti-theft (Hamida et al., 2017; Kshetri and Voas, 2018; AlSubaei, 2019). In line with that, collaborative learning can be recognised as a good technique to implement constructivist instruction and develop students’ ability to collaborate with others.

Furthermore, collaborative learning is frequently coupled with the issue of free-riding, which makes impartial appraisal difficult. This can be addressed using blockchain technology. Students can individually submit their work to the learning platform via a unique account, where a smart contract reviews their performance and records the results in blocks. All collaborative behaviours are recorded in blocks as evidence for evaluation (Al-Otaibi et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2019; Anisiuba, 2020). In this case, decentralisation is a feature of a public blockchain. This implies that the distributed ledger assures that most nodes are consistent. Students’ opinions are considered as nodes in the blockchain network, which would be evaluated accordingly. As a result, blockchain can assure fair evaluation.

On a similar note, teachers have reported that the sophisticated and artistic nature of education and sustainable development makes it difficult to evaluate students’ learning outcomes. The old method based on student input is one-sided, lacks subjectivity, and is not very beneficial for teachers’ professional development. Based on the blockchain network and smart contracts, a new assessment system can be built (Grech and Camilleri, 2017; Asiri, 2020; Ma and Fang, 2020). First, teachers must submit pre-planned instructional activities to schools, as part of a smart contract. All instructional actions are recorded in the blockchain network during the teaching process. The smart contract ensures consistent instructional design and practice, which are the key signal for evaluating instructions. Furthermore, a smart contract between teachers and schools, as well as a smart contract between teachers and students can be checked and reinforced by one another. Teachers who meet the requirements are rewarded with digital currency. It serves as a compliment and a source of encouragement for teachers.

In terms of student development, an academic supervisor is directly accountable for the supervision of each student. The academic supervisor is responsible for supporting students in developing study plans and keeping track of their research efforts and progress. However, as these concerns are not examined and supervised in practice, it is difficult to recognise problems if any unfavourable event takes place. If smart contracts and blockchain technology are applied in this sector, the situation will be different. A smart contract platform keeps track of all information and records them in the blockchain ledger such as the number of times a supervisor meets the students in the previous semester, the number of times the supervisor reviews the thesis (in the draft and final forms), or any advice provided in terms of students’ course choices and research design (Ojo and Adebayo, 2017; Zheng et al., 2018; Fedorova and Skobleva, 2020). The behaviours of both academic supervisors and their respective students can be recorded in the blockchain ledger due to the traceability and immutability of blockchain technology. This cutting-edge programme can safeguard the interests of both parties.

Overall, blockchain can be utilised to create a balance that can be used to assess the learning process and outcomes. It is trustworthy and equal evidence of value for all. Due to its decentralisation and immutability, blockchain can theoretically solve problems of information asymmetry and trust among strangers. As knowledge and value are disclosed and maintained jointly, blockchain technology can ensure authenticity. It provides a secure platform for talent acquisition or investment. Users who are more knowledgeable about digital currencies have a better probability of gaining appreciation and investment. Everything that a learner has ever learnt is recorded in a blockchain ledger. Employers make use of information to match applicants with the job that fits their qualifications. Employers who seek competent employees, on the other hand, can make use of the blockchain ledger. This significantly reduces the likelihood of investment bias and failure. In a nutshell, blockchain serves the interests of both parties.