Emerging trends in didactic perspectives in virtual higher education: a bibliometric analysis (2015–2025)

This study adopts a descriptive design to explore emerging didactic perspectives in virtual higher education, focusing on predominant thematic areas in the field. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on a purposive sample of 63 articles published between 2015 and 2025, selected from an initial pool of 2,848 publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The study analyzed the frequency and temporal distribution of themes by categorizing titles, abstracts, and keywords. Results showed that humanistic education and digital pedagogy were the most frequently addressed topics, representing over 36% of the publications. Research output increased significantly from 2020, peaking in 2021 with nearly 24% of the total publications. The average annual number of publications was 5.73, with a standard deviation of 5.26, indicating variability over time. Emerging topics such as connectivism, cyberculture, and ethical considerations in virtual education were less represented but are gaining interest. The analysis highlights a growing emphasis on integrating affective, ethical, and relational dimensions into virtual pedagogical practices alongside technological innovation. These findings underscore the evolving nature of research in digital education and provide critical insights for future studies aimed at enhancing inclusivity, engagement, and meaningful learning experiences in virtual higher education environments.

1 Introduction

Over the past decade, higher education has undergone profound transformations driven by rapid advancements in digital technologies. Virtual education has emerged as a pivotal mechanism to enhance access, dismantling geographic, social, and economic barriers that historically limited higher education opportunities. Digital platforms have broadened educational access, enabling learners from diverse backgrounds, including those in remote and underserved areas, to engage in higher education without the traditional constraints of time and place Flores-Rivera and Meléndez-Tamayo (2023). This expansion aligns with a global agenda to democratize education by fostering greater inclusivity and flexibility in learning modalities.

Nonetheless, this accelerated digital growth has surfaced complex pedagogical challenges. Despite the widespread adoption of online programs, a significant gap remains in understanding how instructional strategies and pedagogical frameworks impact learning outcomes in virtual environments. Often, technological adoption is prioritized over pedagogical effectiveness, resulting in educational experiences focused primarily on content transmission rather than fostering interactive, meaningful learning processes that stimulate critical thinking and deep engagement (Cortijo-Ruiz et al., 2023; Moreno-Salamanca, 2021). Moreover, the asynchronous and physically dispersed nature of virtual learning can contribute to a depersonalized experience, risking the erosion of social and ethical dimensions essential to holistic education (Alastor et al., 2023; Tamayo-Giraldo and Guarín-Jurado, 2023).

Recent research highlights the critical role of faculty digital competence and lived experiences, particularly during emergency remote teaching, in shaping the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning environments. These findings emphasize the need to support educators through ongoing professional development and technological resources to foster quality digital pedagogy (Mondragon-Estrada et al., 2023). Innovations in distance education, encompassing novel instructional methods, assessment techniques, and interactive technologies, are central to meeting the evolving demands of digital learners while maintaining academic rigor (Li et al., 2023).

The digital transformation within higher education extends beyond technical aspects to encompass institutional and cultural shifts. Systemic and cultural barriers often hinder the integration of digital pedagogy, necessitating changes in institutional mindsets, faculty practices, and student engagement approaches (Bitar and Davidovich, 2024). Concurrently, contemporary digital learning environments must address equity concerns, including disparities in access and the ethical use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and adaptive learning systems (Zou et al., 2025). Tackling these issues is vital to ensure digital education advances social justice rather than perpetuating existing inequalities.

Pedagogically, constructivist, connectivist, and collaborative learning frameworks continue to underpin online education by promoting learner autonomy, knowledge co-construction, and social interaction (Martín-Lucas, 2021; Mulumeoderhwa-Mufungizi, 2024; Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023). However, adapting these theories to digital contexts requires careful integration of technology that encourages active engagement, personalized learning paths, and community-building among learners. Scholars advocate for a critical digital pedagogy that not only harnesses ICT for cognitive development but also interrogates power dynamics and fosters emancipatory educational practices (Pinedo-Cantillo, 2019).

Emerging dialogic and humanistic pedagogies further enrich this evolving landscape by positioning educators as facilitators of holistic learning experiences that integrate cognitive, affective, and ethical dimensions (Ferreiro-Galguero, 2022; Gunawan et al., 2024). The concept of sentipensante, which unites feeling and thinking in the learning process (Fals-Borda, 2009), provides a valuable lens for cultivating deeper understanding and emotional engagement. Likewise, pedagogies grounded in love, care, and ethical relationality emphasize empathy, respect, and dignity as foundational elements of educational interactions, particularly crucial in virtual spaces where relational dynamics are harder to sustain (Freire, 1982; Maturana, 1996; Nogueroles-Jové, 2022).

This holistic vision insists that technology should serve human-centered educational goals, nurturing not only knowledge acquisition but also students’ social and emotional development. Such perspectives resonate with contemporary calls to move beyond instrumentalist uses of technology and recognize the ethical and transformative potential of virtual learning environments.

Given this context, this descriptive study employs a bibliometric approach to identify and analyze predominant thematic trends in virtual education research over the last decade. By examining the frequency, temporal distribution, and thematic focus of 63 key studies from 2015 to 2025, this work aims to illuminate the evolving landscape of digital pedagogy. The findings reveal critical insights into how educational research prioritizes humanistic and technological dimensions, highlighting areas of growth and emerging gaps.

2 Theoretical framework and literature review

Digital pedagogy has undergone a substantial transformation, driven by rapid technological innovation and evolving instructional paradigms. A central component of this shift is the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and adaptive learning systems, which enable real-time analysis of learner data and support personalized learning pathways (Cortijo-Ruiz et al., 2023). These systems have been associated with enhanced engagement and self-regulated learning (Chwen-Jen and Chee-Siong, 2022). Yet, despite their pedagogical promise, scholars caution against uncritical adoption, emphasizing the need to interrogate the ethical, social, and epistemic implications of AI in higher education.

Growing debates highlight concerns related to data privacy, algorithmic bias, and structural inequities intensified by digitalization (Bitar and Davidovich, 2024). Rather than viewing AI as a neutral tool, recent analyses underscore its embeddedness within socio-technical systems that can reproduce or amplify disparities. As Cohen et al. (2017) argues, digital pedagogy must therefore extend beyond technological efficiency toward frameworks grounded in equity, justice, and ethical responsibility. This shift demands policies, pedagogical models, and institutional practices that foreground transparency and inclusive design.

Alongside these ethical questions, collaborative online learning environments have introduced new pedagogical dynamics. Digital platforms facilitate diverse participation and distributed knowledge exchange, but meaningful collaboration requires deliberate instructional design that supports community building and dialogic interaction. Studies demonstrate that online collaboration becomes effective when activities promote co-construction of knowledge, peer scaffolding, and critical reflection, fostering deeper learning (Fiormonte et al., 2020).

2.1 Critical gap and contribution of this study

Although research on digital pedagogy is expanding, existing bibliometric and systematic reviews tend to examine fragmented dimensions of the field, such as AI adoption, digital competencies, or online learning during COVID-19, without integrating their broader pedagogical, ethical, and humanistic implications. Current reviews often:

prioritize technological trends over pedagogical meaning or thematic depth

focus on isolated subfields instead of the holistic evolution of digital pedagogy

rely heavily on productivity metrics (citations, co-authorship networks) rather than conceptual or epistemic analysis

overlook how humanistic, ethical, and collaborative dimensions intersect with digital transformation.

This leaves a conceptual and methodological gap: the field lacks a bibliometric synthesis that critically maps pedagogical trends while engaging with ethical, humanistic, and socio-cultural perspectives.

2.2 Positioning of the present study

This study addresses this gap through a systematic bibliometric analysis of pedagogical trends in virtual higher education, offering an integrated perspective that:

identifies how humanistic and ethical principles are embedded—or absent—in digital pedagogy

examines the evolution of pedagogical models in response to technological and socio-cultural pressures

maps the thematic relationships between digital competence, collaboration, and AI-mediated learning

analyzes how educators negotiate tensions between innovation, equity, and pedagogical intentionality.

By synthesizing these dimensions, the study contributes a more comprehensive understanding of the evolving landscape of digital pedagogy and proposes an interpretive framework that connects emerging technologies with humanistic, ethical, and dialogic principles. This approach responds to current calls for pedagogical innovation that is not only technologically advanced but also socially responsible and learner-centered.

3 Methodology

The study adopted a quantitative approach with a descriptive design. The bibliometric dataset was constructed using publications retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. From this corpus, a purposive sample of studies was selected based on explicit thematic relevance to digital and virtual higher education.

To classify the selected articles, the study employed emergent coding of titles, abstracts, and keywords. Although the coding process prioritized inductive category generation, a preliminary coding scheme was first developed through an initial open-coding round involving both reviewers. During this phase, coders independently identified recurring pedagogical, technological, and methodological descriptors. These preliminary codes were then compared, consolidated, and refined into a provisional coding guide.

Coders applied this guide to a pilot subset of documents, after which discrepancies were discussed and decision rules were clarified to ensure conceptual coherence. Only after achieving consensus was the full coding process conducted. Inter-rater reliability for the final coding, calculated using Cohen’s kappa, showed high agreement, indicating consistency across coders.

Descriptive analyses were then performed using frequency tables to identify dominant research themes, approach enabled the identification of both structural patterns and temporal trends in virtual higher education research.

3.1 Purposive sampling strategy and sample size justification

Given the large number of records initially identified (n = 2,848), a purposive sampling strategy was adopted to narrow the corpus to publications most relevant to the study’s pedagogical and theoretical focus. While purposive sampling is indeed recommended for selecting information-rich cases aligned with specific research aims (Creswell and Creswell, 2018), its application requires clear documentation to allow readers to evaluate the relevance and coherence of the final sample. In the present study, the rationale for determining which cases qualified as “information-rich” was only partially articulated, limiting the reader’s ability to assess the appropriateness of the selected documents.

To enhance transparency and mitigate this limitation, the selection process was organized as a structured multistage procedure following a PRISMA-style flow (Page et al., 2021). Records were screened at the title, abstract, and full-text levels, and exclusion reasons were documented at each stage. The PRISMA diagram (Figure 1) illustrates this progression from initial identification to final inclusion. However, despite this structured workflow, the criteria guiding subjective decisions during screening, particularly those used to determine theoretical or pedagogical relevance, require further specification to substantiate the purposive sampling strategy fully.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The PRISMA flow diagram was adapted to present the data. This PRISMA-style flow diagram summarizes the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages of the bibliometric analysis.

3.1.1 Strengthening the sample size justification

The final sample comprised 63 studies, a size appropriate for descriptive bibliometric analysis. Literature on bibliometric mapping indicates that samples between 30 and 100 documents provide stable thematic structures and allow for meaningful quantitative pattern identification. Similarly, power analysis suggests that a sample between 50 and 70 observations offers sufficient statistical power (0.80) to detect medium correlations (r ≈0.30) at α = 0.05—consistent with the correlational analyses conducted in this study.

Thus, the sample size balances diversity, analytical depth, and statistical sufficiency, ensuring robust conclusions without compromising methodological rigor.

3.2 Selection criteria

3.2.1 Operationalized criteria for thematic alignment

To minimize subjectivity in the screening process, thematic alignment was operationalized using a coding rubric based on recurrent themes in virtual education research. Titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened using the following keyword clusters:

Virtual Pedagogy: “virtual teaching,” “online pedagogy,” “digital didactics,” “remote instruction,” “instructional design.”

Pedagogical Models and Theories: “constructivism,” “connectivism,” “competency-based learning,” “learning theories in virtual environments.”

Educational Technology: “LMS,” “e-learning tools,” “ICT in education,” “educational software,” “edtech.”

Humanistic Approaches: humanistic education, student-centered learning, ethics in virtual learning, and holistic education.

Historical/Critical Perspectives: evolution of virtual education, critical pedagogy, critical digital education.

A publication met the criterion for inclusion when two independent coders confirmed alignment with at least one thematic cluster based on two or more matched keywords or conceptual descriptors.

3.2.2 Operationalized criteria for methodological rigor

Methodological rigor was assessed using a structured evaluation rubric adapted from Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2017). Studies were included only if they met all the following conditions:

Clear research design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or bibliometric).

Transparent data collection and analysis procedures allowing for reproducibility.

Sufficient methodological detail enabling classification and variable extraction.

Peer-reviewed publication in an academic journal or similar scholarly source.

Empirical or theoretical relevance to virtual or distance education.

Studies were excluded if they lacked methodological detail, were editorial/opinion pieces, or did not provide data contributing to the aims of the study.

3.3 PRISMA procedure

To ensure methodological transparency, the study implemented a PRISMA-style screening process. Table 1 presents the data extracted during the heuristic phase of the systematic mapping.

TABLE 1

Table 1. PRISMA-based data from the heuristic phase of the systematic mapping.

3.3.1 PRISMA narrative description

The PRISMA methodology enhanced the systematic mapping by providing a clear, structured, and replicable selection process. Screening occurred in four stages:

1. Identification: 2,848 records were gathered from Scopus, SciELO, Google Scholar, and other sources.

2. Screening: Titles and abstracts were examined, removing irrelevant, duplicated, or non–higher-education materials.

3. Eligibility: Full texts of eligible studies were evaluated for methodological rigor and thematic relevance.

4. Inclusion: Only studies meeting all criteria were retained, resulting in the final set of 63 articles used for quantitative and correlational analysis.

3.4 Instrument reliability

In order to ensure methodological rigor in the quantitative component of the study, particular emphasis was placed on evaluating the reliability of the data collection instrument. A coding matrix was developed to systematically classify academic publications according to thematic areas, year of publication, and frequency of occurrence. Prior to the full-scale analysis, a pilot coding phase was conducted involving two independent researchers, allowing for the assessment of inter-rater reliability. The results indicated a high level of agreement, suggesting that the instrument produced consistent and replicable outcomes across different coders. This reliability assessment was critical for ensuring the internal consistency of the categorization process and for supporting the validity of subsequent descriptive and correlational analyses related to pedagogical trends in virtual education.

3.5 Data analysis

Regarding the descriptive design, the analysis prioritized the construction of tables to present the absolute and relative frequencies for each thematic area. As shown in Table 2, articles related to Humanistic Training and Approach constituted the largest share, representing 20.63% of the total publications. They were followed by 10 articles on Didactics and Pedagogical Models in Virtual Environments (15.87%) and nine studies on Educational Technology (14.29%). The least represented areas, each accounting for 4.76%, were Connectivism and Cyberculture and Virtual Education and Its Historical/Critical Evolution. The column labeled “Most Recent Year of Publication” reveals that the latest article in the Humanistic Training and Approach category was published in 2021, whereas for Didactics and Pedagogical Models, it was 2022. By relating the most recent publication year to the absolute frequency for each category, the study further explored the correlation between these variables, as detailed in the subsequent sections.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Article frequencies by thematic areas.

Figure 2 graphically presents the absolute frequencies of the main thematic areas identified in this study.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Absolute frequencies by thematic areas. The absolute frequencies corresponding to each thematic area identified in the bibliometric analysis.

The percentage of articles related to pedagogical trends in virtual education was also calculated (see Table 3), using the following indicator:

$\text{Percentage of}\mathrm{production}=$

$\left(\frac{\mathrm{Number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{publications}\mathrm{per}\mathrm{year}}{\mathrm{Total}\mathrm{publications}\mathrm{from}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2015}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2025}}\right)\times 100$

TABLE 3

Table 3. Percentage of articles published from 2015 to 2025.

The data indicates that 2021 was the most productive year for publications on pedagogical trends in virtual education, accounting for 23.81% of the total output during the period analyzed. This was followed closely by 2022 with 22.22%, and 2023 with 15.87%. Notably, no relevant publications were found for 2016, and only one article (1.59%) was recorded for 2015.

Complementary to this quantitative distribution, Figure 3 illustrates a steady growth in publications from 2016 through 2021, reaching a peak in 2021. Afterward, a decline in scholarly output on this topic is observed.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Temporal analysis. The temporal distribution of publications included in the review, illustrating annual production trends from 2015 to 2025.

Additionally, the average annual number of publications on pedagogical trends in virtual education was calculated, revealing an average of 5.73 publications per year. This average was obtained using the following formula:

$AnnualAverage=\frac{Totalpublications}{Numberofyears(2025-2015)}=\frac{63}{11}=5.73$

The associated standard deviation was 5.26, indicating that the dataset exhibits considerable heterogeneity and high variability relative to the annual average.

4 Results

The quantitative bibliometric analysis of 63 selected articles on pedagogical trends in virtual higher education, spanning the period from 2015 to 2025, reveals significant thematic concentrations and temporal dynamics that reflect broader shifts in digital education research.

4.1 Thematic distribution

The most represented thematic area was Humanistic Training and Approach, comprising 20.63% of the total publications (Table 1). This finding aligns with current educational discourses emphasizing the integration of affective, ethical, and holistic pedagogical dimensions within virtual environments (Hsin-Lan et al., 2022). The prominence of this category reflects a growing recognition that digital education should transcend mere content delivery to nurture emotional intelligence, ethical relationality, and the social dimensions of learning (Liu et al., 2024; Stolba et al., 2024). These approaches resonate with critical pedagogy frameworks and humanistic theories that advocate for education centered on learner wellbeing and transformative experiences (Zhao et al., 2024).

Following closely, Didactics and Pedagogical Models in Virtual Environments represented 15.87% of publications, underscoring the sustained scholarly interest in instructional design and teaching strategies optimized for online contexts. This echoes findings by García-Arias (2023), who emphasize the necessity for adaptive, learner-centered pedagogies that foster active engagement, collaboration, and meaningful interaction despite spatial and temporal barriers.

Research focusing on Educational Technology, encompassing ICT, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and emergent platforms such as the metaverse, accounted for 14.29%. This thematic concentration illustrates the continuous exploration of innovative digital tools that facilitate not only content dissemination but also personalized learning pathways and interactive experiences (Filip et al., 2022; Morales-Chan et al., 2024; Reyes-Parra et al., 2024). The presence of this category reflects the rapid technological evolution driving changes in educational delivery and assessment.

Less represented were Connectivism and Cyberculture and Virtual Education and Its Historical and Critical Evolution, each at 4.76%. These underexplored areas present fertile ground for future research, particularly regarding the socio-cultural implications of digital learning ecosystems and the critical examination of virtual education’s evolution within historical and political contexts (Gros-Salvat, 2018; Ros, 2011). These perspectives encourage a reflexive stance on digital pedagogy that interrogates power relations, digital inequalities, and the socio-technical assemblages shaping education today.

4.2 Temporal trends

The temporal distribution of publications reveals a clear upward trajectory from 2016 to 2021, peaking in 2021 with 23.81% of the total studies published (Table 2 and Figure 1). This surge coincides with the COVID-19 pandemic, which acted as a catalyst for rapid digital transformation in higher education worldwide (Ballestas, 2024; Guo et al., 2020). The pandemic’s exigencies accelerated research into pedagogical adaptations, faculty digital competence, and technology integration, reflecting urgent responses to emergency remote teaching (Anderson and Rivera-Vargas, 2020; Reich, 2020).

Following the 2021 peak, a noticeable decline in publications was observed, which may suggest a normalization phase in virtual education research or a shift toward emerging areas such as hybrid models, equity-focused investigations, and critical digital pedagogy (Bozkurt et al., 2018; Petchamé et al., 2023). This fluctuation in scholarly output is consistent with the dynamic nature of digital education research, which often responds to sociopolitical contexts, technological innovations, and institutional priorities.

The average annual publication rate was 5.73, with a standard deviation of 5.26, indicating substantial variability in research production. This heterogeneity may reflect episodic funding availability, shifting academic interests, and the evolving challenges posed by technological and pedagogical transformations (Guerrero-Lucero, 2022; Libardoni and Iribure-Junior, 2024; Winarko and Budiwati, 2024).

5 Limitations

Although this study employed a rigorous methodological framework and comprehensive data analysis to explore thematic trends in virtual higher education research, certain limitations must be acknowledged to frame the findings appropriately. While ensuring relevance and quality, the purposive sampling strategy inherently limits the generalizability of results to the broader global research landscape. Furthermore, reliance on selected major databases may have inadvertently excluded valuable contributions published in less visible outlets or in languages beyond English and Spanish. These factors, combined with the temporal scope and the quantitative emphasis of the analysis, suggest that the trends identified should be interpreted with caution and as part of an evolving academic conversation.

Recognizing these constraints is essential to situate the study’s contributions within their proper context and to guide future research efforts. Addressing gaps such as the inclusion of practitioner literature, qualitative explorations of underlying pedagogical frameworks, and more diverse data sources will deepen understanding of how virtual higher education is conceptualized and practiced across varied contexts. By transparently discussing these limitations, this study strengthens the credibility of its findings and highlights important directions for continued inquiry that can enrich the field and inform evidence-based educational innovation.

6 Validity considerations

The validity of the findings is further constrained by the characteristics of the data sources used. Standard bibliometric analyses typically rely on curated, stable, and highly reproducible datasets from databases such as Scopus or Web of Science, which apply consistent indexing criteria and facilitate rigorous de-duplication and harmonization. In contrast, the inclusion of Google Scholar, while increasing coverage, introduces significant noise due to its dynamic, non-transparent indexing mechanisms and its tendency to retrieve heterogeneous document types of variable quality. As a result, replicating search results from Google Scholar is inherently challenging, reducing the reproducibility of the dataset.

The combination of Google Scholar with Scopus (and other sources) requires a clearly defined de-duplication and harmonization protocol to ensure validity; however, such a protocol was not fully articulated in this study. Without explicit procedures detailing how duplicate records were identified, merged, or excluded, there remains a risk of inconsistencies in the final dataset, which may influence the thematic and temporal patterns observed.

These limitations compound the constraints already introduced by the purposive selection of 63 documents from the initial 2,848-record corpus, which—given insufficiently documented decision rules—introduces a potential source of selection bias. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as reflective of this specific, curated subset, rather than as representative of the broader field of virtual education research.

Recognizing these limitations underscores the need for future bibliometric studies to adopt transparent, replicable sampling frames, rely on high-quality, curated databases, and implement rigorous de-duplication procedures to strengthen the reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of bibliometric evidence in digital education.

7 Discussion

The predominance of humanistic approaches identified in this review indicates more than a thematic preference; it reveals an underlying tension in the evolution of virtual higher education. While digital transformation often gravitates toward efficiency-driven, analytics-based, and automation-oriented models, the literature shows a countervailing force that foregrounds the emotional, ethical, and relational dimensions of learning. This pattern aligns with principles of critical digital pedagogy (Elliott, 2019), which challenges technocratic logics and emphasizes dialogic engagement and learner agency. It also echoes the sentipensante tradition (Fals-Borda, 2009), which integrates emotion and reason as co-constitutive elements of meaningful learning, and resonates with connectivist perspectives that emphasize networked relationships, knowledge co-construction, and distributed cognition.

7.1 Interpreting the predominance of humanistic approaches

Rather than simply mapping a descriptive trend, the bibliometric data suggest that the rise of humanistic approaches functions as a pedagogical corrective to increasingly data-driven forms of virtual education. Humanistic frameworks appear in the literature at precisely the moment when AI-driven systems, algorithmic analytics, and automated feedback tools gain visibility. Their prominence reflects a theoretical and ethical response: scholars are articulating human-centered paradigms as a way to safeguard relationality, care, autonomy, and pedagogical presence in environments increasingly shaped by machine mediation.

7.2 Interpreting the post-2021 decline through a theoretical lens

The decline in publications after the 2021 peak cannot be reduced to a loss of interest; it reflects the broader research hype cycle characteristic of technology-mediated educational fields. The pandemic generated a surge in emergency-focused studies corresponding to the Peak of Inflated Expectations—rapid publication, practical problem-solving, and intense global attention. The post-2021 deceleration signals a collective shift into a Slope of Enlightenment, where researchers move from documenting immediate challenges to consolidating stable pedagogical practices and focusing on deeper theoretical refinement.

Simultaneously, global research agendas have shifted toward AI, learning analytics, and adaptive systems—areas associated with high funding availability and strategic institutional priorities. This redirection of scholarly labor partly explains the deceleration in humanistic and pedagogical-focused outputs, even though the theoretical need for them remains urgent.

7.3 Implications for theory and future research

These patterns reveal a critical inflection point in virtual higher education: As technologies become more sophisticated and more embedded in academic life, the theoretical frameworks guiding their use must also evolve. The bibliometric evidence suggests that future research must:

articulate how humanistic principles can coexist with and shape AI-mediated learning rather than be displaced by it

examine how digital infrastructures influence relational pedagogy, learner autonomy, and the ethics of datafied education

integrate insights from connectivism, critical pedagogy, and digital sociology to better understand the socio-technical assemblages shaping learning.

The “why” behind these findings is clear: without a sustained theoretical effort to integrate humanistic and ethical concerns, virtual higher education risks prioritizing technological efficiency at the expense of equity, inclusion, and meaningful engagement.

7.4 Practical implications: moving from insight to action

To translate these theoretical insights into institutional and pedagogical practice, stakeholders in virtual higher education should consider the following concrete strategies:

For instructional designers,

Embed dialogic, reflective, and empathy-oriented activities in course templates, not as add-ons but as core design elements.

Create analytics dashboards that foreground student presence, engagement, and wellbeing, not only performance metrics.

Incorporate multimodal resources (audio diaries, collaborative whiteboards, reflective portfolios) that support expressive, relational learning aligned with humanistic and connectivist models.

For faculty,

Use facilitation approaches that strengthen social presence, such as personalized video feedback, community check-ins, and dialogic synchronous sessions.

Maintain a balance between automation and human presence: allow AI to support routine tasks, but reserve interpretive feedback, mentoring, and emotional support for human–human interaction.

Implement dialogic and formative assessment strategies that foster self-reflection, metacognition, and autonomy.

For administrators and program leaders,

Develop institutional policies for ethical AI adoption, including transparency protocols, data privacy protections, and guidelines for algorithmic accountability.

Invest in faculty development programs that integrate technological literacy with humanistic and ethical pedagogical principles.

Prioritize research funding and institutional support for initiatives that explicitly combine innovation with human-centered pedagogy.

7.4.1 Original contribution

This study offers a novel contribution by conducting a decade-long bibliometric and descriptive-correlational analysis of pedagogical research in virtual higher education, with a unique emphasis on emerging humanistic and ethical perspectives. Unlike prior reviews focused predominantly on technological or instructional design dimensions, this research foregrounds affective, relational, and socio-ethical considerations as central themes in digital pedagogy. By categorizing and analyzing 63 purposively selected studies from 2,848 indexed publications (2015–2025), the study uncovers evolving thematic priorities, including the increasing relevance of concepts such as connectivism, cyberculture, and sentipensante pedagogy. The identification of temporal publication trends, particularly the post-pandemic surge and subsequent decline, provides critical insight into how global crises reshape educational research agendas. The findings underscore the need for balanced integration of technological innovation with inclusive, emotionally resonant, and ethically grounded pedagogical practices in virtual environments. This study contributes to the advancement of interdisciplinary digital education research by mapping underexplored areas and offering an evidence-based framework to inform future scholarly and institutional efforts.

7.4.2 International relevance

The findings of this study hold significant international relevance as they illuminate global trends and gaps in the evolving field of virtual higher education. By analyzing research published between 2015 and 2025 across major international databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), this study captures a broad and representative picture of how diverse academic communities have conceptualized digital pedagogy in response to rapid technological change and global disruptions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The emphasis on humanistic, ethical, and relational dimensions transcends regional educational models and addresses universal challenges faced by institutions worldwide, particularly the need to ensure equity, engagement, and emotional wellbeing in virtual learning environments.

Furthermore, by identifying underexplored themes such as connectivism, cyberculture, and critical digital pedagogy, the study encourages transnational dialogue on inclusive and socially responsible innovation in digital education. These insights are valuable to policymakers, researchers, and educators across diverse contexts seeking to develop pedagogical strategies that are not only technologically effective but also ethically and culturally responsive. The international scope of the data and the universal applicability of the findings make this study a timely and globally relevant contribution to the discourse on the future of higher education in the digital age.

8 Conclusion

This study allowed to map the evolving thematic landscape of virtual higher education research and identify emergent didactic perspectives. The results lead to several well-founded conclusions with theoretical, empirical, and practical import.

8.1 Shift toward humanistic and relational pedagogies in digital education

The predominance of humanistic education and digital pedagogy (together accounting for over 36 % of the sample) signals a paradigmatic shift in how researchers conceive virtual learning environments. This trend echoes foundational ideas from Tébar-Belmonte (2017) and Nogueroles-Jové (2022) on dignity, relationality, and ethical engagement, and highlights a renewed interest in affective, emotional, and ethical dimensions. Rather than seeing technology as neutral or purely instrumental, contemporary scholarship increasingly frames it within socio-affective and critical perspectives (García-Taibo et al., 2024; Zhang and Zeng, 2022).

8.2 Technological innovation increasingly integrated but not dominant

The substantial presence of research on educational technology (ICT, AI, LMS, metaverse) indicates that novel tools and platforms remain central to digital pedagogy discourse (Ajabshir, 2024; Ikram et al., 2024; Miao and Ma, 2023). However, the relative balance between humanistic concerns and technical ones suggests that the field is moving toward integration, not dominance of one over the other. This balanced stance aligns with calls for critical digital pedagogy, examining power, equity, and socio-technical relations, not just functionality.

8.3 Emerging but underexplored thematic areas

Themes such as connectivism, cyberculture, and ethical considerations in virtual education remain less frequent (each ∼4.76 %), yet they are gaining traction. The relative scarcity of these topics’ points to an open research frontier. Theoretical frameworks from Siemens on connectivism, and newer critical literatures on cyberculture, suggest promising pathways for future investigation into how networked, participatory, and cultural dynamics shape virtual learning environments (Mercado-Borja et al., 2023; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).

8.4 Temporal dynamics and the pandemic’s influence

The temporal analysis reveals a sharp increase in output beginning in 2020, peaking in 2021 (∼23.81 %) and remaining high through 2022. This surge corresponds closely with the rapid shift to emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, a catalyzing moment for innovation and reflective inquiry in digital pedagogy. After 2022, a modest decline suggests normalization or reorientation of research agendas. The negative correlation (r = –0.78) between publication frequency and recency of themes hints that some formerly dominant issues may receive less attention over time, potentially risking neglect of foundational pedagogical concerns.

8.5 Implications for the sustainability of research focus

The observed decline in attention to certain themes after crisis-driven increases raises concerns about sustainability. There is a risk that, once the urgency fades, research will drift toward new technological trends without consolidating gains in humanistic pedagogy (Rahmani et al., 2024; Rotar, 2022). The field must consciously maintain attention to socio-emotional, ethical, and relational pedagogies even amid shifting foci.

8.6 Contribution to the scholarly community and future directions

This study contributes by (a) systematically mapping thematic concentrations in virtual higher education research over a decade; (b) highlighting a paradigmatic evolution toward integrating humanistic and technical dimensions; (c) revealing gaps and emerging areas ripe for further exploration; and (d) offering empirical evidence to guide researchers, institutions, and policymakers in shaping future digital pedagogy. To build on this foundation, future studies should:

Undertake longitudinal and comparative designs to trace how pedagogical emphases evolve in different contexts.

Conduct qualitative or mixed-methods inquiries to deepen understanding of how educators and learners experience affective and ethical dimensions in virtual spaces.

Explore underrepresented themes, connectivism, cyberculture, critical historiography, and their intersections with equity, identity, and power.

Develop and test intervention models that intentionally integrate relational, ethical, and emotional components into virtual course design and delivery.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because Noone. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to a3Jpc2V2ZWxpbm9yQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==.

Author contributions

KO-O: Visualization, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Validation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Software, Data curation. DB-G: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. JS-M: Visualization, Resources, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication. This research has been funded by the General Directorate of Investigations of Universidad Santiago de Cali under call No. DGI 01-2026.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Aguilar-Esteva, V., Acosta-Banda, A., Carreño Aguilera, R., and Patiño Ortiz, M. (2023). Sustainable social development through the use of artificial intelligence and data science in education during the COVID Emergency: a systematic review using PRISMA. Sustainability 15:6498. doi: 10.3390/su15086498

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajabshir, Z. F. (2024). Online peer mediation versus teacher mediation in dynamic second language pragmatics assessment. Educ. Informat. Technol. 29, 21195–21215. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12680-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alastor, E., Sánchez-Vega, E., Martínez-García, I., and Rubio-Gragera, M. (2023). TIC en Educación en la era Digital: Propuestas de Investigación e Intervención. Málaga: UMA Editorial, doi: 10.24310/mumaedmumaed.65

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, T., and Rivera-Vargas, P. (2020). A critical look at educational technology from a distance education perspective. Digital Educ. Rev. 37, 208–229. doi: 10.1344/der.2020.37.208-229

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bag, S., Sinha, A., and Aich, P. (2023). Determinants of using online mode of teaching: Evidence from higher educational institutions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 73, 415–434. doi: 10.1111/issj.12403

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ballestas, R. (2024). Transformaciones Educativas Desde la alteridad. Tecnológico de Antioquia. Colombia: Institución Universitaria.

Google Scholar

Bates, A. W. (2021). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.

Google Scholar

Beimel, D., Tsoury, A., and Barnett-Itzhaki, Z. (2024). The impact of extent and variety in active learning methods across online and face-to-face education on students’ course evaluations. Front. Educ. 9:1432054. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1432054

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bitar, N., and Davidovich, N. (2024). Transforming pedagogy: the digital revolution in higher education. Educ. Sci. 14:811. doi: 10.3390/educsci14080811

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bozkurt, A., Kilgore, W., and Crosslin, M. (2018). Bot-teachers in hybrid massive open online courses (MOOCs): a post-humanist experience. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 34, 39–59. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3273

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chwen-Jen, C., and Chee-Siong, T. (2022). Exploring Students’ online learning interaction behaviors and experiences: a case study. Teach. Learn. Inq. 24, 23–35. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.24.1.23

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (2020). The future of teaching through humanistic education: ethical and socially responsible approaches. Educ. Soc. 38, 401–412. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2020.1829155

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education, 8th Edn. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Cortijo-Ruiz, G., Riquelme-Soto, V., and Galvis-Doménech, M. J. (2023). La educación superior como plataforma para el desarrollo humano. Horizonte Educ. 52, 367–384. doi: 10.24036/hed/52.2.2023

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed methods Approaches, 5th Edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Elliott, J. (2019). The impact of humanistic education on teacher professional development: critical and reflective skills. Teach. Teach. Educ. 85, 23–32. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fals-Borda, O. (2009). Una sociología Sentipensante Para América Latina. Bogoto: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales-CLACSO.

Google Scholar

Farley, I. A., and Burbules, N. C. (2022). Online education viewed through an equity lens: Promoting engagement and success for all learners. Rev. Educ. 10:e3367. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3367

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferreiro-Galguero, F. (2022). Diseño, factor humano y capacidades potenciales. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.

Google Scholar

Filip, R., Gheorghita-Puscaselu, R., Anchidin-Norocel, L., Dimian, M., and Savage, W. K. (2022). Global challenges to public health care systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a review of pandemic measures and problems. J. Pers. Med. 12:1295. doi: 10.3390/jpm12081295

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fiormonte, D., Numerico, T., and Tomasi, F. (2020). in The Digital Humanist: A Critical Inquiry, eds D. Schmidt, C. Ferguson, and G. Rockwell (London: ScholarLed).

Google Scholar

Flores-Rivera, L., and Meléndez-Tamayo, C. (2023). Estrategias de aprendizaje digital en entornos virtuales educativos. Rev. Innova Educ. 6, 7–22. doi: 10.35622/j.rie.2024.02.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1982). La Educación como práctica de la Libertad. Madrid: Siglo XX Editores.

Google Scholar

García-Arias, M. A. (2023). Adaptación del Enfoque de Desarrollo Humano a Procesos de Transformación e Innovación Socioeconómica en la España Vacía; Aplicación al Territorio Rural del Altiplano de Granada. Spain: Universidad de Almería.

Google Scholar

García-Taibo, O., Baena-Morales, S., Cadenas, A., Vázquez, J., and Ferriz-Valero, A. (2024). The Effect of a ‘Humanistic’ intervention on the social responsibility of University Students. Religions 15:1231. doi: 10.3390/rel15101231

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gros-Salvat, B. (2018). La evolución del e-learning: del aula virtual a la red. RIED 21:69. doi: 10.5944/ried.21.2.20577

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guerrero-Lucero, M. A. (2022). La práctica pedagógica práctica pedagógica reflexiva de un grupo de profesores de pregrado de la Universidad Mariana (Pasto): una apuesta desde la pedagogía franciscana y el enfoque de capacidades humanas. Bogoto: Universidad de la Salle.

Google Scholar

Gunawan, I., Maskur, R., and Suherman, S. (2024). Mediating role of curriculum engagement ICT in the relationship between attitude toward curriculum and academic achievement. Profesorado Rev Currículum y Formación Del Profesorado 28, 237–260. doi: 10.30827/profesorado.v28i3.29471

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, F., Hong, X., and Coates, H. (2020). Accelerated transformation: designing global online higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 39, 1322–1326. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1824209

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harrison, T., and Laco, D. (2022). Where’s the character education in online higher education? Constructivism, virtue ethics and roles of online educators. E-Learn. Digital Media 19, 555–573. doi: 10.1177/20427530221104885

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hernández-Ramírez, E. J., and González-Tapia, F. P. (2024). La formación superior como capacidad para el desarrollo y el bienestar. Transdisciplinar Rev. Ciencias Social. 3, 169–196. doi: 10.29105/transdisciplinar3.6-95

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hsin-Lan, L., Tao-Hua, W., Hao-Chiang, K. L., Chin-Feng, L., and Yueh-Min, H. (2022). The influence of affective feedback adaptive learning system on learning engagement and self-directed learning. Front. Psychol. 13:858411. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858411

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ikram, C., Omar, E., Mohamed, E., and Mohamed, K. (2024). Pedagogical video: a key learning object for e-learning, from mediation to mediatization. Front. Educ. 8:1229111. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1229111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, K. C., Wong, B. T. M., and Chan, H. T. (2023). Teaching and learning innovations for distance learning in the digital era: a literature review. Front. Educ. 8:1198034. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1198034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Libardoni, P. J., and Iribure-Junior, H. (2024). For a digital pedagogy: a new way of teaching and learning. Rev Gestão Social e Ambiental 18:e07319. doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n9-122

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, F., Ziden, A. A., and Liu, B. (2024). Emotional support in online teaching and learning environment: a systematic literature review (2014–2023). J. Curr. Teach. 13:209. doi: 10.5430/jct.v13n4p209

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martín-Lucas, J. (2021). Construcción de Conocimiento en Entornos Virtuales en Educación Superior. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, doi: 10.14201/gredos.149403

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maturana, H. (1996). El sentido de lo humano. Spain: Dolmen Ediciones.

Google Scholar

Mercado-Borja, W. E., Barrera-Navarro, J. R., Mosquera-Mosquera, C. E., and Calle-Álvarez, G. Y. (2023). Mediación educativa con tecnologías de información y comunicación desde la percepción docente: validación de métricas de acciones innovadoras. Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad 15:e2801. doi: 10.22430/21457778.2801

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miao, J., and Ma, L. (2023). Teacher autonomy support influence on online learning engagement: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Sage Open 13:21582440231. doi: 10.1177/21582440231217737

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mondragon-Estrada, E., Kirschning, I., Nolazco-Flores, J. A., and Camacho-Zuñiga, C. (2023). Fostering digital transformation in education: technology enhanced learning from professors’ experiences in emergency remote teaching. Front. Educ. 8:1250461. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1250461

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morales-Chan, M., Amado-Salvatierra, H. R., Medina, J. A., Barchino, R., Hernández-Rizzardini, R., and Teixeira, A. M. (2024). Personalized feedback in massive open online courses: harnessing the power of LangChain and OpenAI API. Electronics 13:1960. doi: 10.3390/electronics13101960

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moreno-Salamanca, M. C. (2021). Análisis del Impacto de un Modelo de Aprendizaje Cooperativo en Ambientes Virtuales Sobre el Rendimiento Académico de los Estudiantes Universitarios. Bogota: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.

Google Scholar

Mulumeoderhwa-Mufungizi, E. (2024). El conectivismo digital en los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje: principios y aportes pedagógicos. Revista Latinoamericana Ogmios 4, 1–11. doi: 10.53595/rlo.v4.i10.101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nogueroles-Jové, M. (2022). Humberto Maturana. Ciencia, educación y democracia desde la biología del amor. Bajo Palabra 30, 139–154. doi: 10.15366/bp2022.30.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Collins, K. M. T. (2017). The role of sampling in mixed methods-research. KZfSS Kölner Z. Soziol. Sozialpsychol. 69, 133–156. doi: 10.1007/s11577-017-0455-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Petchamé, J., Iriondo, I., Korres, O., and Paños-Castro, J. (2023). Digital transformation in higher education: a qualitative evaluative study of a hybrid virtual format using a smart classroom system. Heliyon 9:e16675. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16675

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinedo-Cantillo, I. A. (2019). La Dimensión Cognitiva de la Compasión y la Vida Moral: una Indagación Sobre los Fundamentos de la teoría de las emociones de Martha Nussbaum. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Google Scholar

Rahmani, A. M., Groot, W., and Rahmani, H. (2024). Dropout in online higher education: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 21:19. doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00450-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reich, J. (2020). Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology alone Can’t Transform Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Reyes-Parra, D., Rozo-García, H. A., and Buitrago-Espitia, J. E. (2024). Aportes de la tecnología al aprendizaje personalizado. Diá-Logos 16, 09–29. doi: 10.61604/dl.v16i28.352

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rivera-Piragauta, J. A., and Minelli de Oliveira, J. (2022). The ethical commitment of virtual education. J. Educ. Online 19, 1–11. doi: 10.9743/JEO.2022.19.2.9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ros, B. (2011). Evolución y retos de la educación virtual. Construyendo el e-learning del siglo XXI. Madrid: UOC.

Google Scholar

Rotar, O. (2022). Online student support: a framework for embedding support interventions into the online learning cycle. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 17:2. doi: 10.1186/s41039-021-00178-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salmerón-Pérez, H., Rodríguez-Fernández, S., and Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. (2010). Methodologies to improve communication in virtual learning environments. Comunicar 17, 163–171. doi: 10.3916/C34-2010-03-16

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sangrá, A., Guitert, M., and Behar, P. A. (2022). Competencias y metodologías innovadoras para la educación digital. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 26, 9–16. doi: 10.5944/ried.26.1.36081

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sepúlveda-Parrini, P., Pineda-Herrero, P., Valdivia-Vizarreta, P., and Rodríguez-Pérez, S. (2024). Examining the quality of online higher education in Chile from the perspective of equity. Qual. High. Educ. 30, 393–409. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2023.2270398

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stolba, A., Hope, A., Branch, J., Manoj, P., Trinier, J., Behboudi, A., et al. (2024). Beyond content delivery: harnessing emotional intelligence for community building in fully online digital spaces. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 21:48. doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00481-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tamayo-Giraldo, G., and Guarín-Jurado, G. (2023). El humanismo, la formación y el reconocimiento de las diversidades humanas. Areté Rev Digital Del Doctorado En Educ. 9, 37–56. doi: 10.55560/arete.2023.18.9.2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tébar-Belmonte, L. (2017). La función mediadora de la educación. Foro Educ. 28, 79–98.

Google Scholar

Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J. M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., et al. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. J. Intell. 11, 1–32. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11030054

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Winarko, B., and Budiwati, N. (2024). Humanistic pedagogy: Approaches to enhancing individual development in modern education. EDUTEC: J. Educ. Technol. 8:1047. doi: 10.29062/edu.v8i2.1047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., and Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16:39. doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, H., and Zeng, Y. (2022). The education for sustainable development, online technology and teleological rationality: a game between instrumental value and humanistic value. Sustainability 14:2101. doi: 10.3390/su14042101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, M., Maat, S. M., Azman, N., and Zheng, E. (2024). The relationship between faculty support, academic self-efficacy, academic emotions, and online learning performance among University Students in China. Sage Open 14, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/21582440241304928

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zou, Y., Kuek, F., Feng, W., and Cheng, X. (2025). Digital learning in the 21st century: trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. Front. Educ. 10:1562391. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar