complete research paper about technology

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Promises and Pitfalls of Technology

Politics and privacy, private-sector influence and big tech, state competition and conflict, author biography, how is technology changing the world, and how should the world change technology.

[email protected]

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Josephine Wolff; How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?. Global Perspectives 1 February 2021; 2 (1): 27353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2021.27353

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Technologies are becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly interconnected. Cars, airplanes, medical devices, financial transactions, and electricity systems all rely on more computer software than they ever have before, making them seem both harder to understand and, in some cases, harder to control. Government and corporate surveillance of individuals and information processing relies largely on digital technologies and artificial intelligence, and therefore involves less human-to-human contact than ever before and more opportunities for biases to be embedded and codified in our technological systems in ways we may not even be able to identify or recognize. Bioengineering advances are opening up new terrain for challenging philosophical, political, and economic questions regarding human-natural relations. Additionally, the management of these large and small devices and systems is increasingly done through the cloud, so that control over them is both very remote and removed from direct human or social control. The study of how to make technologies like artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things “explainable” has become its own area of research because it is so difficult to understand how they work or what is at fault when something goes wrong (Gunning and Aha 2019) .

This growing complexity makes it more difficult than ever—and more imperative than ever—for scholars to probe how technological advancements are altering life around the world in both positive and negative ways and what social, political, and legal tools are needed to help shape the development and design of technology in beneficial directions. This can seem like an impossible task in light of the rapid pace of technological change and the sense that its continued advancement is inevitable, but many countries around the world are only just beginning to take significant steps toward regulating computer technologies and are still in the process of radically rethinking the rules governing global data flows and exchange of technology across borders.

These are exciting times not just for technological development but also for technology policy—our technologies may be more advanced and complicated than ever but so, too, are our understandings of how they can best be leveraged, protected, and even constrained. The structures of technological systems as determined largely by government and institutional policies and those structures have tremendous implications for social organization and agency, ranging from open source, open systems that are highly distributed and decentralized, to those that are tightly controlled and closed, structured according to stricter and more hierarchical models. And just as our understanding of the governance of technology is developing in new and interesting ways, so, too, is our understanding of the social, cultural, environmental, and political dimensions of emerging technologies. We are realizing both the challenges and the importance of mapping out the full range of ways that technology is changing our society, what we want those changes to look like, and what tools we have to try to influence and guide those shifts.

Technology can be a source of tremendous optimism. It can help overcome some of the greatest challenges our society faces, including climate change, famine, and disease. For those who believe in the power of innovation and the promise of creative destruction to advance economic development and lead to better quality of life, technology is a vital economic driver (Schumpeter 1942) . But it can also be a tool of tremendous fear and oppression, embedding biases in automated decision-making processes and information-processing algorithms, exacerbating economic and social inequalities within and between countries to a staggering degree, or creating new weapons and avenues for attack unlike any we have had to face in the past. Scholars have even contended that the emergence of the term technology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked a shift from viewing individual pieces of machinery as a means to achieving political and social progress to the more dangerous, or hazardous, view that larger-scale, more complex technological systems were a semiautonomous form of progress in and of themselves (Marx 2010) . More recently, technologists have sharply criticized what they view as a wave of new Luddites, people intent on slowing the development of technology and turning back the clock on innovation as a means of mitigating the societal impacts of technological change (Marlowe 1970) .

At the heart of fights over new technologies and their resulting global changes are often two conflicting visions of technology: a fundamentally optimistic one that believes humans use it as a tool to achieve greater goals, and a fundamentally pessimistic one that holds that technological systems have reached a point beyond our control. Technology philosophers have argued that neither of these views is wholly accurate and that a purely optimistic or pessimistic view of technology is insufficient to capture the nuances and complexity of our relationship to technology (Oberdiek and Tiles 1995) . Understanding technology and how we can make better decisions about designing, deploying, and refining it requires capturing that nuance and complexity through in-depth analysis of the impacts of different technological advancements and the ways they have played out in all their complicated and controversial messiness across the world.

These impacts are often unpredictable as technologies are adopted in new contexts and come to be used in ways that sometimes diverge significantly from the use cases envisioned by their designers. The internet, designed to help transmit information between computer networks, became a crucial vehicle for commerce, introducing unexpected avenues for crime and financial fraud. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, designed to connect friends and families through sharing photographs and life updates, became focal points of election controversies and political influence. Cryptocurrencies, originally intended as a means of decentralized digital cash, have become a significant environmental hazard as more and more computing resources are devoted to mining these forms of virtual money. One of the crucial challenges in this area is therefore recognizing, documenting, and even anticipating some of these unexpected consequences and providing mechanisms to technologists for how to think through the impacts of their work, as well as possible other paths to different outcomes (Verbeek 2006) . And just as technological innovations can cause unexpected harm, they can also bring about extraordinary benefits—new vaccines and medicines to address global pandemics and save thousands of lives, new sources of energy that can drastically reduce emissions and help combat climate change, new modes of education that can reach people who would otherwise have no access to schooling. Regulating technology therefore requires a careful balance of mitigating risks without overly restricting potentially beneficial innovations.

Nations around the world have taken very different approaches to governing emerging technologies and have adopted a range of different technologies themselves in pursuit of more modern governance structures and processes (Braman 2009) . In Europe, the precautionary principle has guided much more anticipatory regulation aimed at addressing the risks presented by technologies even before they are fully realized. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation focuses on the responsibilities of data controllers and processors to provide individuals with access to their data and information about how that data is being used not just as a means of addressing existing security and privacy threats, such as data breaches, but also to protect against future developments and uses of that data for artificial intelligence and automated decision-making purposes. In Germany, Technische Überwachungsvereine, or TÜVs, perform regular tests and inspections of technological systems to assess and minimize risks over time, as the tech landscape evolves. In the United States, by contrast, there is much greater reliance on litigation and liability regimes to address safety and security failings after-the-fact. These different approaches reflect not just the different legal and regulatory mechanisms and philosophies of different nations but also the different ways those nations prioritize rapid development of the technology industry versus safety, security, and individual control. Typically, governance innovations move much more slowly than technological innovations, and regulations can lag years, or even decades, behind the technologies they aim to govern.

In addition to this varied set of national regulatory approaches, a variety of international and nongovernmental organizations also contribute to the process of developing standards, rules, and norms for new technologies, including the International Organization for Standardization­ and the International Telecommunication Union. These multilateral and NGO actors play an especially important role in trying to define appropriate boundaries for the use of new technologies by governments as instruments of control for the state.

At the same time that policymakers are under scrutiny both for their decisions about how to regulate technology as well as their decisions about how and when to adopt technologies like facial recognition themselves, technology firms and designers have also come under increasing criticism. Growing recognition that the design of technologies can have far-reaching social and political implications means that there is more pressure on technologists to take into consideration the consequences of their decisions early on in the design process (Vincenti 1993; Winner 1980) . The question of how technologists should incorporate these social dimensions into their design and development processes is an old one, and debate on these issues dates back to the 1970s, but it remains an urgent and often overlooked part of the puzzle because so many of the supposedly systematic mechanisms for assessing the impacts of new technologies in both the private and public sectors are primarily bureaucratic, symbolic processes rather than carrying any real weight or influence.

Technologists are often ill-equipped or unwilling to respond to the sorts of social problems that their creations have—often unwittingly—exacerbated, and instead point to governments and lawmakers to address those problems (Zuckerberg 2019) . But governments often have few incentives to engage in this area. This is because setting clear standards and rules for an ever-evolving technological landscape can be extremely challenging, because enforcement of those rules can be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise, and because the tech sector is a major source of jobs and revenue for many countries that may fear losing those benefits if they constrain companies too much. This indicates not just a need for clearer incentives and better policies for both private- and public-sector entities but also a need for new mechanisms whereby the technology development and design process can be influenced and assessed by people with a wider range of experiences and expertise. If we want technologies to be designed with an eye to their impacts, who is responsible for predicting, measuring, and mitigating those impacts throughout the design process? Involving policymakers in that process in a more meaningful way will also require training them to have the analytic and technical capacity to more fully engage with technologists and understand more fully the implications of their decisions.

At the same time that tech companies seem unwilling or unable to rein in their creations, many also fear they wield too much power, in some cases all but replacing governments and international organizations in their ability to make decisions that affect millions of people worldwide and control access to information, platforms, and audiences (Kilovaty 2020) . Regulators around the world have begun considering whether some of these companies have become so powerful that they violate the tenets of antitrust laws, but it can be difficult for governments to identify exactly what those violations are, especially in the context of an industry where the largest players often provide their customers with free services. And the platforms and services developed by tech companies are often wielded most powerfully and dangerously not directly by their private-sector creators and operators but instead by states themselves for widespread misinformation campaigns that serve political purposes (Nye 2018) .

Since the largest private entities in the tech sector operate in many countries, they are often better poised to implement global changes to the technological ecosystem than individual states or regulatory bodies, creating new challenges to existing governance structures and hierarchies. Just as it can be challenging to provide oversight for government use of technologies, so, too, oversight of the biggest tech companies, which have more resources, reach, and power than many nations, can prove to be a daunting task. The rise of network forms of organization and the growing gig economy have added to these challenges, making it even harder for regulators to fully address the breadth of these companies’ operations (Powell 1990) . The private-public partnerships that have emerged around energy, transportation, medical, and cyber technologies further complicate this picture, blurring the line between the public and private sectors and raising critical questions about the role of each in providing critical infrastructure, health care, and security. How can and should private tech companies operating in these different sectors be governed, and what types of influence do they exert over regulators? How feasible are different policy proposals aimed at technological innovation, and what potential unintended consequences might they have?

Conflict between countries has also spilled over significantly into the private sector in recent years, most notably in the case of tensions between the United States and China over which technologies developed in each country will be permitted by the other and which will be purchased by other customers, outside those two countries. Countries competing to develop the best technology is not a new phenomenon, but the current conflicts have major international ramifications and will influence the infrastructure that is installed and used around the world for years to come. Untangling the different factors that feed into these tussles as well as whom they benefit and whom they leave at a disadvantage is crucial for understanding how governments can most effectively foster technological innovation and invention domestically as well as the global consequences of those efforts. As much of the world is forced to choose between buying technology from the United States or from China, how should we understand the long-term impacts of those choices and the options available to people in countries without robust domestic tech industries? Does the global spread of technologies help fuel further innovation in countries with smaller tech markets, or does it reinforce the dominance of the states that are already most prominent in this sector? How can research universities maintain global collaborations and research communities in light of these national competitions, and what role does government research and development spending play in fostering innovation within its own borders and worldwide? How should intellectual property protections evolve to meet the demands of the technology industry, and how can those protections be enforced globally?

These conflicts between countries sometimes appear to challenge the feasibility of truly global technologies and networks that operate across all countries through standardized protocols and design features. Organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and many others have tried to harmonize these policies and protocols across different countries for years, but have met with limited success when it comes to resolving the issues of greatest tension and disagreement among nations. For technology to operate in a global environment, there is a need for a much greater degree of coordination among countries and the development of common standards and norms, but governments continue to struggle to agree not just on those norms themselves but even the appropriate venue and processes for developing them. Without greater global cooperation, is it possible to maintain a global network like the internet or to promote the spread of new technologies around the world to address challenges of sustainability? What might help incentivize that cooperation moving forward, and what could new structures and process for governance of global technologies look like? Why has the tech industry’s self-regulation culture persisted? Do the same traditional drivers for public policy, such as politics of harmonization and path dependency in policy-making, still sufficiently explain policy outcomes in this space? As new technologies and their applications spread across the globe in uneven ways, how and when do they create forces of change from unexpected places?

These are some of the questions that we hope to address in the Technology and Global Change section through articles that tackle new dimensions of the global landscape of designing, developing, deploying, and assessing new technologies to address major challenges the world faces. Understanding these processes requires synthesizing knowledge from a range of different fields, including sociology, political science, economics, and history, as well as technical fields such as engineering, climate science, and computer science. A crucial part of understanding how technology has created global change and, in turn, how global changes have influenced the development of new technologies is understanding the technologies themselves in all their richness and complexity—how they work, the limits of what they can do, what they were designed to do, how they are actually used. Just as technologies themselves are becoming more complicated, so are their embeddings and relationships to the larger social, political, and legal contexts in which they exist. Scholars across all disciplines are encouraged to join us in untangling those complexities.

Josephine Wolff is an associate professor of cybersecurity policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Her book You’ll See This Message When It Is Too Late: The Legal and Economic Aftermath of Cybersecurity Breaches was published by MIT Press in 2018.

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Special Collections
• Review Symposia
• Info for Authors
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Emerging Scholars Forum
• Open Access
• Online ISSN 2575-7350
• Copyright © 2024 The Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved.

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

A comprehensive study of technological change

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

The societal impacts of technological change can be seen in many domains, from messenger RNA vaccines and automation to drones and climate change. The pace of that technological change can affect its impact, and how quickly a technology improves in performance can be an indicator of its future importance. For decision-makers like investors, entrepreneurs, and policymakers, predicting which technologies are fast improving (and which are overhyped) can mean the difference between success and failure.

New research from MIT aims to assist in the prediction of technology performance improvement using U.S. patents as a dataset. The study describes 97 percent of the U.S. patent system as a set of 1,757 discrete technology domains, and quantitatively assesses each domain for its improvement potential.

“The rate of improvement can only be empirically estimated when substantial performance measurements are made over long time periods,” says Anuraag Singh SM ’20, lead author of the paper. “In some large technological fields, including software and clinical medicine, such measures have rarely, if ever, been made.”

A previous MIT study provided empirical measures for 30 technological domains, but the patent sets identified for those technologies cover less than 15 percent of the patents in the U.S. patent system. The major purpose of this new study is to provide predictions of the performance improvement rates for the thousands of domains not accessed by empirical measurement. To accomplish this, the researchers developed a method using a new probability-based algorithm, machine learning, natural language processing, and patent network analytics.

Overlap and centrality

A technology domain, as the researchers define it, consists of sets of artifacts fulfilling a specific function using a specific branch of scientific knowledge. To find the patents that best represent a domain, the team built on previous research conducted by co-author Chris Magee, a professor of the practice of engineering systems within the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS). Magee and his colleagues found that by looking for patent overlap between the U.S. and international patent-classification systems, they could quickly identify patents that best represent a technology. The researchers ultimately created a correspondence of all patents within the U.S. patent system to a set of 1,757 technology domains.

To estimate performance improvement, Singh employed a method refined by co-authors Magee and Giorgio Triulzi, a researcher with the Sociotechnical Systems Research Center (SSRC) within IDSS and an assistant professor at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia. Their method is based on the average “centrality” of patents in the patent citation network. Centrality refers to multiple criteria for determining the ranking or importance of nodes within a network.

“Our method provides predictions of performance improvement rates for nearly all definable technologies for the first time,” says Singh.

Those rates vary — from a low of 2 percent per year for the “Mechanical skin treatment — Hair removal and wrinkles” domain to a high of 216 percent per year for the “Dynamic information exchange and support systems integrating multiple channels” domain. The researchers found that most technologies improve slowly; more than 80 percent of technologies improve at less than 25 percent per year. Notably, the number of patents in a technological area was not a strong indicator of a higher improvement rate.

“Fast-improving domains are concentrated in a few technological areas,” says Magee. “The domains that show improvement rates greater than the predicted rate for integrated chips — 42 percent, from Moore’s law — are predominantly based upon software and algorithms.”

TechNext Inc.

The researchers built an online interactive system where domains corresponding to technology-related keywords can be found along with their improvement rates. Users can input a keyword describing a technology and the system returns a prediction of improvement for the technological domain, an automated measure of the quality of the match between the keyword and the domain, and patent sets so that the reader can judge the semantic quality of the match.

Moving forward, the researchers have founded a new MIT spinoff called TechNext Inc. to further refine this technology and use it to help leaders make better decisions, from budgets to investment priorities to technology policy. Like any inventors, Magee and his colleagues want to protect their intellectual property rights. To that end, they have applied for a patent for their novel system and its unique methodology.

“Technologies that improve faster win the market,” says Singh. “Our search system enables technology managers, investors, policymakers, and entrepreneurs to quickly look up predictions of improvement rates for specific technologies.”

Adds Magee: “Our goal is to bring greater accuracy, precision, and repeatability to the as-yet fuzzy art of technology forecasting.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Sociotechnical Systems Research Center
• Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS)

Related Topics

• Technology and society
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E)

Related Articles

Shaping technology’s future

Tackling society’s big problems with systems theory

Patents forecast technological change

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Four MIT faculty named 2023 AAAS Fellows

Read full story →

For more open and equitable public discussions on social media, try “meronymity”

Erin Kara named Edgerton Award winner

Q&A: Claire Walsh on how J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative tackles the twin climate and poverty crises

Knight Science Journalism Program launches HBCU Science Journalism Fellowship

Plant sensors could act as an early warning system for farmers

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 02 October 2017

Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature

• Laura A. Schindler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8730-5189 1 ,
• Gary J. Burkholder 2 , 3 ,
• Osama A. Morad 1 &
• Craig Marsh 4  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  25 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

383k Accesses

137 Citations

39 Altmetric

Metrics details

Computer-based technology has infiltrated many aspects of life and industry, yet there is little understanding of how it can be used to promote student engagement, a concept receiving strong attention in higher education due to its association with a number of positive academic outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a critical review of the literature from the past 5 years related to how web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites ( Facebook and Twitter ), and digital games influence student engagement. We prefaced the findings with a substantive overview of student engagement definitions and indicators, which revealed three types of engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) that informed how we classified articles. Our findings suggest that digital games provide the most far-reaching influence across different types of student engagement, followed by web-conferencing and Facebook . Findings regarding wikis, blogs, and Twitter are less conclusive and significantly limited in number of studies conducted within the past 5 years. Overall, the findings provide preliminary support that computer-based technology influences student engagement, however, additional research is needed to confirm and build on these findings. We conclude the article by providing a list of recommendations for practice, with the intent of increasing understanding of how computer-based technology may be purposefully implemented to achieve the greatest gains in student engagement.

Introduction

The digital revolution has profoundly affected daily living, evident in the ubiquity of mobile devices and the seamless integration of technology into common tasks such as shopping, reading, and finding directions (Anderson, 2016 ; Smith & Anderson, 2016 ; Zickuhr & Raine, 2014 ). The use of computers, mobile devices, and the Internet is at its highest level to date and expected to continue to increase as technology becomes more accessible, particularly for users in developing countries (Poushter, 2016 ). In addition, there is a growing number of people who are smartphone dependent, relying solely on smartphones for Internet access (Anderson & Horrigan, 2016 ) rather than more expensive devices such as laptops and tablets. Greater access to and demand for technology has presented unique opportunities and challenges for many industries, some of which have thrived by effectively digitizing their operations and services (e.g., finance, media) and others that have struggled to keep up with the pace of technological innovation (e.g., education, healthcare) (Gandhi, Khanna, & Ramaswamy, 2016 ).

Integrating technology into teaching and learning is not a new challenge for universities. Since the 1900s, administrators and faculty have grappled with how to effectively use technical innovations such as video and audio recordings, email, and teleconferencing to augment or replace traditional instructional delivery methods (Kaware & Sain, 2015 ; Westera, 2015 ). Within the past two decades, however, this challenge has been much more difficult due to the sheer volume of new technologies on the market. For example, in the span of 7 years (from 2008 to 2015), the number of active apps in Apple’s App Store increased from 5000 to 1.75 million. Over the next 4 years, the number of apps is projected to rise by 73%, totaling over 5 million (Nelson, 2016 ). Further compounding this challenge is the limited shelf life of new devices and software combined with significant internal organizational barriers that hinder universities from efficiently and effectively integrating new technologies (Amirault, 2012 ; Kinchin, 2012 ; Linder-VanBerschot & Summers 2015 ; Westera, 2015 ).

Many organizational barriers to technology integration arise from competing tensions between institutional policy and practice and faculty beliefs and abilities. For example, university administrators may view technology as a tool to attract and retain students, whereas faculty may struggle to determine how technology coincides with existing pedagogy (Lawrence & Lentle-Keenan, 2013 ; Lin, Singer, & Ha, 2010 ). In addition, some faculty may be hesitant to use technology due to lack of technical knowledge and/or skepticism about the efficacy of technology to improve student learning outcomes (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Buchanan, Sainter, & Saunders, 2013 ; Hauptman, 2015 ; Johnson, 2013 ; Kidd, Davis, & Larke, 2016 ; Kopcha, Rieber, & Walker, 2016 ; Lawrence & Lentle-Keenan, 2013 ; Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan, & Parham, 2013 ; Reid, 2014 ). Organizational barriers to technology adoption are particularly problematic given the growing demands and perceived benefits among students about using technology to learn (Amirault, 2012 ; Cassidy et al., 2014 ; Gikas & Grant, 2013 ; Paul & Cochran, 2013 ). Surveys suggest that two-thirds of students use mobile devices for learning and believe that technology can help them achieve learning outcomes and better prepare them for a workforce that is increasingly dependent on technology (Chen, Seilhamer, Bennett, & Bauer, 2015 ; Dahlstrom, 2012 ). Universities that fail to effectively integrate technology into the learning experience miss opportunities to improve student outcomes and meet the expectations of a student body that has grown accustomed to the integration of technology into every facet of life (Amirault, 2012 ; Cook & Sonnenberg, 2014 ; Revere & Kovach, 2011 ; Sun & Chen, 2016 ; Westera, 2015 ).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review on how computer-based technology influences student engagement within higher education settings. We focused on computer-based technology given the specific types of technologies (i.e., web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) that emerged from a broad search of the literature, which is described in more detail below. Computer-based technology (hereafter referred to as technology) requires the use of specific hardware, software, and micro processing features available on a computer or mobile device. We also focused on student engagement as the dependent variable of interest because it encompasses many different aspects of the teaching and learning process (Bryson & Hand, 2007 ; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Parks, 1994; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ), compared narrower variables in the literature such as final grades or exam scores. Furthermore, student engagement has received significant attention over the past several decades due to shifts towards student-centered, constructivist instructional methods (Haggis, 2009 ; Wright, 2011 ), mounting pressures to improve teaching and learning outcomes (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ), and promising studies suggesting relationships between student engagement and positive academic outcomes (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006 ; Center for Postsecondary Research, 2016 ; Hu & McCormick, 2012 ). Despite the interest in student engagement and the demand for more technology in higher education, there are no articles offering a comprehensive review of how these two variables intersect. Similarly, while many existing student engagement conceptual models have expanded to include factors that influence student engagement, none highlight the overt role of technology in the engagement process (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam, Wong, Yang, & Yi, 2012 ; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ).

Our review aims to address existing gaps in the student engagement literature and seeks to determine whether student engagement models should be expanded to include technology. The review also addresses some of the organizational barriers to technology integration (e.g., faculty uncertainty and skepticism about technology) by providing a comprehensive account of the research evidence regarding how technology influences student engagement. One limitation of the literature, however, is the lack of detail regarding how teaching and learning practices were used to select and integrate technology into learning. For example, the methodology section of many studies does not include a pedagogical justification for why a particular technology was used or details about the design of the learning activity itself. Therefore, it often is unclear how teaching and learning practices may have affected student engagement levels. We revisit this issue in more detail at the end of this paper in our discussions of areas for future research and recommendations for practice. We initiated our literature review by conducting a broad search for articles published within the past 5 years, using the key words technology and higher education , in Google Scholar and the following research databases: Academic Search Complete, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, Education Research Complete, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO . Our initial search revealed themes regarding which technologies were most prevalent in the literature (e.g., social networking, digital games), which then lead to several, more targeted searches of the same databases using specific keywords such as Facebook and student engagement. After both broad and targeted searches, we identified five technologies (web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) to include in our review.

We chose to focus on technologies for which there were multiple studies published, allowing us to identify areas of convergence and divergence in the literature and draw conclusions about positive and negative effects on student engagement. In total, we identified 69 articles relevant to our review, with 36 pertaining to social networking sites (21 for Facebook and 15 for Twitter ), 14 pertaining to digital games, seven pertaining to wikis, and six pertaining to blogs and web-conferencing software respectively. Articles were categorized according to their influence on specific types of student engagement, which will be described in more detail below. In some instances, one article pertained to multiple types of engagement. In the sections that follow, we will provide an overview of student engagement, including an explanation of common definitions and indicators of engagement, followed by a synthesis of how each type of technology influences student engagement. Finally, we will discuss areas for future research and make recommendations for practice.

• Student engagement

Interest in student engagement began over 70 years ago with Ralph Tyler’s research on the relationship between time spent on coursework and learning (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ). Since then, the study of student engagement has evolved and expanded considerably, through the seminal works of Pace ( 1980 ; 1984 ) and Astin ( 1984 ) about how quantity and quality of student effort affect learning and many more recent studies on the environmental conditions and individual dispositions that contribute to student engagement (Bakker, Vergel, & Kuntze, 2015 ; Gilboy, Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia, 2015 ; Martin, Goldwasser, & Galentino, 2017 ; Pellas, 2014 ). Perhaps the most well-known resource on student engagement is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), an instrument designed to assess student participation in various educational activities (Kuh, 2009 ). The NSSE and other engagement instruments like it have been used in many studies that link student engagement to positive student outcomes such as higher grades, retention, persistence, and completion (Leach, 2016 ; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2012 ; Trowler & Trowler, 2010 ), further convincing universities that student engagement is an important factor in the teaching and learning process. However, despite the increased interest in student engagement, its meaning is generally not well understood or agreed upon.

Student engagement is a broad and complex phenomenon for which there are many definitions grounded in psychological, social, and/or cultural perspectives (Fredricks et al., 1994; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ). Review of definitions revealed that student engagement is defined in two ways. One set of definitions refer to student engagement as a desired outcome reflective of a student’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about learning. For example, Kahu ( 2013 ) defines student engagement as an “individual psychological state” that includes a student’s affect, cognition, and behavior (p. 764). Other definitions focus primarily on student behavior, suggesting that engagement is the “extent to which students are engaging in activities that higher education research has shown to be linked with high-quality learning outcomes” (Krause & Coates, 2008 , p. 493) or the “quality of effort and involvement in productive learning activities” (Kuh, 2009 , p. 6). Another set of definitions refer to student engagement as a process involving both the student and the university. For example, Trowler ( 2010 ) defined student engagement as “the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to optimize the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students and the performance, and reputation of the institution” (p. 2). Similarly, the NSSE website indicates that student engagement is “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities” as well as “how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning” (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2017 , para. 1).

Many existing models of student engagement reflect the latter set of definitions, depicting engagement as a complex, psychosocial process involving both student and university characteristics. Such models organize the engagement process into three areas: factors that influence student engagement (e.g., institutional culture, curriculum, and teaching practices), indicators of student engagement (e.g., interest in learning, interaction with instructors and peers, and meaningful processing of information), and outcomes of student engagement (e.g., academic achievement, retention, and personal growth) (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Nora et al., 2005 ). In this review, we examine the literature to determine whether technology influences student engagement. In addition, we will use Fredricks et al. ( 2004 ) typology of student engagement to organize and present research findings, which suggests that there are three types of engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive). The typology is useful because it is broad in scope, encompassing different types of engagement that capture a range of student experiences, rather than narrower typologies that offer specific or prescriptive conceptualizations of student engagement. In addition, this typology is student-centered, focusing exclusively on student-focused indicators rather than combining student indicators with confounding variables, such as faculty behavior, curriculum design, and campus environment (Coates, 2008 ; Kuh, 2009 ). While such variables are important in the discussion of student engagement, perhaps as factors that may influence engagement, they are not true indicators of student engagement. Using the typology as a guide, we examined recent student engagement research, models, and measures to gain a better understanding of how behavioral, emotional, and cognitive student engagement are conceptualized and to identify specific indicators that correspond with each type of engagement, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Conceptual framework of types and indicators of student engagement

Behavioral engagement is the degree to which students are actively involved in learning activities (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Zepke, 2014 ). Indicators of behavioral engagement include time and effort spent participating in learning activities (Coates, 2008 ; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ) and interaction with peers, faculty, and staff (Coates, 2008 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Bryson & Hand, 2007 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 : Zepke & Leach, 2010 ). Indicators of behavioral engagement reflect observable student actions and most closely align with Pace ( 1980 ) and Astin’s ( 1984 ) original conceptualizations of student engagement as quantity and quality of effort towards learning. Emotional engagement is students’ affective reactions to learning (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ). Indicators of emotional engagement include attitudes, interests, and values towards learning (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Witkowski & Cornell, 2015 ) and a perceived sense of belonging within a learning community (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ). Emotional engagement often is assessed using self-report measures (Fredricks et al., 2004 ) and provides insight into how students feel about a particular topic, delivery method, or instructor. Finally, cognitive engagement is the degree to which students invest in learning and expend mental effort to comprehend and master content (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ). Indicators of cognitive engagement include: motivation to learn (Lester, 2013 ; Richardson & Newby, 2006 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ); persistence to overcome academic challenges and meet/exceed requirements (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Trowler, 2010 ); and deep processing of information (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Richardson & Newby, 2006 ) through critical thinking (Coates, 2008 ; Witkowski & Cornell, 2015 ), self-regulation (e.g., set goals, plan, organize study effort, and monitor learning; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ), and the active construction of knowledge (Coates, 2008 ; Kuh, 2009 ). While cognitive engagement includes motivational aspects, much of the literature focuses on how students use active learning and higher-order thinking, in some form, to achieve content mastery. For example, there is significant emphasis on the importance of deep learning, which involves analyzing new learning in relation previous knowledge, compared to surface learning, which is limited to memorization, recall, and rehearsal (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ).

While each type of engagement has distinct features, there is some overlap across cognitive, behavioral, and emotional domains. In instances where an indicator could correspond with more than one type of engagement, we chose to match the indicator to the type of engagement that most closely aligned, based on our review of the engagement literature and our interpretation of the indicators. Similarly, there is also some overlap among indicators. As a result, we combined and subsumed similar indicators found in the literature, where appropriate, to avoid redundancy. Achieving an in-depth understanding of student engagement and associated indicators was an important pre-cursor to our review of the technology literature. Very few articles used the term student engagement as a dependent variable given the concept is so broad and multidimensional. We found that specific indicators (e.g., interaction, sense of belonging, and knowledge construction) of student engagement were more common in the literature as dependent variables. Next, we will provide a synthesis of the findings regarding how different types of technology influence behavioral, emotional, and cognitive student engagement and associated indicators.

Influence of technology on student engagement

We identified five technologies post-literature search (i.e., web-conferencing, blogs, wikis, social networking sites , and digital games) to include in our review, based on frequency in which they appeared in the literature over the past 5 years. One commonality among these technologies is their potential value in supporting a constructivist approach to learning, characterized by the active discovery of knowledge through reflection of experiences with one’s environment, the connection of new knowledge to prior knowledge, and interaction with others (Boghossian, 2006 ; Clements, 2015 ). Another commonality is that most of the technologies, except perhaps for digital games, are designed primarily to promote interaction and collaboration with others. Our search yielded very few studies on how informational technologies, such as video lectures and podcasts, influence student engagement. Therefore, these technologies are notably absent from our review. Unlike the technologies we identified earlier, informational technologies reflect a behaviorist approach to learning in which students are passive recipients of knowledge that is transmitted from an expert (Boghossian, 2006 ). The lack of recent research on how informational technologies affect student engagement may be due to the increasing shift from instructor-centered, behaviorist approaches to student-centered, constructivist approaches within higher education (Haggis, 2009 ; Wright, 2011 ) along with the ubiquity of web 2.0 technologies.

• Web-conferencing

Web-conferencing software provides a virtual meeting space where users login simultaneously and communicate about a given topic. While each software application is unique, many share similar features such as audio, video, or instant messaging options for real-time communication; screen sharing, whiteboards, and digital pens for presentations and demonstrations; polls and quizzes for gauging comprehension or eliciting feedback; and breakout rooms for small group work (Bower, 2011 ; Hudson, Knight, & Collins, 2012 ; Martin, Parker, & Deale, 2012 ; McBrien, Jones, & Cheng, 2009 ). Of the technologies included in this literature review, web-conferencing software most closely mimics the face-to-face classroom environment, providing a space where instructors and students can hear and see each other in real-time as typical classroom activities (i.e., delivering lectures, discussing course content, asking/answering questions) are carried out (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ). Studies on web-conferencing software deployed Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Horizon Wimba, or Blackboard Collaborate and made use of multiple features, such as screen sharing, instant messaging, polling, and break out rooms. In addition, most of the studies integrated web-conferencing software into courses on a voluntary basis to supplement traditional instructional methods (Andrew, Maslin-Prothero, & Ewens, 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; Wdowik, 2014 ). Existing studies on web-conferencing pertain to all three types of student engagement.

Studies on web-conferencing and behavioral engagement reveal mixed findings. For example, voluntary attendance in web-conferencing sessions ranged from 54 to 57% (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ) and, in a comparison between a blended course with regular web-conferencing sessions and a traditional, face-to-face course, researchers found no significant difference in student attendance in courses. However, students in the blended course reported higher levels of class participation compared to students in the face-to-face course (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ). These findings suggest while web-conferencing may not boost attendance, especially if voluntary, it may offer more opportunities for class participation, perhaps through the use of communication channels typically not available in a traditional, face-to-face course (e.g., instant messaging, anonymous polling). Studies on web-conferencing and interaction, another behavioral indicator, support this assertion. For example, researchers found that students use various features of web-conferencing software (e.g., polling, instant message, break-out rooms) to interact with peers and the instructor by asking questions, expressing opinions and ideas, sharing resources, and discussing academic content (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; Wdowik, 2014 ).

Studies on web-conferencing and cognitive engagement are more conclusive than those for behavioral engagement, although are fewer in number. Findings suggest that students who participated in web-conferencing demonstrated critical reflection and enhanced learning through interactions with others (Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ), higher-order thinking (e.g., problem-solving, synthesis, evaluation) in response to challenging assignments (Wdowik, 2014 ), and motivation to learn, particularly when using polling features (Hudson et al., 2012 ). There is only one study examining how web-conferencing affects emotional engagement, although it is positive suggesting that students who participated in web-conferences had higher levels of interest in course content than those who did not (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ). One possible reason for the positive cognitive and emotional engagement findings may be that web-conferencing software provides many features that promote active learning. For example, whiteboards and breakout rooms provide opportunities for real-time, collaborative problem-solving activities and discussions. However, additional studies are needed to isolate and compare specific web-conferencing features to determine which have the greatest effect on student engagement.

A blog, which is short for Weblog, is a collection of personal journal entries, published online and presented chronologically, to which readers (or subscribers) may respond by providing additional commentary or feedback. In order to create a blog, one must compose content for an entry, which may include text, hyperlinks, graphics, audio, or video, publish the content online using a blogging application, and alert subscribers that new content is posted. Blogs may be informal and personal in nature or may serve as formal commentary in a specific genre, such as in politics or education (Coghlan et al., 2007 ). Fortunately, many blog applications are free, and many learning management systems (LMSs) offer a blogging feature that is seamlessly integrated into the online classroom. The ease of blogging has attracted attention from educators, who currently use blogs as an instructional tool for the expression of ideas, opinions, and experiences and for promoting dialogue on a wide range of academic topics (Garrity, Jones, VanderZwan, de la Rocha, & Epstein, 2014 ; Wang, 2008 ).

Studies on blogs show consistently positive findings for many of the behavioral and emotional engagement indicators. For example, students reported that blogs promoted interaction with others, through greater communication and information sharing with peers (Chu, Chan, & Tiwari, 2012 ; Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Mansouri & Piki, 2016 ), and analyses of blog posts show evidence of students elaborating on one another’s ideas and sharing experiences and conceptions of course content (Sharma & Tietjen, 2016 ). Blogs also contribute to emotional engagement by providing students with opportunities to express their feelings about learning and by encouraging positive attitudes about learning (Dos & Demir, 2013 ; Chu et al., 2012 ; Yang & Chang, 2012 ). For example, Dos and Demir ( 2013 ) found that students expressed prejudices and fears about specific course topics in their blog posts. In addition, Yang and Chang ( 2012 ) found that interactive blogging, where comment features were enabled, lead to more positive attitudes about course content and peers compared to solitary blogging, where comment features were disabled.

The literature on blogs and cognitive engagement is less consistent. Some studies suggest that blogs may help students engage in active learning, problem-solving, and reflection (Chawinga, 2017 ; Chu et al., 2012 ; Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Mansouri & Piki, 2016 ), while other studies suggest that students’ blog posts show very little evidence of higher-order thinking (Dos & Demir, 2013 ; Sharma & Tietjen, 2016 ). The inconsistency in findings may be due to the wording of blog instructions. Students may not necessarily demonstrate or engage in deep processing of information unless explicitly instructed to do so. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine whether the wording of blog assignments contributed to the mixed results because many of the studies did not provide assignment details. However, studies pertaining to other technologies suggest that assignment wording that lacks specificity or requires low-level thinking can have detrimental effects on student engagement outcomes (Hou, Wang, Lin, & Chang, 2015 ; Prestridge, 2014 ). Therefore, blog assignments that are vague or require only low-level thinking may have adverse effects on cognitive engagement.

A wiki is a web page that can be edited by multiple users at once (Nakamaru, 2012 ). Wikis have gained popularity in educational settings as a viable tool for group projects where group members can work collaboratively to develop content (i.e., writings, hyperlinks, images, graphics, media) and keep track of revisions through an extensive versioning system (Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Most studies on wikis pertain to behavioral engagement, with far fewer studies on cognitive engagement and none on emotional engagement. Studies pertaining to behavioral engagement reveal mixed results, with some showing very little enduring participation in wikis beyond the first few weeks of the course (Nakamaru, 2012 ; Salaber, 2014 ) and another showing active participation, as seen in high numbers of posts and edits (Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). The most notable difference between these studies is the presence of grading, which may account for the inconsistencies in findings. For example, in studies where participation was low, wikis were ungraded, suggesting that students may need extra motivation and encouragement to use wikis (Nakamaru, 2012 ; Salaber, 2014 ). Findings regarding the use of wikis for promoting interaction are also inconsistent. In some studies, students reported that wikis were useful for interaction, teamwork, collaboration, and group networking (Camacho, Carrión, Chayah, & Campos, 2016 ; Martínez, Medina, Albalat, & Rubió, 2013 ; Morely, 2012 ; Calabretto & Rao, 2011 ) and researchers found evidence of substantial collaboration among students (e.g., sharing ideas, opinions, and points of view) in wiki activity (Hewege & Perera, 2013 ); however, Miller, Norris, and Bookstaver ( 2012 ) found that only 58% of students reported that wikis promoted collegiality among peers. The findings in the latter study were unexpected and may be due to design flaws in the wiki assignments. For example, the authors noted that wiki assignments were not explicitly referred to in face-to-face classes; therefore, this disconnect may have prevented students from building on interactive momentum achieved during out-of-class wiki assignments (Miller et al., 2012 ).

Studies regarding cognitive engagement are limited in number but more consistent than those concerning behavioral engagement, suggesting that wikis promote high levels of knowledge construction (i.e., evaluation of arguments, the integration of multiple viewpoints, new understanding of course topics; Hewege & Perera, 2013 ), and are useful for reflection, reinforcing course content, and applying academic skills (Miller et al., 2012 ). Overall, there is mixed support for the use of wikis to promote behavioral engagement, although making wiki assignments mandatory and explicitly referring to wikis in class may help bolster participation and interaction. In addition, there is some support for using wikis to promote cognitive engagement, but additional studies are needed to confirm and expand on findings as well as explore the effect of wikis on emotional engagement.

Social networking sites

Social networking is “the practice of expanding knowledge by making connections with individuals of similar interests” (Gunawardena et al., 2009 , p. 4). Social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, allow users to create and share digital content publicly or with others to whom they are connected and communicate privately through messaging features. Two of the most popular social networking sites in the educational literature are Facebook and Twitter (Camus, Hurt, Larson, & Prevost, 2016 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ), which is consistent with recent statistics suggesting that both sites also are exceedingly popular among the general population (Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan, 2016 ). In the sections that follow, we examine how both Facebook and Twitter influence different types of student engagement.

Facebook is a web-based service that allows users to create a public or private profile and invite others to connect. Users may build social, academic, and professional connections by posting messages in various media formats (i.e., text, pictures, videos) and commenting on, liking, and reacting to others’ messages (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Maben, Edwards, & Malone, 2014 ; Hou et al., 2015 ). Within an educational context, Facebook has often been used as a supplementary instructional tool to lectures or LMSs to support class discussions or develop, deliver, and share academic content and resources. Many instructors have opted to create private Facebook groups, offering an added layer of security and privacy because groups are not accessible to strangers (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Clements, 2015 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 ; Shraim, 2014 ; Maben et al., 2014 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ; Rambe, 2012 ). The majority of studies on Facebook address behavioral indicators of student engagement, with far fewer focusing on emotional or cognitive engagement.

Studies that examine the influence of Facebook on behavioral engagement focus both on participation in learning activities and interaction with peers and instructors. In most studies, Facebook activities were voluntary and participation rates ranged from 16 to 95%, with an average of rate of 47% (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Fagioli, Rios-Aguilar, & Deil-Amen, 2015 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ). Participation was assessed by tracking how many students joined course- or university-specific Facebook groups (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ), visited or followed course-specific Facebook pages (DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ), or posted at least once in a course-specific Facebook page (Rambe, 2012 ). The lowest levels of participation (16%) arose from a study where community college students were invited to use the Schools App, a free application that connects students to their university’s private Facebook community. While the authors acknowledged that building an online community of college students is difficult (Fagioli et al., 2015 ), downloading the Schools App may have been a deterrent to widespread participation. In addition, use of the app was not tied to any specific courses or assignments; therefore, students may have lacked adequate incentive to use it. The highest level of participation (95%) in the literature arose from a study in which the instructor created a Facebook page where students could find or post study tips or ask questions. Followership to the page was highest around exams, when students likely had stronger motivations to access study tips and ask the instructor questions (DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ). The wide range of participation in Facebook activities suggests that some students may be intrinsically motivated to participate, while other students may need some external encouragement. For example, Bahati ( 2015 ) found that when students assumed that a course-specific Facebook was voluntary, only 23% participated, but when the instructor confirmed that the Facebook group was, in fact, mandatory, the level of participation rose to 94%.

While voluntary participation in Facebook activities may be lower than desired or expected (Dyson, Vickers, Turtle, Cowan, & Tassone, 2015 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ; Rambe, 2012 ), students seem to have a clear preference for Facebook compared to other instructional tools (Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Hou et al., 2015 ; Kent, 2013 ). For example, in one study where an instructor shared course-related information in a Facebook group, in the LMS, and through email, the level of participation in the Facebook group was ten times higher than in email or the LMS (Clements, 2015 ). In other studies, class discussions held in Facebook resulted in greater levels of participation and dialogue than class discussions held in LMS discussion forums (Camus et al., 2016 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Kent, 2013 ). Researchers found that preference for Facebook over the university’s LMS is due to perceptions that the LMS is outdated and unorganized and reports that Facebook is more familiar, convenient, and accessible given that many students already visit the social networking site multiple times per day (Clements, 2015 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Kent, 2013 ). In addition, students report that Facebook helps them stay engaged in learning through collaboration and interaction with both peers and instructors (Bahati, 2015 ; Shraim, 2014 ), which is evident in Facebook posts where students collaborated to study for exams, consulted on technical and theoretical problem solving, discussed course content, exchanged learning resources, and expressed opinions as well as academic successes and challenges (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Maben et al., 2014 ; Rambe, 2012 ; van Beynen & Swenson, 2016 ).

There is far less evidence in the literature about the use of Facebook for emotional and cognitive engagement. In terms of emotional engagement, studies suggest that students feel positively about being part of a course-specific Facebook group and that Facebook is useful for expressing feelings about learning and concerns for peers, through features such as the “like” button and emoticons (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ). In addition, being involved in a course-specific Facebook group was positively related to students’ sense of belonging in the course (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ). The research on cognitive engagement is less conclusive, with some studies suggesting that Facebook participation is related to academic persistence (Fagioli et al., 2015 ) and self-regulation (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ) while other studies show low levels of knowledge construction in Facebook posts (Hou et al., 2015 ), particularly when compared to discussions held in the LMS. One possible reason may be because the LMS is associated with formal, academic interactions while Facebook is associated with informal, social interactions (Camus et al., 2016 ). While additional research is needed to confirm the efficacy of Facebook for promoting cognitive engagement, studies suggest that Facebook may be a viable tool for increasing specific behavioral and emotional engagement indicators, such as interactions with others and a sense of belonging within a learning community.

Twitter is a web-based service where subscribers can post short messages, called tweets, in real-time that are no longer than 140 characters in length. Tweets may contain hyperlinks to other websites, images, graphics, and/or videos and may be tagged by topic using the hashtag symbol before the designated label (e.g., #elearning). Twitter subscribers may “follow” other users and gain access to their tweets and also may “retweet” messages that have already been posted (Hennessy, Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Border, 2016 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; West, Moore, & Barry, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ;). Instructors may use Twitter to post updates about the course, clarify expectations, direct students to additional learning materials, and encourage students to discuss course content (Bista, 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). Several of the studies on the use of Twitter included broad, all-encompassing measures of student engagement and produced mixed findings. For example, some studies suggest that Twitter increases student engagement (Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Junco, Heibergert, & Loken, 2011 ) while other studies suggest that Twitter has little to no influence on student engagement (Junco, Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2013 ; McKay, Sanko, Shekhter, & Birnbach, 2014 ). In both studies suggesting little to no influence on student engagement, Twitter use was voluntary and in one of the studies faculty involvement in Twitter was low, which may account for the negative findings (Junco et al., 2013 ; McKay et al., 2014 ). Conversely, in the studies that show positive findings, Twitter use was mandatory and often directly integrated with required assignments (Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Junco et al., 2011 ). Therefore, making Twitter use mandatory, increasing faculty involvement in Twitter, and integrating Twitter into assignments may help to increase student engagement.

Studies pertaining to specific behavioral student engagement indicators also reveal mixed findings. For example, in studies where course-related Twitter use was voluntary, 45-91% of students reported using Twitter during the term (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Ross, Banow, & Yu, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), but only 30-36% reported making contributions to the course-specific Twitter page (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). The study that reported a 91% participation rate was unique because the course-specific Twitter page was accessible via a public link. Therefore, students who chose only to view the content (58%), rather than contribute to the page, did not have to create a Twitter account (Hennessy et al., 2016 ). The convenience of not having to create an account may be one reason for much higher participation rates. In terms of low participation rates, a lack of literacy, familiarity, and interest in Twitter , as well as a preference for Facebook , are cited as contributing factors (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). However, when the use of Twitter was required and integrated into class discussions, the participation rate was 100% (Gagnon, 2015 ). Similarly, 46% of students in one study indicated that they would have been more motivated to participate in Twitter activities if they were graded (Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), again confirming the power of extrinsic motivating factors.

Studies also show mixed results for the use of Twitter to promote interactions with peers and instructors. Researchers found that when instructors used Twitter to post updates about the course, ask and answer questions, and encourage students to tweet about course content, there was evidence of student-student and student-instructor interactions in tweets (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Some students echoed these findings, suggesting that Twitter is useful for sharing ideas and resources, discussing course content, asking the instructor questions, and networking (Chawinga, 2017 ; Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; West et al., 2015 ) and is preferable over speaking aloud in class because it is more comfortable, less threatening, and more concise due to the 140 character limit (Gagnon, 2015 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Conversely, other students reported that Twitter was not useful for improving interaction because they viewed it predominately for social, rather than academic, interactions and they found the 140 character limit to be frustrating and restrictive. A theme among the latter studies was that a large proportion of the sample had never used Twitter before (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), which may have contributed to negative perceptions.

The literature on the use of Twitter for cognitive and emotional engagement is minimal but nonetheless promising in terms of promoting knowledge gains, the practical application of content, and a sense of belonging among users. For example, using Twitter to respond to questions that arose in lectures and tweet about course content throughout the term is associated with increased understanding of course content and application of knowledge (Kim et al., 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; West et al., 2015 ). While the underlying mechanisms pertaining to why Twitter promotes an understanding of content and application of knowledge are not entirely clear, Tiernan ( 2014 ) suggests that one possible reason may be that Twitter helps to break down communication barriers, encouraging shy or timid students to participate in discussions that ultimately are richer in dialogue and debate. In terms of emotional engagement, students who participated in a large, class-specific Twitter page were more likely to feel a sense of community and belonging compared to those who did not participate because they could more easily find support from and share resources with other Twitter users (Ross et al., 2015 ). Despite the positive findings about the use of Twitter for cognitive and emotional engagement, more studies are needed to confirm existing results regarding behavioral engagement and target additional engagement indicators such as motivation, persistence, and attitudes, interests, and values about learning. In addition, given the strong negative perceptions of Twitter that still exist, additional studies are needed to confirm Twitter ’s efficacy for promoting different types of behavioral engagement among both novice and experienced Twitter users, particularly when compared to more familiar tools such as Facebook or LMS discussion forums.

• Digital games

Digital games are “applications using the characteristics of video and computer games to create engaging and immersive learning experiences for delivery of specified learning goals, outcomes and experiences” (de Freitas, 2006 , p. 9). Digital games often serve the dual purpose of promoting the achievement of learning outcomes while making learning fun by providing simulations of real-world scenarios as well as role play, problem-solving, and drill and repeat activities (Boyle et al., 2016 ; Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ; Whitton, 2011 ). In addition, gamified elements, such as digital badges and leaderboards, may be integrated into instruction to provide additional motivation for completing assigned readings and other learning activities (Armier, Shepherd, & Skrabut, 2016 ; Hew, Huang, Chu, & Chiu, 2016 ). The pedagogical benefits of digital games are somewhat distinct from the other technologies addressed in this review, which are designed primarily for social interaction. While digital games may be played in teams or allow one player to compete against another, the focus of their design often is on providing opportunities for students to interact with academic content in a virtual environment through decision-making, problem-solving, and reward mechanisms. For example, a digital game may require students to adopt a role as CEO in a computer-simulated business environment, make decisions about a series of organizational issues, and respond to the consequences of those decisions. In this example and others, digital games use adaptive learning principles, where the learning environment is re-configured or modified in response to the actions and needs of students (Bower, 2016 ). Most of the studies on digital games focused on cognitive and emotional indicators of student engagement, in contrast to the previous technologies addressed in this review which primarily focused on behavioral indicators of engagement.

Existing studies provide support for the influence of digital games on cognitive engagement, through achieving a greater understanding of course content and demonstrating higher-order thinking skills (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Ke, Xie, & Xie, 2016 ; Marriott, Tan, & Marriott, 2015 ), particularly when compared to traditional instructional methods, such as giving lectures or assigning textbook readings (Lu, Hallinger, & Showanasai, 2014 ; Siddique, Ling, Roberson, Xu, & Geng, 2013 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ). For example, in a study comparing courses that offered computer simulations of business challenges (e.g, implementing a new information technology system, managing a startup company, and managing a brand of medicine in a simulated market environment) and courses that did not, students in simulation-based courses reported higher levels of action-directed learning (i.e., connecting theory to practice in a business context) than students in traditional, non-simulation-based courses (Lu et al., 2014 ). Similarly, engineering students who participated in a car simulator game, which was designed to help students apply and reinforce the knowledge gained from lectures, demonstrated higher levels of critical thinking (i.e., analysis, evaluation) on a quiz than students who only attended lectures (Siddique et al., 2013 ).

Motivation is another cognitive engagement indicator that is linked to digital games (Armier et al., 2016 ; Chang & Wei, 2016 ; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 ; Grimley, Green, Nilsen, & Thompson, 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Ibáñez, Di-Serio, & Delgado-Kloos, 2014 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2011 ; Nadolny & Halabi, 2016 ). Researchers found that incorporating gamified elements into courses, such as giving students digital rewards (e.g., redeemable points, trophies, and badges) for participating in learning activities or creating competition through the use of leaderboards where students can see how they rank against other students positively affects student motivation to complete learning tasks (Armier et al., 2016 ; Chang & Wei, 2016 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Nadolny & Halabi, 2016 ). In addition, students who participated in gamified elements, such as trying to earn digital badges, were more motivated to complete particularly difficult learning activities (Hew et al., 2016 ) and showed persistence in exceeding learning requirements (Ibáñez et al., 2014 ). Research on emotional engagement may help to explain these findings. Studies suggest that digital games positively affect student attitudes about learning, evident in student reports that games are fun, interesting, and enjoyable (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ), which may account for higher levels of student motivation in courses that offered digital games.

Research on digital games and behavioral engagement is more limited, with only one study suggesting that games lead to greater participation in educational activities (Hew et al., 2016 ). Therefore, more research is needed to explore how digital games may influence behavioral engagement. In addition, research is needed to determine whether the underlying technology associated with digital games (e.g., computer-based simulations and virtual realities) produce positive engagement outcomes or whether common mechanisms associated with both digital and non-digital games (e.g., role play, rewards, and competition) account for those outcomes. For example, studies in which non-digital, face-to-face games were used also showed positive effects on student engagement (Antunes, Pacheco, & Giovanela, 2012 ; Auman, 2011 ; Coffey, Miller, & Feuerstein, 2011 ; Crocco, Offenholley, & Hernandez, 2016 ; Poole, Kemp, Williams, & Patterson, 2014 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ); therefore, it is unclear if and how digitizing games contributes to student engagement.

Discussion and implications

Student engagement is linked to a number of academic outcomes, such as retention, grade point average, and graduation rates (Carini et al., 2006 ; Center for Postsecondary Research, 2016 ; Hu & McCormick, 2012 ). As a result, universities have shown a strong interest in how to increase student engagement, particularly given rising external pressures to improve learning outcomes and prepare students for academic success (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ). There are various models of student engagement that identify factors that influence student engagement (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Nora et al., 2005 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ); however, none include the overt role of technology despite the growing trend and student demands to integrate technology into the learning experience (Amirault, 2012 ; Cook & Sonnenberg, 2014 ; Revere & Kovach, 2011 ; Sun & Chen, 2016 ; Westera, 2015 ). Therefore, the primary purpose of our literature review was to explore whether technology influences student engagement. The secondary purpose was to address skepticism and uncertainty about pedagogical benefits of technology (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Kopcha et al., 2016 ; Reid, 2014 ) by reviewing the literature regarding the efficacy of specific technologies (i.e., web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) for promoting student engagement and offering recommendations for effective implementation, which are included at the end of this paper. In the sections that follow, we provide an overview of the findings, an explanation of existing methodological limitations and areas for future research, and a list of best practices for integrating the technologies we reviewed into the teaching and learning process.

Summary of findings

Findings from our literature review provide preliminary support for including technology as a factor that influences student engagement in existing models (Table 1 ). One overarching theme is that most of the technologies we reviewed had a positive influence on multiple indicators of student engagement, which may lead to a larger return on investment in terms of learning outcomes. For example, digital games influence all three types of student engagement and six of the seven indicators we identified, surpassing the other technologies in this review. There were several key differences in the design and pedagogical use between digital games and other technologies that may explain these findings. First, digital games were designed to provide authentic learning contexts in which students could practice skills and apply learning (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ), which is consistent with experiential learning and adult learning theories. Experiential learning theory suggests that learning occurs through interaction with one’s environment (Kolb, 2014 ) while adult learning theory suggests that adult learners want to be actively involved in the learning process and be able apply learning to real life situations and problems (Cercone, 2008 ). Second, students reported that digital games (and gamified elements) are fun, enjoyable, and interesting (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ), feelings that are associated with a flow-like state where one is completely immersed in and engaged with the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Weibel, Wissmath, Habegger, Steiner, & Groner, 2008 ). Third, digital games were closely integrated into the curriculum as required activities (Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 , Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ) as opposed to wikis, Facebook , and Twitter , which were often voluntary and used to supplement lectures (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 Nakamaru, 2012 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; Rambe, 2012 ).

Web-conferencing software and Facebook also yielded the most positive findings, influencing four of the seven indicators of student engagement, compared to other collaborative technologies, such as blogs, wikis, and Twitter . Web-conferencing software was unique due to the sheer number of collaborative features it offers, providing multiple ways for students to actively engage with course content (screen sharing, whiteboards, digital pens) and interact with peers and the instructor (audio, video, text chats, breakout rooms) (Bower, 2011 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; McBrien et al., 2009 ); this may account for the effects on multiple indicators of student engagement. Positive findings regarding Facebook ’s influence on student engagement could be explained by a strong familiarity and preference for the social networking site (Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Hou et al., 2015 ; Kent, 2013 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ), compared to Twitter which was less familiar or interesting to students (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Wikis had the lowest influence on student engagement, with mixed findings regarding behavioral engagement, limited, but conclusive findings, regarding one indicator of cognitive engagement (deep processing of information), and no studies pertaining to other indicators of cognitive engagement (motivation, persistence) or emotional engagement.

Another theme that arose was the prevalence of mixed findings across multiple technologies regarding behavioral engagement. Overall, the vast majority of studies addressed behavioral engagement, and we expected that technologies designed specifically for social interaction, such as web-conferencing, wikis, and social networking sites, would yield more conclusive findings. However, one possible reason for the mixed findings may be that the technologies were voluntary in many studies, resulting in lower than desired participation rates and missed opportunities for interaction (Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Nakamaru, 2012 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), and mandatory in a few studies, yielding higher levels of participation and interaction (Bahati, 2015 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Another possible reason for the mixed findings is that measures of variables differed across studies. For example, in some studies participation meant that a student signed up for a Twitter account (Tiernan, 2014 ), used the Twitter account for class (Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), or viewed the course-specific Twitter page (Hennessy et al., 2016 ). The pedagogical uses of the technologies also varied considerably across studies, making it difficult to make comparisons. For example, Facebook was used in studies to share learning materials (Clements, 2015 ; Dyson et al., 2015 ), answer student questions about academic content or administrative issues (Rambe, 2012 ), prepare for upcoming exams and share study tips (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ), complete group work (Hou et al., 2015 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ), and discuss course content (Camus et al., 2016 ; Kent, 2013 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ). Finally, cognitive indicators (motivation and persistence) drew the fewest amount of studies, which suggests that research is needed to determine whether technologies affect these indicators.

Methodological limitations

While there appears to be preliminary support for the use of many of the technologies to promote student engagement, there are significant methodological limitations in the literature and, as a result, findings should be interpreted with caution. First, many studies used small sample sizes and were limited to one course, one degree level, and one university. Therefore, generalizability is limited. Second, very few studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs; therefore, very little evidence exists to substantiate a cause and effect relationship between technologies and student engagement indicators. In addition, in many studies that did use experimental or quasi-experimental designs, participants were not randomized; rather, participants who volunteered to use a specific technology were compared to those who chose not to use the technology. As a result, there is a possibility that fundamental differences between users and non-users could have affected the engagement results. Furthermore, many of the studies did not isolate specific technological features (e.g, using only the breakout rooms for group work in web-conferencing software, rather than using the chat feature, screen sharing, and breakout rooms for group work). Using multiple features at once could have conflated student engagement results. Third, many studies relied on one source to measure technological and engagement variables (single source bias), such as self-report data (i.e., reported usage of technology and perceptions of student engagement), which may have affected the validity of the results. Fourth, many studies were conducted during a very brief timeframe, such as one academic term. As a result, positive student engagement findings may be attributed to a “novelty effect” (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 ) associated with using a new technology. Finally, many studies lack adequate details about learning activities, raising questions about whether poor instructional design may have adversely affected results. For example, an instructor may intend to elicit higher-order thinking from students, but if learning activity instructions are written using low-level verbs, such as identify, describe, and summarize, students will be less likely to engage in higher-order thinking.

Areas for future research

The findings of our literature review suggest that the influence of technology on student engagement is still a developing area of knowledge that requires additional research to build on promising, but limited, evidence, clarify mixed findings, and address several gaps in the literature. As such, our recommendations for future areas of research are as follows:

Examine the effect of collaborative technologies (i.e., web-conferencing, blogs, wikis, social networking sites ) on emotional and cognitive student engagement. There are significant gaps in the literature regarding whether these technologies affect attitudes, interests, and values about learning; a sense of belonging within a learning community; motivation to learn; and persistence to overcome academic challenges and meet or exceed requirements.

Clarify mixed findings, particularly regarding how web-conferencing software, wikis, and Facebook and Twitter affect participation in learning activities. Researchers should make considerable efforts to gain consensus or increase consistency on how participation is measured (e.g., visited Facebook group or contributed one post a week) in order to make meaningful comparisons and draw conclusions about the efficacy of various technologies for promoting behavioral engagement. In addition, further research is needed to clarify findings regarding how wikis and Twitter influence interaction and how blogs and Facebook influence deep processing of information. Future research studies should include justifications for the pedagogical use of specific technologies and detailed instructions for learning activities to minimize adverse findings from poor instructional design and to encourage replication.

Conduct longitudinal studies over several academic terms and across multiple academic disciplines, degree levels, and institutions to determine long-term effects of specific technologies on student engagement and to increase generalizability of findings. Also, future studies should take individual factors into account, such as gender, age, and prior experience with the technology. Studies suggest that a lack of prior experience or familiarity with Twitter was a barrier to Twitter use in educational settings (Bista, 2015 , Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 , Tiernan, 2014 ); therefore, future studies should take prior experience into account.

Compare student engagement outcomes between and among different technologies and non-technologies. For example, studies suggest that students prefer Facebook over Twitter (Bista, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), but there were no studies that compared these technologies for promoting student engagement. Also, studies are needed to isolate and compare different features within the same technology to determine which might be most effective for increasing engagement. Finally, studies on digital games (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ) and face-to-face games (Antunes et al., 2012 ; Auman, 2011 ; Coffey et al., 2011 ; Crocco et al., 2016 ; Poole et al., 2014 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ) show similar, positive effects on student engagement, therefore, additional research is needed to determine the degree to which the delivery method (i.e.., digital versus face-to-face) accounts for positive gains in student engagement.

Determine whether other technologies not included in this review influence student engagement. Facebook and Twitter regularly appear in the literature regarding social networking, but it is unclear how other popular social networking sites, such as LinkedIn, Instagram, and Flickr, influence student engagement. Future research should focus on the efficacy of these and other popular social networking sites for promoting student engagement. In addition, there were very few studies about whether informational technologies, which involve the one-way transmission of information to students, affect different types of student engagement. Future research should examine whether informational technologies, such as video lectures, podcasts, and pre-recorded narrated Power Point presentations or screen casts, affect student engagement. Finally, studies should examine the influence of mobile software and technologies, such as educational apps or smartphones, on student engagement.

Achieve greater consensus on the meaning of student engagement and its distinction from similar concepts in the literature, such as social and cognitive presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007 )

Recommendations for practice

Despite the existing gaps and mixed findings in the literature, we were able to compile a list of recommendations for when and how to use technology to increase the likelihood of promoting student engagement. What follows is not an exhaustive list; rather, it is a synthesis of both research findings and lessons learned from the studies we reviewed. There may be other recommendations to add to this list; however, our intent is to provide some useful information to help address barriers to technology integration among faculty who feel uncertain or unprepared to use technology (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Hauptman, 2015 ; Kidd et al., 2016 ; Reid, 2014 ) and to add to the body of practical knowledge in instructional design and delivery. Our recommendations for practice are as follows:

Consider context before selecting technologies. Contextual factors such as existing technological infrastructure and requirements, program and course characteristics, and the intended audience will help determine which technologies, if any, are most appropriate (Bullen & Morgan, 2011 ; Bullen, Morgan, & Qayyum, 2011 ). For example, requiring students to use a blog that is not well integrated with the existing LMS may prove too frustrating for both the instructor and students. Similarly, integrating Facebook- and Twitter- based learning activities throughout a marketing program may be more appropriate, given the subject matter, compared to doing so in an engineering or accounting program where social media is less integral to the profession. Finally, do not assume that students appreciate or are familiar with all technologies. For example, students who did not already have Facebook or Twitter accounts were less likely to use either for learning purposes and perceived setting up an account to be an increase in workload (Bista, 2015 , Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 , Tiernan, 2014 ). Therefore, prior to using any technology, instructors may want to determine how many students already have accounts and/or are familiar with the technology.

Carefully select technologies based on their strengths and limitations and the intended learning outcome. For example, Twitter is limited to 140 characters, making it a viable tool for learning activities that require brevity. In one study, an instructor used Twitter for short pop quizzes during lectures, where the first few students to tweet the correct answer received additional points (Kim et al., 2015 ), which helped students practice applying knowledge. In addition, studies show that students perceive Twitter and Facebook to be primarily for social interactions (Camus et al., 2016 ; Ross et al., 2015 ), which may make these technologies viable tools for sharing resources, giving brief opinions about news stories pertaining to course content, or having casual conversations with classmates rather than full-fledged scholarly discourse.

Incentivize students to use technology, either by assigning regular grades or giving extra credit. The average participation rates in voluntary web-conferencing, Facebook , and Twitter learning activities in studies we reviewed was 52% (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Divall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). While there were far fewer studies on the use of technology for graded or mandatory learning activities, the average participation rate reported in those studies was 97% (Bahati2015; Gagnon, 2015 ), suggesting that grading may be a key factor in ensuring students participate.

Communicate clear guidelines for technology use. Prior to the implementation of technology in a course, students may benefit from an overview the technology, including its navigational features, privacy settings, and security (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ) and a set of guidelines for how to use the technology effectively and professionally within an educational setting (Miller et al., 2012 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ; West et al., 2015 ). In addition, giving students examples of exemplary and poor entries and posts may also help to clarify how they are expected to use the technology (Shraim, 2014 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Also, if instructors expect students to use technology to demonstrate higher-order thinking or to interact with peers, there should be explicit instructions to do so. For example, Prestridge ( 2014 ) found that students used Twitter to ask the instructor questions but very few interacted with peers because they were not explicitly asked to do so. Similarly, Hou et al., 2015 reported low levels of knowledge construction in Facebook , admitting that the wording of the learning activity (e.g., explore and present applications of computer networking) and the lack of probing questions in the instructions may have been to blame.

Use technology to provide authentic and integrated learning experiences. In many studies, instructors used digital games to simulate authentic environments in which students could apply new knowledge and skills, which ultimately lead to a greater understanding of content and evidence of higher-order thinking (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ). For example, in one study, students were required to play the role of a stock trader in a simulated trading environment and they reported that the simulation helped them engage in critical reflection, enabling them to identify their mistakes and weaknesses in their trading approaches and strategies (Marriott et al., 2015 ). In addition, integrating technology into regularly-scheduled classroom activities, such as lectures, may help to promote student engagement. For example, in one study, the instructor posed a question in class, asked students to respond aloud or tweet their response, and projected the Twitter page so that everyone could see the tweets in class, which lead to favorable comments about the usefulness of Twitter to promote engagement (Tiernan, 2014 ).

Actively participate in using the technologies assigned to students during the first few weeks of the course to generate interest (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; West et al., 2015 ) and, preferably, throughout the course to answer questions, encourage dialogue, correct misconceptions, and address inappropriate behavior (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Miller et al. ( 2012 ) found that faculty encouragement and prompting was associated with increases in students’ expression of ideas and the degree to which they edited and elaborated on their peers’ work in a course-specific wiki.

Be mindful of privacy, security, and accessibility issues. In many studies, instructors took necessary steps to help ensure privacy and security by creating closed Facebook groups and private Twitter pages, accessible only to students in the course (Bahati, 2015 ; Bista, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ) and by offering training to students on how to use privacy and security settings (Hurt et al., 2012 ). Instructors also made efforts to increase accessibility of web-conferencing software by including a phone number for students unable to access audio or video through their computer and by recording and archiving sessions for students unable to attend due to pre-existing conflicts (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Martin et al., 2012 ). In the future, instructors should also keep in mind that some technologies, like Facebook and Twitter , are not accessible to students living in China; therefore, alternative arrangements may need to be made.

In 1985, Steve Jobs predicted that computers and software would revolutionize the way we learn. Over 30 years later, his prediction has yet to be fully confirmed in the student engagement literature; however, our findings offer preliminary evidence that the potential is there. Of the technologies we reviewed, digital games, web-conferencing software, and Facebook had the most far-reaching effects across multiple types and indicators of student engagement, suggesting that technology should be considered a factor that influences student engagement in existing models. Findings regarding blogs, wikis, and Twitter, however, are less convincing, given a lack of studies in relation to engagement indicators or mixed findings. Significant methodological limitations may account for the wide range of findings in the literature. For example, small sample sizes, inconsistent measurement of variables, lack of comparison groups, and missing details about specific, pedagogical uses of technologies threaten the validity and reliability of findings. Therefore, more rigorous and robust research is needed to confirm and build upon limited but positive findings, clarify mixed findings, and address gaps particularly regarding how different technologies influence emotional and cognitive indicators of engagement.

Abbreviations

Learning management system

Amirault, R. J. (2012). Distance learning in the 21 st century university. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13 (4), 253–265.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. (2016). More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming TV . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/ .

Anderson, M., & Horrigan, J. B. (2016). Smartphones help those without broadband get online, but don’t necessary bridge the digital divide . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/03/smartphones-help-those-without-broadband-get-online-but-dont-necessarily-bridge-the-digital-divide/ .

Andrew, L., Maslin-Prothero, S., & Ewens, B. (2015). Enhancing the online learning experience using virtual interactive classrooms. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (4), 22–31.

Antunes, M., Pacheco, M. R., & Giovanela, M. (2012). Design and implementation of an educational game for teaching chemistry in higher education. Journal of Chemical Education, 89 (4), 517–521. doi: 10.1021/ed2003077 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Armier, D. J., Shepherd, C. E., & Skrabut, S. (2016). Using game elements to increase student engagement in course assignments. College Teaching, 64 (2), 64–72 https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1094439 .

Armstrong, A., & Thornton, N. (2012). Incorporating Brookfield’s discussion techniques synchronously into asynchronous online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13 (1), 1–9.

Ashrafzadeh, A., & Sayadian, S. (2015). University instructors’ concerns and perceptions of technology integration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49 , 62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.071 .

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297–308.

Auman, C. (2011). Using simulation games to increase student and instructor engagement. College Teaching, 59 (4), 154–161. doi: 10.1080/87567555 .

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 43 (1), 38–43.

Bahati, B. (2015). Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (15), 160–171.

Bakker, A. B., Vergel, A. I. S., & Kuntze, J. (2015). Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion, 39 (1), 49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9422-5 .

Beckem, J. I., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal if Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16 (5), 61–70 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i5.287 .

Bista, K. (2015). Is Twitter an effective pedagogical tool in higher education? Perspectives of education graduate students. Journal of the Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning, 15 (2), 83–102 https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i2.12825 .

Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38 (6), 713–722 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x .

Bower, M. (2011). Redesigning a web-conferencing environment to scaffold computing students’ creative design processes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1), 27–42.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bower, M. (2016). A framework for adaptive learning design in a Web-conferencing environment. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2016 (1), 11 http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.406 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bowman, N. D., & Akcaoglu, M. (2014). “I see smart people!”: Using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning in the university mass lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 23 , 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.003 .

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., et al. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94 , 178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003 .

Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (4), 349–362. doi: 10.1080/14703290701602748 .

Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computer in Higher Education, 25 (1), 1–11.

Bullen, M., & Morgan, T. (2011). Digital learners not digital natives. La Cuestión Universitaria, 7 , 60–68.

Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37 (1), 1–24.

Calabretto, J., & Rao, D. (2011). Wikis to support collaboration of pharmacy students in medication management workshops -- a pilot project. International Journal of Pharmacy Education & Practice, 8 (2), 1–12.

Camacho, M. E., Carrión, M. D., Chayah, M., & Campos, J. M. (2016). The use of wiki to promote students’ learning in higher education (Degree in Pharmacy). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13 (1), 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0025-y .

Camus, M., Hurt, N. E., Larson, L. R., & Prevost, L. (2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects on student participation, learning, and overall course performance. College Teaching, 64 (2), 84–94 https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1099093 .

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9 .

Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014). Higher Education and Emerging Technologies: Shifting Trends in Student Usage. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40 , 124–133. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.003 .

Center for Postsecondary Research (2016). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education . Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2016_Results/pdf/NSSE_2016_Annual_Results.pdf .

Center for Postsecondary Research (2017). About NSSE. Retrieved on February 15, 2017 from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16 (2), 137–159.

Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring Engaging Gamification Mechanics in Massive Online Open Courses. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (2), 177–203.

Chawinga, W. D. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (1), 3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0041-6 .

Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, S. (2015). Students’ mobile learning practices in higher education: A multi-year study. In EDUCAUSE Review Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study .

Chu, S. K., Chan, C. K., & Tiwari, A. F. (2012). Using blogs to support learning during internship. Computers & Education, 58 (3), 989–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.027 .

Clements, J. C. (2015). Using Facebook to enhance independent student engagement: A case study of first-year undergraduates. Higher Education Studies, 5 (4), 131–146 https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n4p131 .

Coates, H. (2008). Attracting, engaging and retaining: New conversations about learning . Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=ausse .

Coffey, D. J., Miller, W. J., & Feuerstein, D. (2011). Classroom as reality: Demonstrating campaign effects through live simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 7 (1), 14–33.

Coghlan, E., Crawford, J. Little, J., Lomas, C., Lombardi, M., Oblinger, D., & Windham, C. (2007). ELI Discovery Tool: Guide to Blogging . Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI8006.pdf .

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59 , 661–686. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 .

Cook, C. W., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Technology and online education: Models for change. ASBBS E-Journal, 10 (1), 43–59.

Crocco, F., Offenholley, K., & Hernandez, C. (2016). A proof-of-concept study of game-based learning in higher education. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (4), 403–422. doi: 10.1177/1046878116632484 .

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2012 (Research Report). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf

de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning . Retrieved from https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/aeedcd86-bc4c-40fe-bfdf-df22ee53a495/1/learning%20in%20immersive%20worlds.pdf .

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (9), 1–36. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5 .

DiVall, M. V., & Kirwin, J. L. (2012). Using Facebook to facilitate course-related discussion between students and faculty members. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76 (2), 1–5 https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe76232 .

Dos, B., & Demir, S. (2013). The analysis of the blogs created in a blended course through the reflective thinking perspective. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13 (2), 1335–1344.

Dougherty, K., & Andercheck, B. (2014). Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 42 (2), 95–104 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x14521022 .

Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A. (2015). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 69 (2), 303–313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9776-3.

Esteves, K. K. (2012). Exploring Facebook to enhance learning and student engagement: A case from the University of Philippines (UP) Open University. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14 (1), 1–15.

Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (5), 902–915 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12099 .

Fagioli, L., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2015). Changing the context of student engagement: Using Facebook to increase community college student persistence and success. Teachers College Record, 17 , 1–42.

Farley, P. C. (2013). Using the computer game “FoldIt” to entice students to explore external representations of protein structure in a biochemistry course for nonmajors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41 (1), 56–57 https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20655 .

Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43 (3), 78–91.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059 .

Gagnon, K. (2015). Using twitter in health professional education: A case study. Journal of Allied Health, 44 (1), 25–33.

Gandhi, P., Khanna, S., & Ramaswamy, S. (2016). Which industries are the most digital (and why?) . Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/04/a-chart-that-shows-which-industries-are-the-most-digital-and-why .

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), 157–172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001 .

Garrity, M. K., Jones, K., VanderZwan, K. J., de la Rocha, A. R., & Epstein, I. (2014). Integrative review of blogging: Implications for nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 53 (7), 395–401. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20140620-01 .

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19 , 18–26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002 .

Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47 (1), 109–114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008 .

Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016 . Washington.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ .

Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., & Thompson, D. (2012). Comparing computer game and traditional lecture using experience ratings from high and low achieving students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (4), 619–638 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.831 .

Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46 (1), 3–16 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802588626 .

Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of student learning research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (4), 377–390. doi: 10.1080/03075070902771903 .

Hauptman, P.H. (2015). Mobile technology in college instruction. Faculty perceptions and barriers to adoption (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAI3712404).

Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy education: Using twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9 (6), 505–515 https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1610 .

Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 93 , 221–236. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010 .

Hewege, C. R., & Perera, L. R. (2013). Pedagogical significance of wikis: Towards gaining effective learning outcomes. Journal of International Education in Business, 6 (1), 51–70 https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261311314953 .

Hou, H., Wang, S., Lin, P., & Chang, K. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (6), 610–620. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2013.847381 .

Hu, S., & McCormick, A. C. (2012). An engagement-based student typology and its relationship to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 53 , 738–754. doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9254-7 .

Hudson, T. M., Knight, V., & Collins, B. C. (2012). Perceived effectiveness of web conferencing software in the digital environment to deliver a graduate course in applied behavior analysis. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31 (2), 27–39.

Hurt, N. E., Moss, G. S., Bradley, C. L., Larson, L. R., Lovelace, M. D., & Prevost, L. B. (2012). The ‘Facebook’ effect: College students’ perceptions of online discussions in the age of social networking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 6 (2), 1–24 https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060210 .

Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7 (3), 291–301 https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2014.2329293 .

Ivala, E., & Gachago, D. (2012). Social media for enhancing student engagement: The use of facebook and blogs at a university of technology. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26 (1), 152–167.

Johnson, D. R. (2013). Technological change and professional control in the professoriate. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38 (1), 126–149. doi: 10.1177/0162243911430236 .

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (2), 273–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x .

Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (2), 119–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x .

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 758–773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 .

Kaware, S. S., & Sain, S. K. (2015). ICT Application in Education: An Overview. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 2 (1), 25–32.

Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2016). Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven exploration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (6), 1183–1201 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12314 .

Kent, M. (2013). Changing the conversation: Facebook as a venue for online class discussion in higher education. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9 (4), 546–565 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0000 .

Kidd, T., Davis, T., & Larke, P. (2016). Experience, adoption, and technology: Exploring the phenomenological experiences of faculty involved in online teaching at once school of public health. International Journal of E-Learning, 15 (1), 71–99.

Kim, Y., Jeong, S., Ji, Y., Lee, S., Kwon, K. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2015). Smartphone response system using twitter to enable effective interaction and improve engagement in large classrooms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58 (2), 98–103 https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2014.2329651 .

Kinchin. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (2), E43–E48.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc..

Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (5), 945–957. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12361 .

Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), 493–505. doi: 10.1080/02602930701698892 .

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141 , 5–20.

Lam, S., Wong, B., Yang, H., & Yi, L. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 403–419). New York: Springer.

Lawrence, B., & Lentle-Keenan, S. (2013). Teaching beliefs and practice, institutional context, and the uptake of Web-based technology. Distance Education, 34 (1), 4–20.

Leach, L. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40 (1), 23–47.

Lester, D. (2013). A review of the student engagement literature. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 7 (1), 1–8.

Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (2), 22–34 http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22 .

Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22 (1), 38–59. doi: 10.1007/s12528-010-9028-1 .

Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., & Summers, L. L. (2015). Designing instruction in the face of technology transience. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (2), 107–118.

Liu, C., Cheng, Y., & Huang, C. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1907–1918 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002 .

Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33 (3), 218–244. doi: 10.1108/JMD-11-2011-0115 .

Maben, S., Edwards, J., & Malone, D. (2014). Online engagement through Facebook groups in face-to-face undergraduate communication courses: A case study. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 29 (2), 1–27.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (6), 487–504. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12007 .

Mansouri, S. A., & Piki, A. (2016). An exploration into the impact of blogs on students’ learning: Case studies in postgraduate business education. Innovations in Education And Teaching International, 53 (3), 260–273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.997777 .

Marriott, P., Tan, S. W., & Marriot, N. (2015). Experiential learning – A case study of the use of computerized stock market trading simulation in finance education. Accounting Education, 24 (6), 480–497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2015.1072728 .

Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13 (3), 227–261.

Martin, K., Goldwasser, M., & Galentino, R. (2017). Impact of Cohort Bonds on Student Satisfaction and Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 19 (3), 1–14.

Martínez, A. A., Medina, F. X., Albalat, J. A. P., & Rubió, F. S. (2013). Challenges and opportunities of 2.0 tools for the interdisciplinary study of nutrition: The case of the Mediterranean Diet wiki. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 10 (1), 210–225 https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1341 .

McBrien, J. L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (3), 1–17 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605 .

McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2012). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from “CCSSE” validation research . Austin: Community College Survey of Student Engagement.

McKay, M., Sanko, J., Shekhter, I., & Birnbach, D. (2014). Twitter as a tool to enhance student engagement during an interprofessional patient safety course. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28 (6), 565–567 https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.912618 .

Miller, A. D., Norris, L. B., & Bookstaver, P. B. (2012). Use of wikis in pharmacy hybrid elective courses. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 4 (4), 256–261. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2012.05.004 .

Morley, D. A. (2012). Enhancing networking and proactive learning skills in the first year university experience through the use of wikis. Nurse Education Today, 32 (3), 261–266.

Mysko, C., & Delgaty, L. (2015). How and why are students using Twitter for #meded? Integrating Twitter into undergraduate medical education to promote active learning. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences, 12 , 24–52.

Nadolny, L., & Halabi, A. (2016). Student participation and achievement in a large lecture course with game-based learning. Simulation and Gaming, 47 (1), 51–72. doi: 10.1177/1046878115620388 .

Naghdipour, B., & Eldridge, N. H. (2016). Incorporating social networking sites into traditional pedagogy: A case of facebook. TechTrends, 60 (6), 591–597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0118-4 .

Nakamaru, S. (2012). Investment and return: Wiki engagement in a “remedial” ESL writing course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44 (4), 273–291.

Nelson, R. (2016). Apple’s app store will hit 5 million apps by 2020, more than doubling its current size . Retrieved from https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-growth-forecast-2020 .

Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention (pp. 129–154). Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Osgerby, J., & Rush, D. (2015). An exploratory case study examining undergraduate accounting students’ perceptions of using Twitter as a learning support tool. International Journal of Management Education, 13 (3), 337–348. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.10.002 .

Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2 , 10–16.

Pace, C. R. (1984). Student effort: A new key to assessing quality . Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14 (1), 49–62.

Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation, and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 157–170. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048 .

Poole, S. M., Kemp, E., Williams, K. H., & Patterson, L. (2014). Get your head in the game: Using gamification in business education to connect with Generation Y. Journal for Excellence in Business Education, 3 (2), 1–9.

Poushter, J. (2016). Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ .

Prestridge, S. (2014). A focus on students’ use of Twitter - their interactions with each other, content and interface. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15 (2), 101–115.

Rambe, P. (2012). Activity theory and technology mediated interaction: Cognitive scaffolding using question-based consultation on “Facebook”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (8), 1333–1361 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.775 .

Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19 (2), 383–407.

Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engagement learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12 (2), 113–124.

Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (1), 23–37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3 .

Ross, H. M., Banow, R., & Yu, S. (2015). The use of Twitter in large lecture courses: Do the students see a benefit? Contemporary Educational Technology, 6 (2), 126–139.

Roussinos, D., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2013). Analysis of students’ participation patterns and learning presence in a wiki-based project. Educational Media International, 50 (4), 306–324 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.863471 .

Salaber, J. (2014). Facilitating student engagement and collaboration in a large postgraduate course using wiki-based activities. International Journal of Management Education, 12 (2), 115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.006 .

Scarlet, J., & Ampolos, L. (2013). Using game-based learning to teach psychopharmacology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12 (1), 64–70 https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.64 .

Sharma, P., & Tietjen, P. (2016). Examining patterns of participation and meaning making in student blogs: A case study in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 30 (1), 2–13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1119605 .

Shraim, K. Y. (2014). Pedagogical innovation within Facebook: A case study in tertiary education in Palestine. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9 (8), 25–31. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v9i8.3805 .

Siddique, Z., Ling, C., Roberson, P., Xu, Y., & Geng, X. (2013). Facilitating higher-order learning through computer games. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135 (12), 121004–121010.

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016). Online Shopping and E-Commerce . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-e-commerce/ .

Staines, Z., & Lauchs, M. (2013). Students’ engagement with Facebook in a university undergraduate policing unit. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (6), 792–805 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.270 .

Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15 , 157–190.

Tiernan, P. (2014). A study of the use of Twitter by students for lecture engagement and discussion. Education and Information Technologies, 19 (4), 673–690 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9246-4 .

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review . Lancaster: Lancaster University Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/trowler/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview.pdf .

Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary . Lancaster: Lancaster University Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/61680/1/Deliverable_2._Evidence_Summary._Nov_2010.pdf .

van Beynen, K., & Swenson, C. (2016). Exploring peer-to-peer library content and engagement on a student-run Facebook group. College & Research Libraries, 77 (1), 34–50 https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.34 .

Wang, S. (2008). Blogs in education. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking (2nd ed., pp. 134–139). Hershey: Information Sciences Reference.

Wdowik, S. (2014). Using a synchronous online learning environment to promote and enhance transactional engagement beyond the classroom. Campus — Wide Information Systems, 31 (4), 264–275. doi: 10.1108/CWIS-10-2013-0057 .

Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2008). Playing online games against computer-vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2274–2291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.002 .

West, B., Moore, H., & Barry, B. (2015). Beyond the tweet: Using Twitter to enhance engagement, learning, and success among first-year students. Journal of Marketing Education, 37 (3), 160–170. doi: 10.1177/0273475315586061 .

Westera, W. (2015). Reframing the role of educational media technologies. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (2), 19–32.

Whitton, N. (2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (5), 596–609.

Williams, D., & Whiting, A. (2016). Exploring the relationship between student engagement, Twitter, and a learning management system: A study of undergraduate marketing students. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 28 (3), 302–313.

Wimpenny, K., & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). Alienation, agency, and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (3), 311–326. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.725223 .

Witkowski, P., & Cornell, T. (2015). An Investigation into Student Engagement in Higher Education Classrooms. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10 , 56–67.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23 (3), 92–97.

Yang, C., & Chang, Y. (2012). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28 (2), 126–135 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x .

Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in higher education: questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (6), 697–708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901956 .

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11 (3), 167–177. doi: 10.1177/1469787410379680 .

Zickuhr, K., & Raine, L. (2014). E-reading rises as device ownership jumps . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/16/e-reading-rises-as-device-ownership-jumps/ .

Zimmermann, L. K. (2013). Using a virtual simulation program to teach child development. College Teaching, 61 (4), 138–142. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2013.817377 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was supported in part by a Laureate Education, Incl. David A. Wilson research grant study awarded to the second author, “A Comparative Analysis of Student Engagement and Critical Thinking in Two Approaches to the Online Classroom”.

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions.

The first and second authors contributed significantly to the writing, review, and conceptual thinking of the manuscript. The third author provided a first detailed outline of what the paper could address, and the fourth offer provided input and feedback through critical review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The parent study was approved by the University of Liverpool Online International Online Ethics Review Committee, approval number 04-24-2015-01.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Liverpool Online, Liverpool, UK

Laura A. Schindler & Osama A. Morad

Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore, USA

Gary J. Burkholder

Walden University, Minneapolis, USA

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

Craig Marsh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura A. Schindler .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schindler, L.A., Burkholder, G.J., Morad, O.A. et al. Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0

Download citation

Received : 31 March 2017

Accepted : 06 June 2017

Published : 02 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social networking

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Technology articles from across Nature Portfolio

Cryogenic optical data link for superconducting circuits

An optical fibre-fed superconducting electro-optic modulator with gigahertz bandwidth and attojoule per bit electric power consumption offers a fast, efficient means to connect superconducting circuits to the room temperature environment.

• Paolo Pintus
• Galan Moody

Latest Research and Reviews

The Plegma dataset: Domestic appliance-level and aggregate electricity demand with metadata from Greece

• Sotirios Athanasoulias
• Fernanda Guasselli
• Vladimir Stankovic

brainlife.io: a decentralized and open-source cloud platform to support neuroscience research

brainlife.io is a one-stop cloud platform for data management, visualization and analysis in human neuroscience. It is web-based and provides access to a variety of tools in a reproducible and reliable manner.

• Soichi Hayashi
• Bradley A. Caron
• Franco Pestilli

Standardised Versioning of Datasets: a FAIR–compliant Proposal

• Alba González–Cebrián
• Michael Bradford
• Horacio González–Vélez

Large language models could change the future of behavioral healthcare: a proposal for responsible development and evaluation

• Elizabeth C. Stade
• Shannon Wiltsey Stirman
• Johannes C. Eichstaedt

A vision for sustainable additive manufacturing

Additive manufacturing is gaining growing attention as an alternative to conventional methods, but it can support more-sustainable manufacturing processes if developed through a system-level approach. This Perspective discusses how to achieve such a holistic development of additive manufacturing systems for sustainability.

• Serena Graziosi
• Jeremy Faludi
• David W. Rosen

Orbital Reef and commercial low Earth orbit destinations—upcoming space research opportunities

• Erika Wagner

News and Comment

This water bottle purifies your drink with energy from your steps

Static electricity generated by the foot striking the ground can be captured to kill pathogens.

How to break big tech’s stranglehold on AI in academia

• Michał Woźniak
• Paweł Ksieniewicz

Use fines from EU social-media act to fund research on adolescent mental health

• Christian Montag
• Benjamin Becker

A call for responsible quantum technology

The time has come to consider appropriate guardrails to ensure quantum technology benefits humanity and the planet. With quantum development still in flux, the science community shares a responsibility in defining principles and practices.

• Eline De Jong
• Mauritz Kop

Don’t dismiss carbon credits that aim to avoid future emissions

• Edward Mitchard
• Peter Ellis
• Roselyn Fosuah Adjei

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Nanotechnology: A Revolution in Modern Industry

Shiza malik.

1 Bridging Health Foundation, Rawalpindi 46000, Pakistan

Khalid Muhammad

2 Department of Biology, College of Science, UAE University, Al Ain 15551, United Arab Emirates

Yasir Waheed

3 Office of Research, Innovation, and Commercialization (ORIC), Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZABMU), Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

4 Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Byblos 1401, Lebanon

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Nanotechnology, contrary to its name, has massively revolutionized industries around the world. This paper predominantly deals with data regarding the applications of nanotechnology in the modernization of several industries. A comprehensive research strategy is adopted to incorporate the latest data driven from major science platforms. Resultantly, a broad-spectrum overview is presented which comprises the diverse applications of nanotechnology in modern industries. This study reveals that nanotechnology is not limited to research labs or small-scale manufacturing units of nanomedicine, but instead has taken a major share in different industries. Companies around the world are now trying to make their innovations more efficient in terms of structuring, working, and designing outlook and productivity by taking advantage of nanotechnology. From small-scale manufacturing and processing units such as those in agriculture, food, and medicine industries to larger-scale production units such as those operating in industries of automobiles, civil engineering, and environmental management, nanotechnology has manifested the modernization of almost every industrial domain on a global scale. With pronounced cooperation among researchers, industrialists, scientists, technologists, environmentalists, and educationists, the more sustainable development of nano-based industries can be predicted in the future.

1. Introduction

Nanotechnology has slowly yet deeply taken over different industries worldwide. This rapid pace of technological revolution can especially be seen in the developed world, where nano-scale markets have taken over rapidly in the past decade. Nanotechnology is not a new concept since it has now become a general-purpose technology. Four generations of nanomaterials have emerged on the surface and are used in interdisciplinary scientific fields; these are active and passive nanoassemblies, general nanosystems, and small-scale molecular nanosystems [ 1 ].

This rapid development of nanoscience is proof that, soon, nano-scale manufacturing will be incorporated into almost every domain of science and technology. This review article will cover the recent advanced applications of nanotechnology in different industries, mainly agriculture, food, cosmetics, medicine, healthcare, automotive, oil and gas industries, chemical, and mechanical industries [ 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, a brief glimpse of the drawbacks of nanotechnology will be highlighted for each industry to help the scientific community become aware of the ills and benefits of nanotechnology side by side. Nanotechnology is a process that combines the basic attributes of biological, physical, and chemical sciences. These processes occur at the minute scale of nanometers. Physically, the size is reduced; chemically, new bonds and chemical properties are governed; and biological actions are produced at the nano scale, such as drug bonding and delivery at particular sites [ 4 , 5 ].

Nanotechnology provides a link between classical and quantum mechanics in a gray area called a mesoscopic system. This mesoscopic system is being used to manufacture nanoassemblies of nature such as agricultural products, nanomedicine, and nanotools for treatment and diagnostic purposes in the medical industry [ 6 ]. Diseases that were previously untreatable are now being curtailed via nano-based medications and diagnostic kits. This technology has greatly affected bulk industrial manufacturing and production as well. Instead of manufacturing materials by cutting down on massive amounts of material, nanotechnology uses the reverse engineering principle, which operates in nature. It allows the manufacturing of products at the nano scale, such as atoms, and then develops products to work at a deeper scale [ 7 ].

Worldwide, millions and billions of dollars and euros are being spent in nanotechnology to utilize the great potential of this new science, especially in the developed world in Europe, China, and America [ 8 ]. However, developing nations are still lagging behind as they are not even able to meet the industrial progression of the previous decade [ 9 ]. This lag is mainly because these countries are still fighting economically, and they need some time to walk down the road of nanotechnology. However, it is pertinent to say that both the developed and developing world’s scientific communities agree that nanotechnology will be the next step in technological generation [ 10 ]. This will make further industrial upgrading and investment in the field of nanotechnology indispensable in the coming years.

With advances in science and technology, the scientific community adopts technologies and products that are relatively cheap, safe, and cleaner than previous technologies. Moreover, they are concerned about the financial standing of technologies, as natural resources in the world are shrinking excessively [ 11 ]. Nanotechnology thus provides a gateway to this problem. This technology is clear, cleaner, and more affordable compared to previous mass bulking and heavy machinery. Moreover, nanotechnology holds the potential to be implemented in every aspect of life. This will mainly include nanomaterial sciences, nanoelectronics, and nanomedicine, being inculcated in all dimensions of chemistry and the physical and biological world [ 12 ]. Thus, it is not wrong to predict that nanotechnology will become a compulsory field of study for future generations [ 13 ]. This review inculcates the basic applications of nanotechnology in vital industries worldwide and their implications for future industrial progress [ 14 ].

2. Nanotechnology Applications

2.1. applications of nanotechnology in different industries.

After thorough and careful analyses, a wide range of industries—in which nanotechnology is producing remarkable applications—have been studied, reviewed, and selected to be made part of this review. It should be notified that multiple subcategories of industrial links may be discussed under one heading to elaborate upon the wide-scale applications of nanotechnology in different industries. A graphical abstract at the beginning of this article indicates the different industries in which nanotechnology is imparting remarkable implications, details of which are briefly discussed under different headings in the next session.

2.2. Nanotechnology and Computer Industry

Nanotechnology has taken its origins from microengineering concepts in physics and material sciences [ 15 ]. Nanoscaling is not a new concept in the computer industry, as technologists and technicians have been working for a long time to design such modified forms of computer-based technologies that require minimum space for the most efficient work. Resultantly, the usage of nanotubes instead of silicon chips is being increasingly experimented upon in computer devices. Feynman and Drexler’s work has greatly inspired computer scientists to design revolutionary nanocomputers from which wide-scale advantages could be attained [ 13 ]. A few years ago, it was an unimaginable to consider laptops, mobiles, and other handy gadgets as thin as we have today, and it is impossible for even the common man to think that with the passage of time, more advanced, sophisticated, and lighter computer devices will be commonly used. Nanotechnology holds the potential to make this possible [ 16 ].

Energy-efficient, sustainable, and urbanized technologies have been emerging since the beginning of the 21st century. The improvement via nanotechnology in information and communication technology (ICT) is noteworthy in terms of the improvements achieved in interconnected communities, economic competitiveness, environmental stability during demographic shifts, and global development [ 17 ]. The major implications of renewable technology incorporate the roles of ICT and nanotechnology as enablers of environmental sustainability. The traditional methods of product resizing, re-functioning, and enhanced computational capabilities, due to their expensiveness and complicated manufacturing traits, have slowly been replaced by nanotechnological renovations. Novel technologies such as smart sensors logic elements, nanochips, memory storage nanodevices, optoelectronics, quantum computing, and lab-on-a-chip technologies are important in this regard [ 18 ].

Both private and public spending are increasing in the field of nanocomputing. The growth of marketing and industrialization in the biotechnology and computer industries are running in parallel, and their expected growth rates for the coming years are far higher. Researchers and technologists believe that by linking the advanced field of nanotechnology and informatics and computational industries, various problems in human society such as basic need fulfillment can be easily accomplished in line with the establishment of sustainable goals by the end of this decade [ 19 ]. The fourth industrial revolution is based upon the supporting pillars derived from hyperphysical systems including artificial intelligence, machine learning, the internet of things, robots, drones, cloud computing, fast internet technologies (5G and 6G), 3D printing, and block chain technologies [ 20 ].

Most of these technologies have a set basis in computing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, material science renovations, and satellite technologies. Nanotechnology offers useful alterations in the physiochemical, mechanical, magnetic, electrical, and optical properties of computing materials which enable innovative and newer products [ 21 ]. Thus, nanotechnology is providing a pathway for another broad-spectrum revolution in the field of automotive, aerospace, renewable energy, information technology, bioinformatics, and environmental management, all of which have root origins from nanotechnological improvements in computers. Sensors involved in software and data algorithms employ nanomaterials to induce greater sensitivity and processabilities with minimal margin-to-machine errors [ 22 ]. Nanomaterials provide better characteristics and robustness to sensor technologies which mean they are chemically inert, corrosion-resistant, and have greater tolerance profiles toward temperature and alkalinity [ 22 ].

Moreover, the use of semiconductor nanomaterials in the field of quantum computing has increased overall processing speeds with better accuracy and transmissibility. These technologies offer the creation of different components and communication protocols at the nano level, which is often called the internet of nano things [ 23 ]. This area is still in a continuous development and improvement phase with the potential for telecommunication, industrial, and medical applications. This field has taken its origin from the internet of things, which is a hyperphysical world of sensors, software, and other related technologies which allow broad-scale communication via internet operating devices [ 17 ]. The applications of these technologies range from being on the simple home scale to being on the complex industrial scale. The internet of things is mainly capable of gathering and distributing large-scale data via internet-based equipment and modern gadgets. In short, the internet of nano things is applicable to software, hardware, and network connection which could be used for data manipulation, collection, and sharing across the globe [ 24 ].

Another application of nanotechnology in the computer and information industry comes in the form of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data platforms which have set the basis for the fourth industrial revolution. Vast amounts of raw data are collected through interconnected robotic devices, sensors, and machines which have properties of nanomaterials [ 18 ]. After wide-scale data gathering, the next step is the amalgamation of the internet of things and the internet of people to prepare a greater analysis, understanding, and utilization of the gathered information for human benefit [ 4 ]. Such data complications can be easily understood through the use of big data in the medical industry, in which epidemiological data provide benefits for disease management [ 2 ]. Yet another example is the applications in business, where sales and retail-related data help to elucidate the target markets, sales industry, and consumer behavioral inferences for greater market consumption patterns [ 19 ].

Similarly, an important dimension of nanotechnology and computer combination comes in the form of drone and robotics technology. These technologies have a rising number of applications in maintenance, inspections, transportation, deliverability, and data inspection [ 25 ]. Drones, robots, and the internet of things are being perfectly amalgamated with the industrial sector to achieve greater goals. Drones tend to be more mobile but rely more on human control as compared to robots, which are less mobile but have larger potential for self-operation [ 26 ]. However, now, more mobile drones with better autonomous profiles are being developed to help out in the domain of manufacturing industries. These devices intensify and increase the pace of automation and precision in industries along with providing the benefits of lower costs and fewer errors [ 24 ]. The integrated fields of robotics, the internet of things, and nanotechnology are often called the internet of robotics and nano things. This field of nanorobotics is increasing the flexibility and dexterity in manufacturing processes compared to traditional robotics [ 25 ].

Drones, on the contrary, help to manage tasks that are otherwise difficult or dangerous to be managed by humans, such as working from a far distance or in dangerous regions. Nanosensors help to equip drones with the qualities of improved detection and sensation more precisely than previous sensor technologies [ 21 , 27 ]. Moreover, the over-potential of working hours, battery, and maintenance have also been improved with the operationalization of nano-based sensors in drone technology. These drones are inclusively used for various purposes such as maintaining operations, employing safety profiling, security surveys, and mapping areas [ 18 ]. However, limitations such as high speed, legal and ethical limitations, safety concerns, and greater automobility are some of the drawbacks of aerial and robotic drone technologies [ 26 ].

Three-dimensional printing is yet another important application of the nanocomputer industry, in which an integrated modus operandi works to help in production management [ 28 ]. Nanotechnology-based 3D printing offers the benefits of an autonomous, integrated, intelligent exchange network of information which enables wide-scale production benefits. These technologies have enabled a lesser need for industrial infrastructure, minimized post-processing operations, reduced waste material generation, and reduced need for human presence for overall industrial management [ 28 , 29 ]. Moreover, the benefits of 3D printing and similar technologies have potentially increased flexibility in terms of customized items, minimal environmental impacts, and sustainable practices with lower resource and energy consumption. The use of nano-scale and processed resins, metallic raw material, and thermoplastics along with other raw materials allow for customized properties of 3D printing technology [ 29 ].

The application of nanotechnology in computers cannot be distinguished from other industrial applications, because everything in modern industries is controlled by a systemic network in association with a network of computers and similar technologies. Thus, the fields of electronics, manufacturing, processing, and packaging, among several others, are interlinked with nanocomputer science [ 11 , 15 ]. Silicon tubes have had immense applications that revolutionized the industrial revolution in the 20th century; now, the industrial revolution is in yet another revolutionary phase based on nanostructures [ 16 ]. Silicon tubes have been slowly replaced with nanotubes, which are allowing a great deal of improvement and efficiency in computing technology. Similarly, lab-on-a-chip technology and memory chips are being formulated at nano scales to lessen the storage space but increase the storage volume within a small, flexible, and easily workable chip in computers for their subsequent applications in multiple other industries.

Hundreds of nanotechnology computer-related products have been marketed in the last 20 years of the nanotechnological revolution [ 30 ]. Modern industries such as textiles, automotive, civil engineering, construction, solar technologies, environmental applications, medicine, transportation agriculture, and food processing, among others are largely reaping the benefits of nano-scale computer chips and other devices. In simple terms, everything out there in nanoindustrial applications has something to do with computer-based applications in the nanoindustry [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Thus, all the applications discussed in this review more or less originate from nanocomputers. These applications are enabling considerable improvement and positive reports within the industrial sector. Having said that, it is hoped that computer scientists will remain engaged and will keep on collaborating with scientists in other fields to further explore the opportunities associated with nanocomputer sciences.

2.3. Nanotechnology and Bioprocessing Industries

Scientific and engineering rigor is being carried out to the link fields of nanotechnology with contributions to the bioprocessing industry. Researchers are interested in how the basics of nanomaterials could be used for the high-quality manufacturing of food and other biomaterials [ 15 , 34 ]. Pathogenic identification, food monitoring, biosensor devices, and smart packaging materials, especially those that are reusable and biodegradable, and the nanoencapsulation of active food compounds are only a few nanotechnological applications which have been the prime focus of the research community in recent years. Eventually, societal acceptability and dealing with social, cultural, and ethical concerns will allow the successful delivery of nano-based bio-processed products into the common markets for public usage [ 20 , 35 ].

With the increasing population worldwide, food requirements are increasing in addition to the concerns regarding the production of safe, healthy, and recurring food options. Sensors and diagnostic devices will help improve the sensitivity in food quality monitoring [ 36 ]. Moreover, the fake industrial application of food products could be easily scanned out of a system with the application of nanotechnology which could control brand protection throughout bio-processing [ 6 ]. The power usage in food production might also be controlled after a total nanotechnological application in the food industry. The decrease in power consumption would ultimately be positive for the environment. This could directly bring in the interplay of environment, food, and nanotechnology and would help to reduce environmental concerns in future [ 37 ].

One of the important implications of nanotechnology in bioprocessing industries can be accustomed to fermentation processes; these technologies are under usage for greater industrial demand and improved biomolecule production at a very low cost, unlike traditional fermentation processes [ 35 ]. The successful implementation and integration of fermentation and nanotechnology have allowed the development of biocompatible, safe, and nontoxic substances and nanostructures with wide-scale application in the field of food, bioprocessing, and winemaking industries [ 38 ]. Another important application is in the food monitoring and food supply chain management, present in various subsectors such as production, storage, distribution, and toxicity management. Nanodevices and nanomaterials are incorporated into chemical and biological sensor technologies to improve overall analytical performance with regard to parameters such as response time, sensitivity, selectivity, accuracy, and reliability [ 39 ]. The conventional methods of food monitoring are slowly being replaced with modern nano-based materials such as nanowires, nanocomposites, nanotubes, nanorods, nanosheets, and other materials that function to immobilize and label components [ 40 ]. These methods are either electrochemically or optically managed. For food monitoring, several assays are proposed and implemented with their roots in nano-based technologies; they may include molecular and diagnostic assays, immunological assays, and electrochemical and optical assays such as surface-enhanced Raman scattering and colorimetry technologies [ 34 ]. Materials ranging from heavy materials to microorganisms, pesticides, allergens, and antibiotics are easily monitored during commercial processing and bioprocessing in industries.

Additionally, nanotechnology has presented marvelous transformations in bio-composting materials. With the rising demand for biodegradable composites worldwide to reduce the environmental impact and increase the efficiency of industrial output, there is an increasing need for sustainable technologies [ 41 ]. Nanocomposites are thus being formulated with valuable mechanical properties better than conventional polymers, thus establishing their applicability in industries. The improved properties include optical, mechanical, catalytic, electrochemical, and electrical ones [ 42 ]. These biodegradable polymers are not only used in bioprocessing industries to create food products with relevant benefits but are also being deployed in the biomedical field, therapeutic industries, biotechnology base tissue engineering field, packing, sensor industries, drug delivery technology, water remediation, food industries, and cosmetics industries as well [ 2 , 24 , 34 , 43 ]. These nanocomposites have outstanding characteristics of biocompatibility, lower toxicities, antimicrobial activity, thermal resistance, and overall improved biodegradation properties which make them worthy of applications in products [ 44 ]. However, it is still imperative to conduct wide-scale toxicity and safety profiling for these and other nanomaterials to ensure the safety requirements, customer satisfaction, and public benefit are met [ 44 ].

Moreover, the advancement of nanotechnology has also been conferred to the development of functional food items. The exposure and integration of nanotechnology and the food industry have resulted in larger quantities of sustainable, safer, and healthier food products for human consumption, which is a growing need for the rising population worldwide [ 45 ]. The overall positive impact of nanotechnology in food processing, manufacturing, packing, pathogenic detection, monitoring, and production profiles necessitates the wide-scale application of this technology in the food industry worldwide [ 4 , 41 ]. Recent research has shown how the delivery of bioactive compounds and essential ingredients is and can be improved by the application of nanomaterials (nanoencapsulation) in food products [ 46 ]. These technologies improve the protection performance and sensitivity of bioactive ingredients while preventing unnecessary interaction with other constituents of foods, thus establishing clear-cut improved bioactivity and solubility profiles of nanofoods, thereby improving human health benefits. However, it should be kept in mind that the safety regards of these food should be carefully regulated with safety profiling, as they directly interact with human bodies [ 47 ].

2.4. Nanotechnology and Agri-Industries

Agriculture is the backbone of the economies of various nations around the globe. It is a major contributing factor to the world economy in general and plays a critical role in population maintenance by providing nutritional needs to them. As global weather patterns are changing owing to the dramatic changes caused by global warming, it is accepted that agriculture will be greatly affected [ 48 ]. Under this scenario, it is always better to take proactive measures to make agricultural practices more secure and sustainable than before. Modern technology is thus being employed worldwide. Nanotechnology has also come to play an effective role in this interplay of sustainable technologies. It plays an important role during the production, processing, storing, packaging, and transport of agricultural industrial products [ 49 ].

Nanotechnology has introduced certain precision farming techniques to enhance plant nutrients’ absorbance, alongside better pathogenic detection against agricultural diseases. Fertilizers are being improved by the application of nanoclays and zeolites which play effective roles in soil nutrient broths and in the restoration soil fertility [ 49 ]. Modern concepts of smart seeds and seed banks are also programmed to germinate under favorable conditions for their survival; nanopolymeric mixtures are used for coating in these scenarios [ 50 ]. Herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides are also being revolutionized through nanotechnology applications. It has also been considered to upgrade linked fields of poultry and animal husbandry via the application of nanotechnology in treatment and disinfection practices.

2.5. Nanotechnology and Food Industry

The applications of nanotechnology in the food industry are immense and include food manufacturing, packaging, safety measures, drug delivery to specific sites [ 51 ], smart diets, and other modern preservatives, as summarized in Figure 1 . Nanomaterials such as polymer/clay nanocomposites are used in packing materials due to their high barrier properties against environmental impacts [ 52 ]. Similarly, nanoparticle mixtures are used as antimicrobial agents to protect stored food products against rapid microbial decay, especially in canned products. Similarly, several nanosensor and nano-assembly-based assays are used for microbial detection processes in food storage and manufacturing industries [ 53 ].

Nanotechnology applications in food and interconnected industries.

Nanoassemblies hold the potential to detect small gasses and organic and inorganic residues alongside microscopic pathogenic entities [ 54 ]. It should, however, be kept in mind that most of these nanoparticles are not directly added to food species because of the risk of toxicity that may be attached to such metallic nanoparticles. Work is being carried out to predict the toxicity attached, so that in the future, these products’ market acceptability could be increased [ 55 ]. With this, it is pertinent to say that nanotechnology is rapidly taking steps into the food industry for packing, sensing, storage, and antimicrobial applications [ 56 ].

Nanotechnology is also revolutionizing the dairy industry worldwide [ 57 ]. An outline of potential applications of nanotechnology in the dairy industry may include: improved processing methods, improved food contact and mixing, better yields, the increased shelf life and safety of dairy-based products, improved packaging, and antimicrobial resistance [ 58 ]. Additionally, nanocarriers are increasingly applied to transfer biologically active substances, drugs, enhanced flavors, colors, odors, and other food characteristics to dairy products [ 59 ].

These compounds exhibit higher delivery, solubility, and absorption properties to their targeted system. However, the problem of public acceptability due to the fear of unknown or potential side effects associated with nano-based dairy and food products needs to be addressed for the wider-scale commercialization of these products [ 60 ].

2.5.1. Nanotechnology, Poultry and Meat Industry

The poultry industry is a big chunk of the food industry and contributes millions of dollars every year to food industries around the world. Various commercial food chains are running throughout the world, the bases of which start from healthy poultry industries. The incidence of widespread foodborne diseases that originate from poultry, milk, and meat farms is a great concern for the food industry. Nanobiotechnology is certainly playing a productive role in tackling food pathogens such as those which procreate from Salmonella and Campylobacter infections by allowing increased poultry consumption while maintaining the affordability and safety of manufactured chicken products [ 61 ]. Several nano-based tools and materials such as nano-enabled disinfectants, surface biocides, protective clothing, air and water filters, packaging materials, biosensors, and detective devices are being used to confirm the authenticity and traceability of poultry products [ 62 ]. Moreover, nano-based materials are used to reduce foodborne pathogens and spoilage organisms before the food becomes part of the supply chain [ 63 ].

2.5.2. Nanotechnology—Fruit and Vegetable Industry

As already described, nanotechnology has made its way far ahead in the food industry. The agricultural, medicinal, and fruit and vegetable industries cannot remain unaffected under this scenario. Scientists are trying to increase the shelf life of fresh organic products to fulfill the nutritional needs of a growing population. From horticulture to food processing, packaging, and pathogenic detection technology, nanotechnology plays a vital role in the safety and production of vegetables and fruits [ 64 ].

Conventional technologies are now being replaced with nanotechnology due to their benefits of cost-effectiveness, satisfactory results, and overall shelf life improvement compared to past practices. Although some risks may be attached, nanotechnology has not yet reported high-grade toxicity to organic fresh green products. These technologies serve the purpose of providing safe and sufficient food sources to customers while reducing postharvest wastage, which is a major concern in developing nations [ 55 ]. Nanopackaging provides the benefits of lower humidity, oxygen passage, and optimal water vapor transmission rates. Hence, in the longer run, the shelf life of such products is increased to the desired level using nanotechnology [ 65 ].

2.5.3. Nanotechnology and Winemaking Industry

The winemaking industry is a big commercial application of the food industry worldwide. The usage of nanotechnology is also expanding in this industry. Nanotechnology serves the purpose of sensing technology through employment as nanoelectronics, nanoelectrochemical, and biological, amperometric, or fluorimetric sensors. These nanomaterials help to analyze the wine components, including polyphenols, organic acids, biogenic amines, or sulfur dioxide, and ensure they are at appropriate levels during the production of wine and complete processing [ 66 ].

Efforts are being made to further improve sensing nanotechnology to increase the accuracy, selectivity, sensitivity, and rapid response rate for wine sampling, production, and treatment procedures [ 53 ]. Specific nanoassemblies that are used in winemaking industries include carbon nanorods, nanodots, nanotubes, and metallic nanoparticles such as gold, silver, zinc oxide, iron oxide, and other types of nanocomposites. Recent research studies have introduced the concept of electronic tongues, nanoliquid chromatography, mesoporous silica, and applications of magnetic nanoparticles in winemaking products [ 67 ]. An elaborative account of these nanomaterials is out of the scope of the present study; however, on a broader scale, it is not wrong to say that nanotechnology is successfully reaping in the field of enology.

2.6. Nanotechnology and Packaging Industries

The packaging industry is continuously under improvement since the issue of environmentalism has been raised around the globe. Several different concerns are linked to the packaging industry; primarily, packaging should provide food safety to deliver the best quality to the consumer end. In addition, packaging needs to be environmentally friendly to reduce the food-waste-related pollution concern and to make the industrial processes more sustainable. Trials are being carried out to reduce the burden by replacing non-biodegradable plastic packaging materials with eco-friendly organic biopolymer-based materials which are processed at the nano scale to incur the beneficial properties of nanotechnology [ 68 ].

The nanomanufacturing of packaging biomaterials has proven effective in food packaging industries, as nanomanufacturing not only contributes to increasing food safety and production but also tackles environmental issues [ 69 ]. Some examples of these packaging nanomaterials may include anticaking agents, nanoadditives, delivery systems for nutraceuticals, and many more. The nanocompositions of packing materials are formed by mixing nanofillers and biopolymers to enhance packaging’s functionality [ 70 ]. Nanomaterials with antimicrobial properties are preferred in these cases, and they are mixed with a polymer to prevent the contamination of the packaged material. It is important to mention here that this technology is not only limited to food packaging; instead, packaging nanotechnology is now also being introduced in certain other industries such as textile, leather, and cosmetic industries in which it is providing large benefits to those industries [ 64 ].

2.7. Nanotechnology and Construction Industry and Civil Engineering

Efficient construction is the new normal application for sustainable development. The incorporation of nanomaterials in the construction industry is increasing to further the sustainability concern [ 71 ]. Nanomaterials are added to act as binding agents in cement. These nanoparticles enhance the chemical and physical properties of strength, durability, and workability for the long-lasting potential of the construction industry. Materials such as silicon dioxide which were previously also in use are now manufactured at the nano scale [ 71 ]. These nanostructures along with polymeric additives increase the density and stability of construction suspension [ 72 ]. The aspect of sustainable development is being applied to the manufacture of modern technologies coupled with beneficial applications of nanotechnology. This concept has produced novel isolative and smart window technologies which have driven roots in nanoengineering, such as vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) and phase change materials (PCMs), which provide thermal insulation effects and thus save energy and improve indoor air quality in homes [ 73 ].

A few of the unique properties of nanomaterials in construction include light structure, strengthened structural composition, low maintenance requirements, resistant coatings, improved pipe and bridge joining materials, improved cementitious materials, extensive fire resistance, sound absorption, and insulation properties, as well as the enhanced reflectivity of glass surfaces [ 74 ]. As elaborated under the heading of civil engineering applications, concrete’s properties are the most commonly discussed and widely changing in the construction industry because of concrete’s minute structure, which can be easily converted to the nano scale [ 75 ]. More specifically, the combination of nano-SiO 2 in cement could improve its performance in terms of compressiveness, large volumes with increased compressiveness, improved pore size distribution, and texture strength [ 76 ].

Moreover, some studies are also being carried out to improve the cracking properties of concrete by the application of microencapsulated healing polymers, which reduce the cracking properties of cement [ 77 ]. Moreover, some other construction materials, such as steel, are undergoing research to change their structural composites through nano-scale manufacturing. This nanoscaling improves steel’s properties such as improved corrosion resistance, increased weldability, the ease of handling for designing building materials, and construction work [ 78 ]. Additionally, coating materials have been improved by being manufactured at the nano scale. This has led to different improved coating properties such as functional improvement; anticorrosive action; high-temperature, fire, scratch, and abrasion resistance; antibacterial and antifouling self-healing capabilities; and self-assembly, among other useful applications [ 79 ].

Nanotechnology improves the compressive flexural properties of cement and reduces its porosity, making it absorb less water compared to traditional cementation preparations. This is because of the high surface-to-volume ratio of nanosized particles. Such an approach helps in reducing the amount of cement in concrete, making it more cost-effective, more strengthening, and eco-friendly, known as ‘green concrete’. Besides concrete, the revolutionary characteristics of nanotechnology are now also being adopted in other construction materials such as steel, glass, paper, wood, and multiple other engineering materials to upgrade the construction industry [ 80 ].

Similarly, carbon nanotubes, nanorods, and nanofibers are rapidly replacing steel constructions. These nanostructures along with nanoclay formations increase the mechanical properties and thus have paved the way for a new branch of civil engineering in terms of nanoengineering [ 80 ]. Apart from cement formulations, nanoparticles are included in repair mortars and concrete with healing properties that help in crack recovery in buildings. Furthermore, nanostructures, titanium dioxide, zinc, and other metallic oxides are being employed for the production of photocatalytic products with antipathogenic, self-cleaning, and water- and germ-repellent built-in technologies [ 33 ]. Similarly, quantum dot technologies are progressively employed for solar energy generation (a concept discussed later). These photovoltaic cells contribute to saving the maximum amount of solar energy [ 81 ].

2.8. Nanotechnology and Textiles Industry

The textile industry achieved glory in the 21st century with enormous outgrowth through social media platforms. Large brands have taken over the market worldwide, and millions are earned every year through textile industries. With the passing of time, nanotechnology is being slowly incorporated into the textile fiber industry owing to its unique and valuable properties. Previously, fabrics manufactured via conventional methods often curtailed the temporary effects of durability and quality [ 82 ]. However, the age of nanotechnology has allowed these fabric industries to employ nanotechnology to provide high durability, flexibility, and quality to clothes which is not lost upon laundering and wearing. The high surface-to-volume ratio of nanomaterials keeps high surface energy and thus provides better affinity to their fabrics, leading to long-term durability [ 82 ]. Moreover, a thin layering and coating of nanoparticles on the fabric make them breathable and make them smooth to the touch. This layering is carried out by processes such as printing, washing, padding, rinsing, drying, and curing to attach nanoparticles on the fabric surface. These processes are carried out to impart the properties of water repellence, soil resistance, flame resistance, hydrophobicity, wrinkle resistance, antibacterial and antistatic properties, and increased dyeability to the clothes [ 83 ].

The unique properties of nanomaterials in textile industries have attracted large-scale businesses for the financial benefits attached to their application. For this reason, competitors are increasing in nanotextile industry speedily, which may make the conventional textile industry sidelined in the near future [ 84 ]. Some benefits associated with nanotextile engineering and industry may include: improved cleaning surfaces, soil, wrinkle, stain, and color damage resistance, higher wettability and strike-through characteristics, malodor- and soil-removal abilities, abrasion resistance, a modified version of surface friction, and color enhancement through nanomaterials [ 85 ].

These characteristics have hugely improved the functionality and performance characteristics of textile and fiber materials [ 86 ]. Based upon the numerous advantages, nanotextile technology is increasingly being used in various inter-related fields, including in medical clothes, geotextiles, shock-resistant textiles, and fire-resistant and water-resistant textiles [ 87 ]. These textiles and fibers help overcome severe environmental conditions in special industries where high temperatures, pressure, and other conditions are adjusted for manufacturing purposes. These textiles are now increasingly called smart clothes due to renewed nanotechnological application to traditional methods [ 88 ].

The increasing demand for durable, appealing, and functionally outstanding textile products with a couple of factors of sustainability has allowed science to incorporate nanotechnology in the textile sector. These nano-based materials offer textile properties such as stain-repellent, wrinkle-free textures and fibers’ electrical conductivity alongside guaranteeing comfort and flexibility in clothing [ 82 ]. The characteristics of nanomaterials are also exhibited in the form of connected garments creation that undergo sensations to respond to external stimuli through electrical, colorant, or physiological signals. Thus, a kind of interconnection develops between the fields of photonic, electrical, textile and nanotechnologies [ 89 ]. Their interconnected applications confer the properties of high-scale performance, lasting durability, and connectivity in textile fibers. However, the concerns of nanotoxicity, the chances of the release of nanomaterials during washing, and the overall environmental impact of nanotextiles are important challenges that need to be ascertained and dealt with successfully in the coming years to ensure wide-scale acceptance and the global broad-spectrum application of nanotextiles [ 90 ].

The global market for the textile industry is constantly on the rise; with so many new brands, the competition is rising in regard to pricing, material, product outlook, and market exposure. Under this scenario, nanotechnology has contributed in terms of value addition to textiles by contributing the properties of water repellence, self-cleaning, and protection from radiation and UV light, along with safety against flames and microorganisms [ 82 ]. A whole new market of smart clothes is slowly taking our international markets along with improvements in textile machinery and economic standing. These advances have effectively established the sustainable character of the textile industry and have created grounds to meet the customer’s demand [ 91 ]. Some important examples of smart clothing originating from the nanotextile industry can be seen in products such as bulletproof jackets, fabric coatings, and advanced nanofibers. Fabric coatings and pressure pads can exhibit characteristics of invisibility and entail a silver, nickel, or gold nanoparticle-based material with inherent antimicrobial properties [ 92 ]. Such materials are effectively being utilized and introduced into the medical industry for bandages, dressings, etc. [ 92 ].

Similarly, woven optical fibers are already making progress in the textile and IT industry. With the incorporation of nanomaterials, optical fibers are being utilized for a range of purposes such as light transmission, sensing technologies, deformation, improved formational characteristic detection, and long-range data transmission. These optical fibers with phase-changing material properties can also be utilized for thermostability maintenance in the fiber industry. Thus, these fibers have combined applications in the computer, IT, and textile sectors [ 93 ]. In addition, the nano cellulosic material that is naturally obtained from plants confers properties of stiffness, strength, durability, and large surface area to volume ratios, which is acquired through the large number of surface hydroxyl groups embedded in nanocellulose particles [ 94 ]. Moreover, the characteristics of high resistance, lower weight, cost-effectiveness, and electrical conductivity are some additional benefits which are also linked to these nanocellulosic fibers [ 93 ]. The aforementioned technologies will allow industrialists to manufacture fabrics based on nanomaterials through a variety of chemical, physical, and biological processes. The scope of improvement in the textile properties, cost, and production methods is making the nanotextile industry a strong field of interest for future industrial investments.

2.9. Nanotechnology and Transport and Automobile Industry

The automotive industry is always improving its production. Nanotechnology is one such tool that could impart the automotive industry with a totally new approach to manufacturing. Automobile shaping could be improved greatly without any changes to the raw materials used. The replacement of conventional fabrication procedures with advanced nanomanufacturing is required to achieve the required outcome. Nanotechnology intends to partly renovate the automobile industry by enhancing the technical performance and reducing production costs excessively. However, there is a gap in fully harnessing the potential of nanomaterials in the automotive industry. Industrialists who were previously strict about automotive industrial principles are ready to employ novelties attached to nanotechnology to create successful applications to automobiles in the future [ 95 ]. Nanotechnology could provide assistance in manufacturing methods with an impartment of extended life properties. Cars that have been manufactured with nanotechnology applications have shown lower failure rates and enhanced self-repairing properties. Although the initial investment in the nanoautomated industry is high, the outcomes are enormous.

The concept of sustainable transport could also be applied to the manufacturing of such nano-based technology which is CO 2 free and imparts safe driving and quiet, clean, and wider-screen cars, which, in the future, may be called nanocars. The major interplay of nanotechnology and the automotive industry comes in the manufacturing of car parts, engines, paints, coating materials, suspensions, breaks, lubrication, and exhaust systems [ 32 ]. These properties are largely imparted via carbon nanotubes and carbon black, which renders new functionalities to automobiles. These products were previously in use, but nanoscaling and nanocoating allow for enhanced environmental, thermal, and mechanical stability to be imparted to the new generation of automobiles. In simple terms, automobiles manufactured with principal nanonovelties could result in cars with less wearing risk, better gliding potential, thinner coating lubrication requirements, and long service bodies with weight reductions [ 31 ]. These properties will ultimately reduce costs and will impart more space for improved automobile manufacturing in the future. Similarly, the development of electric cars and cars built on super capacitor technology is increasingly based on nanotechnology. The implications of nanotechnology in the form of rubber fillers, body frames made of light alloys, nanoelectronic components, nanocoatings of the interior and exterior of cars, self-repairing materials against external pressure, nanotextiles for interiors, and nanosensors are some of the nanotechnological-based implications of the automotive industry [ 96 ]. Owing to these properties, nanotechnology ventures are rapidly progressing in the automobile industry. It is expected that, soon, the automobile industry will commercialize nanotechnological perspectives on their branding strategies.

2.10. Nanotechnology, Healthcare, and Medical Industry

The genesis of nanomedicine simply cannot be ignored when we talk about the large fields of biological sciences, biotechnology, and medicine. Nanotechnology is already making its way beyond the imagination in the broader vision of nanobiotechnology. The quality of human life is continuously improved by the successful applications of nanotechnology in medicine, and resultantly, the entire new field of nanomedicine has come to the surface, which has allowed scientists to create upgraded versions of diagnostics, treatment, screening, sequencing, disease prevention, and proactive actions for healthcare [ 97 ]. These practices may also involve drug manufacturing, designing, conjugation, and efficient delivery options with advances in nano-based genomics, tissue engineering, and gene therapy. With this, it could be predicted that soon, nanomedicine will be the foremost research interest for the coming generation of biologists to study the useful impacts and risks that might be associated with them [ 98 ]. As illustrated in Figure 2 , we summarized the applications of nanotechnology in different subfields of the medical industry.

Nanotechnology applications in medical industry. Nanotechnology has a broad range of applications in various diagnostics and treatments using nanorobotics and drug delivery systems.

In various medical procedures, scientists are exploring the potential benefits of nanotechnology. In the field of medical tools, various robotic characters have been applied which have their origins in nano-scale computers, such as diagnostic surfaces, sensor technologies, and sample purification kits [ 99 ]. Similarly, some modifications are being accepted in diagnostics with the development of devices that are capable of working, responding, and modifying within the human body with the sole purpose of early diagnosis and treatment. Regenerative medicine has led to nanomanufacturing applications in addition to cell therapy and tissue engineering [ 100 ]. Similarly, some latest technologies in the form of ‘lab-on-a-chip’, as elaborated upon earlier, are being introduced with large implications in different fields such as nanomedicine, diagnostics, dentistry, and cosmetics industries [ 101 ]. Some updated nanotechnology applications in genomics and proteomics fields have developed molecular insights into antimicrobial diseases. Moreover, medicine, programming, nanoengineering, and biotechnology are being merged to create applications such as surgical nanorobotics, nanobioelectrics, and drug delivery methods [ 102 ]. All of these together help scientists and clinicians to better understand the pathophysiology of diseases and to bring about better treatment solutions in the future.

Specifically, the field of nanocomputers and linked devices help to control activation responses and their rates in mechanical procedures [ 2 ]. Through these mechanical devices, specific actions of medical and dental procedures are executed accurately. Moreover, programmed nanomachines and nanorobots allow medical practitioners to carry out medical procedures precisely at even sub-cellular levels [ 4 ]. In diagnostics fields, the use of such nanodevices is expanding rapidly, which allows predictions to be made about disease etiology and helps to regulate treatment options [ 103 ]. The use of in vitro diagnosis allows increased efficiency in disease apprehension. Meanwhile, in in vivo diagnoses, such devices have been made which carry out the screening of diseased states and respond to any kind of toxicities or carcinogenic or pathological irregularities that the body faces [ 104 ].

Similarly, the field of regenerative medicine is employing nanomaterials in various medical procedures such as cell therapy, tissue engineering, and gene sequencing for the greater outlook of treatment and reparation of cells, tissues, and organs. Nanoassemblies have been recorded in research for applications in powerful tissue regeneration technologies with properties of cell adhesion, migration, and cellular differentiation [ 102 ]. Additionally, nanotechnology is being applied in antimicrobial (antibacterial and antiviral) fields. The microscopic abilities of these pathogens are determined through nano-scale technologies [ 100 ]. Greek medicinal practices have long been using metals to cure pathogenic diseases, but the field of nanotechnology has presented a new method to improve such traditional medical practices; for example, nanosized silver nanomaterials are being used to cure burn wounds owing to the easy penetration of nanomaterials at the cellular level [ 102 , 105 ].

In the field of bioinformatics and computational biology, genomic and proteomic technologies are elucidating molecular insights into disease management [ 106 ]. The scope of targeted and personalized therapies related to pathogenic and pathophysiological diseases have greatly provided spaces for nanotechnological innovative technologies [ 107 , 108 ]. They also incorporate the benefits of cost-effectiveness and time saving [ 109 ]. Similarly, nanosensors and nanomicrobivores are utilized for military purposes such as the detection of airborne chemical agents which could cause serious toxic outcomes otherwise [ 102 ]. Some nanosensors also serve a purpose similar to phagocytes to clear toxic pathogens from the bloodstream without causing septic shock conditions, especially due to the inhalation of prohibited drugs and banned substances [ 100 , 105 , 110 ]. These technologies are also used for dose specifications and to neutralize overdosing incidences [ 110 ] Nano-scale molecules work as anticancer and antiviral nucleoside analogs with or without other adjuvants [ 21 ].

Another application of nanotechnology in the medical industry is in bone regeneration technology. Scientists are working on bone graft technology for bone reformation and muscular re-structuring [ 111 , 112 ]. Principle investigations of biomineralization, collagen mimic coatings, collagen fibers, and artificial muscles and joints are being conducted to revolutionize the field of osteology and bone tissue engineering [ 113 , 114 ]. Similarly, drug delivery technologies are excessively considering nanoscaling options to improve drug delivery stability and pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles at a large scale [ 110 ]. The use of nanorobots is an important step that allows drugs to travel across the circulatory system and deliver drug entities to specifically targeted sites [ 99 , 115 ]. Scientists are even working on nanorobots-based wireless intracellular and intra-nucleolar nano-scale surgeries for multiple malignancies, which otherwise remain incurable [ 102 ]. These nanorobotics can work at such a minute level that they can even cut a single neuronic dendrite without causing harm to complex neuronal networks [ 116 ].

Another important application of nanotechnology in the medical field is oncology. Nanotechnology is providing a good opportunity for researchers to develop such nanoagents, fluorescent materials, molecular diagnostics kits, and specific targeted drugs that may help to diagnose and cure carcinogenesis [ 104 ]. Scientists are trying various protocols of adjoining already-available drugs with nanoparticulate conjugation to enhance drug specificity and targeting in organs [ 104 , 107 , 117 ]. Nanomedicine acts as the carrier of hundreds of specific anticancerous molecules that could be projected at tumor sites; moreover, the tumor imaging and immunotherapy approaches linked with nanomedicine are also a potential field of interest when it comes to cancer treatment management [ 112 , 117 ]. A focus is also being drawn toward lessening the impact of chemotherapeutic drugs by increasing their tumor-targeting efficiency and improving their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties [ 112 ]. Similarly, heat-induced ablation treatment against cancer cells alongside gene therapy protocols is also being coupled with nanorobotics [ 99 , 118 ]. Anticancerous drugs may utilize the Enhanced Permeation and Retention Effect (EPR effect) by applications of nano assemblies such as liposomes, albumin nanospheres, micelles, and gold nanoparticles, which confirms effective treatment strategies against cancer [ 119 ]. Such advances in nanomedicine will bring about a more calculated, outlined, and technically programmed field of nanomedicine through association and cooperation between physicians, clinicians, researchers, and technologies.

2.10.1. Nanoindustry and Dentistry

Nanodentistry is yet another subfield of nanomedicine that involves broad-scale applications of nanotechnology ranging from diagnosis, prevention, cure, prognosis, and treatment options for dental care [ 120 ]. Some important applications in oral nanotechnology include dentition denaturalization, hypersensitivity cure, orthodontic realignment problems, and modernized enameling options for the maintenance of oral health [ 2 , 121 ]. Similarly, mechanical dentifrobots work to sensitize nerve impulse traffic at the core of a tooth in real-time calculation and hence could regulate tooth tissue penetration and maintenance for normal functioning [ 122 ]. The functioning is coupled with programmed nanocomputers to execute an action from external stimuli via connection with localized internal nerve stimuli. Similarly, there are other broad-range applications of nanotechnology in tooth repair, hypersensitivity treatment, tooth repositioning, and denaturalization technologies [ 4 , 118 , 120 , 121 ]. Some of the applications of nanotechnology in the field of dentistry are elaborated upon in Figure 3 .

Nanotechnology applications in field of dentistry. Nanotechnology can be largely used in dentistry to repair and treat dental issues.

2.10.2. Nanotechnology and Cosmetics Industry

The cosmetics industry, as part of the greater healthcare industry, is continuously evolving. Nanotechnology-based renovations are progressively incorporated into cosmetics industries as well. Products are designed with novel formulations, therapeutic benefits, and aesthetic output [ 123 ]. The nanocosmetics industry employs the usage of lipid nanocarrier systems, polymeric or metallic nanoparticles, nanocapsules, nanosponges, nanoemulsions, nanogels, liposomes, aquasomes, niosomes, dendrimers, and fullerenes, etc., among other such nanoparticles [ 101 ]. These nanomaterials bring about specific characteristics such as drug delivery, enhanced absorption, improved esthetic value, and enhanced shelf life. The benefits of nanotechnology are greatly captured in the improvement of skin, hair, nail, lip, and dental care products, and those associated with hygienic concerns. Changes to the skin barrier have been largely curtailed owing to the function of the nano scale of materials. The nanosize of active ingredients allows them to easily permeate skin barriers and generate the required dermal effect [ 124 ].

More profoundly, nanomaterials’ application is encouraged in the production of sun-protective cosmetics products such as sunblock lotions and creams. The main ingredient used is the rational combination of cinnamates (derived from carnauba wax) and titanium dioxide nanosuspensions which provide sun-protective effects in cosmetics products [ 125 ]. Similarly, nanoparticle suspensions are being applied in nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) for dermal and pharmaceutical applications [ 126 ]. They exhibit the properties of controlled drug-carrying and realizing properties, along with direct drug targeting, occlusion, and increased penetration and absorption to the skin surface. Moreover, these carrier nanoemulsions exhibit excellent tolerability to intense environmental and body conditions [ 127 ]. Moreover, these lipid nanocarriers have been researched and declared safe for potential cosmetic and pharmaceutical applications. However, more research is still required to assess the risk/benefit ratio of their excessive application [ 128 ].

2.11. Nanotechnology Industries and Environment

The environment, society, and technology are becoming excessively linked under a common slogan of sustainable development. Nanotechnology plays a key role in the 21st century to modify the technical and experimental outlook of various industries. Environmental applications cannot stand still against revolutionary applications of nanotechnology. Since the environment has much to do with the physical and chemical world around a living being, the nano scale of products greatly changes and affects environmental sustainability [ 129 ]. The subsequent introduction of nanomaterials in chemistry, physics, biotechnology, computer science, and space, food, and chemical industries, in general, directly impacts environmental sciences.

With regard to environmental applications, the remarkable research and applications of nanotechnology are increasing in the processing of raw materials, product manufacturing, contaminate treatment, soil and wastewater treatment, energy storage, and hazardous waste management [ 130 ]. In developed nations, it is now widely suggested that nanotechnology could play an effective role in tackling environmental issues. In fact, the application of nanotechnology could be implemented for water and cell cleaning technologies, drinking safety measures, and the detoxification of contaminants and pollutants from the environment such as heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, and solvents, etc., which may involve reprocessing although nanofiltration. Moreover, the efficiency and durability of materials can be increased with mechanical stress and weathering phenomena. Similarly, the use of nanocage-based emulsions is being used for optical imaging techniques [ 131 ].

In short, the literature provides immense relevance to how nanotechnology is proving itself through groundbreaking innovative technologies in environmental sciences. The focus, for now, is kept on remediation technologies with prime attention on water treatment, since water scarcity is being faced worldwide and is becoming critical with time. There is a need for the scientific community to actively conduct research on comprehending the properties of nanomaterials for their high surface area, related chemical properties, high mobility, and unique mechanical and magnetic properties which could be used for to achieve a sustainable environment [ 132 ].

2.12. Nanotechnology—Oil and Gas Industry

The oil and gas industry makes up a big part of the fossil industry, which is slowly depleting with the rising consumption. Although nanotechnology has been successfully applied to the fields of construction, medicine, and computer science, its application in the oil and gas industry is still limited, especially in exploration and production technologies [ 133 ]. The major issue in this industry is to improve oil recovery and the further exploitation of alternative energy sources. This is because the cost of oil production and further purification is immense compared to crude oil prices. Nanotechnologists believe that they could overcome the technological barriers to developing such nanomaterials that would help in curtailing these problems.

Governments are putting millions of dollars into the exploration, drilling, production, refining, wastewater treatment, and transport of crude oil and gas. Nanotechnology can provide assistance in the precise measurement of reservoir conditions. Similarly, nanofluids have been proven to exhibit better performance in oil production industries. Nanocatalyses enhance the separation processing of oil, water, and gases, thus bringing an efficient impurity removal process to the oil and gas industry. Nanofabrication and nanomembrane technologies are excessively being utilized for the separation and purification of fossil materials [ 134 ]. Finally, functional and modified nanomaterials can produce smart, cost-effective, and durable equipment for the processing and manufacturing of oil and gas. In short, there is immense ground for the improvement of the fossil fuel industry if nanotechnology could be correctly directed in this industry [ 135 ].

2.13. Nanotechnology and Renewable Energy (Solar) Industry

Renewable energy sources are the solutions to many environmental problems in today’s world. This makes the renewable energy industry a major part of the environmental industry. Subsequently, nanotechnology needs to be considered in the energy affairs of the world. Nanotechnologies are increasingly applied in solar, hydrogen, biomass, geothermal, and tidal wave energy production. Although, scientists are convinced that much more needs to be discovered before enhancing the benefits of coupled nanotechnology and renewable energy [ 136 ].

Nanotechnology has procured its application way down the road of renewable energy sources. Solar collectors have been specifically given much importance since their usage is encouraged throughout the world, and with events of intense solar radiation, the production and dependence of solar energy will be helpful for fulfilling future energy needs. Research data are available regarding the theoretical, numerical, and experimental approaches adopted for upgrading solar collectors with the employment of nanotechnologies [ 137 ].

These applications include the nanoengineering of flat solar plates, direct absorption plates, parabolic troughs, and wavy plates and heat pipes. In most of these instruments and solar collection devices, the use of nanofluids is becoming common and plays a crucial role in increasing the working efficiency of these devices. A gap, however, exists concerning the usage of nanomaterials in the useful manufacturing design of solar panels and their associated possible efficiencies which could be brought to the solar panel industry. Moreover, work needs to be done regarding the cost-effectiveness and efficiency analyses of traditional and nanotechnology-based solar devices so that appropriate measures could be adopted for the future generation of nanosolar collectors [ 138 ].

2.14. Nanotechnology and Wood Industry

The wood industry is one of the main economic drivers in various countries where forest growth is immense and heavy industrial setups rely on manufacturing and selling wood-based products [ 139 ]. However, the rising environmental concerns against deforestation are a major cause for researchers to think about a method for the sustainable usage of wood products. Hence, nanotechnology has set its foot in the wood industry in various applications such as the production of biodegradable materials in the paper and pulp industry, timber and furniture industry, wood preservatives, wood composites, and applications in lignocellulosic-based materials [ 140 ]. Resultantly, new products are introduced into the market with enhanced performance (stronger yet lighter products), increased economic potential, and reduced environmental impact.

One method of nano-based application in the wood industry is the derivation of nanomaterials directly from the forest, which is now called nanocellulose material, known broadly for its sustainable characteristics [ 141 ]. This factor has pushed the wood industry to convert cellulosic material to nanocellulose with increased strength, low weight, and increased electromagnetic response along with a larger surface area [ 142 ]. These characteristics are then further used as reinforcing agents in different subcategories of wood-based industries, including substrate, stabilizer, electronics, batteries, sensor technologies, food, medicine, and cosmetics industries [ 143 ]. Moreover, functional characteristics such as the durability, UV absorption, fire resistance, and decreased water absorption of wood-based biodegradable products are also being improved with the application of nanomaterials such as nanozinc oxide or nanotitanium oxide [ 144 ]. Similarly, wood biodegradable properties are reduced through the application of nanoencapsulated preservatives to improve the impregnation of wood with the increasing penetration of applied chemicals and a reduced leaching effect.

Cellulosic nanomaterials exhibit nanofibrillar structures which can be made multifunctional for application in construction, furniture, food, pharmaceuticals, and other wood-based industries [ 145 ]. Research is emerging in which promising results are predicted in different industries in which nanofibers, nanofillers, nanoemulsions, nanocomposites, and nano-scaled chemical materials are used to increase the potential advantages of manufactured wood products [ 146 ]. The outstanding properties of nanocellulusice materials have largely curtailed the environmental concerns in the wood industry in the form of their potential renewable characteristics, self-assembling properties, and well-defined architecture. However, there are a few challenges related to such industries, such as cost/benefit analyses, a lack of compatibility and acceptability from the public owing to a lack of proper commercialization, and a persistent knowledge gap in some places [ 145 ]. Therefore, more effort is required to increase the applications and acceptability of nano-based wood products in the market worldwide.

2.15. Nanotechnology and Chemical Industries

Nanotechnology can be easily applied to various chemical compositions such as polymeric substances; this application can bring about structural and functional changes in those chemical materials and can address various industrial applications including medicine, physics, electronics, chemical, and material industries, among others [ 76 , 132 , 138 ]. One such industrial application is in electricity production, in which different nanomaterials driven from silver, golden, and organic sources could be utilized to make the overall production process cheaper and effective [ 147 ]. Another effective application is in the coatings and textile industry, which has already been discussed briefly. In these industries, enzymatic catalysis in combination with nanotechnology accelerates reaction times, saving money and bringing about high-quality final products. Similarly, the water cleaning industry can utilize the benefits of nanomaterials in the form of silver and magnetic nanoparticles to create strong forces of attraction that easily separate heavy material from untreated water [ 148 ]. Similarly, there is a wide range of chemicals that can be potentially upgraded, although the nano scale for application in biomedical industries is discussed under the heading of nanotechnology and medicine.

Another major application of nanotechnology in the chemical industry includes the surfactant industry, which is used for cleaning paper, inks, agrochemicals, drugs, pharmaceuticals, and some food products [ 149 ]. The traditional surfactant application was of great environmental and health concern, but with the newer and improved manufacturing and nanoscaling of surfactants, environmentally friendly applications have been made possible. These newer types may include biosurfactants obtained via the process of fermentation and bio-based surfactants produced through organic manufacturing. More research is required to establish the risks and side effects of these nanochemical agents [ 3 ].

3. Closing Remarks

Nanotechnology, within a short period, has taken over all disciplinary fields of science, whether it is physics, biology, or chemistry. Now, it is predicted to enormously impact manufacturing technology owing to the evidential and proven benefits of micro scaling. Every field of industry, such as computing, information technology, engineering, medicine, agriculture, and food, among others, is now originating an entire new field in association with nanotechnology. These industries are widely known as nanocomputer, nanoengineering, nanoinformatics, nanobiotechnology, nanomedicine, nanoagriculture, and nanofood industries. The most brilliant discoveries are being made in nanomedicine, while the most cost-effective and vibrant technologies are being introduced in materials and mechanical sciences.

The very purpose of nanotechnology, in layman’s terms, is to ease out the manufacturing process and improve the quality of end products and processes. In this regard, it is easy and predictable that it is not difficult for nanotechnology to slowly take out most of the manufacturing process for industrial improvement. With every coming year, more high-tech and more effective-looking nanotechnologies are being introduced. This is smoothing out the basis of a whole new era of nanomindustries. However, the constructive need is to expand the research basis of nanoapplications to entail the rigorous possible pros of this technology and simultaneously figure out a method to deal with the cons of the said technology.

The miniaturization of computer devices has continued for many years and is now being processed at the nanometer scale. However, a gap remains to explore further options for the nanoscaling of computers and complex electronic devices, including computer processors. Moreover, there is an immense need to enable the controlled production and usage of such nanotechnologies in the real world, because if not, they could threaten the world of technology. Scientists should keep on working on producing nanoelectronic devices with more power and energy efficiency. This is important in order to extract the maximum benefits from the hands of nanotechnology and computer sciences [ 5 ].

Under the influence of nanotechnology, food bioprocessing is showing improvement, as proven by several scientific types of research and industrial applications in food chain and agricultural fields. Moreover, the aspect of sustainability is being introduced to convert the environment, food chains, processing industries, and production methods to save some resources for future generations. The usage of precision farming technologies based upon nanoengineering, modern nano-scale fertilizers, and pesticides are of great importance in this regard. Moreover, a combined nanotechnological aspect is also being successfully applied to the food industry, affecting every dimension of packing, sensing, storage, manufacturing, and antimicrobial applications. It is pertinent to say that although the applications of nanotechnology in the food, agriculture, winemaking, poultry, and associated packaging industries are immense, the need is to accurately conduct the risk assessment and potential toxicity of nanomaterials to avoid any damage to the commercial food chains and animal husbandry practices [ 63 ].

The exposure of the nano-based building industry is immense for civil and mechanical engineers; now, we need to use these technologies to actually bring about changes in those countries in which the population is immense, construction material is depleting, and environmental sustainability problems are hovering upon the state. By carefully assessing the sustainability potential of these nanomaterials, their environmental, hazardous, and health risks could be controlled, and they could likely be removed from the construction and automobile industry all over the world with sincere scientific and technical rigor [ 150 ]. It is expected that soon, the construction and automobile industry will commercialize the nanotechnological perspectives alongside sustainability features in their branding strategies. These nano-scale materials could allow the lifecycle management of automotive and construction industries with the provision of sustainable, safe, comfortable, cost-effective, and more eco-friendly automobiles [ 32 ]. The need is to explore the unacknowledged and untapped potential of nanotechnology applications in these industry industries.

Similarly, nanotechnology-based applications in consumer products such as textile and esthetics industries are immense and impressive. Professional development involves the application of nanotechnology-based UV-protective coatings in clothes which are of utmost need with climatic changes [ 73 ]. The application of nanotechnology overcomes the limitations of conventional production methods and makes the process more suitable and green-technology-based. These properties have allowed the textile companies to effectively apply nanotechnology for the manufacture of better products [ 90 ]. With greater consumer acceptability and market demand, millions are spent in the cosmetic industry to enable the further usage of nanotechnology. Researchers are hopeful that nanotechnology would be used to further upgrade the cosmetics industry in the near future [ 123 ].

Furthermore, the breakthrough applications of nanomedicine are not hidden from the scientific community. If nanomedicine is accepted worldwide in the coming years, then the hope is that the domain of diagnosis and treatment will become more customized, personalized, and genetically targeted for individual patients. Treatment options will ultimately become excessive in number and more successful in accomplishment. However, these assumptions will stay a dream if the research remains limited to scientific understanding.

The real outcome will be the application of this research into the experimental domain and clinical practices to make them more productive and beneficial for the medical industry. For this cause, a combined effort of technical ability, professional skills, research, experimentation, and the cooperation of clinicians, physicians, researchers, and technology is imperative. However, despite all functional beneficial characteristics, work needs to be done and more exploration is required to learn more about nanotechnology and its potential in different industries, especially nanomedicine, and to take into account and curtail the risks and harms attached to the said domain of science.

Additionally, climatic conditions, as mentioned before, along with fossil fuel depletion, have pushed scientists to realize a low-energy-consuming and more productive technological renovation in the form of nanoengineered materials [ 48 ]. Now, they are employing nanomaterials to save energy and harvest the maximum remaining natural resources. There is immense ground for the improvement of the fossil fuel industry if nanotechnology could be correctly directed in this industry [ 135 ]. The beneficial applications within the solar industry, gas and oil industry, and conversion fields require comparative cost-effectiveness and efficiency analyses of traditional and nano-based technologies so that appropriate measures could be adopted for the future generation of nano-based products in said industries [ 138 ].

As every new technology is used in industries, linked social, ethical, environmental, and human safety issues arise to halt the pace of progress. These issues need to be addressed and analyzed along with improving nanotechnology so that this technology easily incorporates into different industries without creating social, moral, and ethical concerns. Wide-scale collaboration is needed among technologists, engineers, biologists, and industrials for a prospective future associated with the wide-scale application of nanotechnology in diversified fields.

4. Conclusions

Highly cost-effective and vibrant nanotechnologies are being introduced in materials and mechanical sciences. A comprehensive overview of such technologies has been covered in this study. This review will help researchers and professionals from different fields to delve deeper into the applications of nanotechnology in their particular areas of interest. Indeed, the applications of nanotechnology are immense, yet the risks attached to unlimited applications remain unclear and unpronounced. Thus, more work needs to be linked and carefully ascertained so that further solutions can be determined in the realm of nanotoxicology. Moreover, it is recommended that researchers, technicians, and industrialists should cooperate at the field and educational level to explore options and usefully exploit nanotechnology in field experiments. Additionally, more developments should be made and carefully assessed at the nano scale for a future world, so that we are aware of this massive technology. The magnificent applications of nanotechnology in the industrial world makes one think that soon, the offerings of nanotechnology will be incorporated into every possible industry. However, there is a need to take precautionary measures to be aware of and educate ourselves about the environmental and pollution concerns alongside health-related harms to living things that may arise due to the deviant use of nanotechnology. This is important because the aspect of sustainability is being increasingly considered throughout the world. So, by coupling the aspect of sustainability with nanotechnology, a prosperous future of nanotechnology can be guaranteed.

Funding Statement

K.M.’s work is supported by United Arab Emirates University-UPAR-Grant#G3458, SURE plus Grant#3908 and SDG research programme grant#4065.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.W. methodology, S.M. validation, S.M., K.M. and Y.W. formal analysis, S.M., K.M. and Y.W. investigation, S.M., K.M. and Y.W. resources, K.M. and Y.W. data curation, S.M., K.M. and Y.W. writing—original draft preparation, S.M. writing—review and editing, S.M., K.M. and Y.W. supervision, Y.W. project administration, K.M. and Y.W. funding acquisition, Y.W. and K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Technology Research Paper

This sample technology research paper features: 8300 words (approx. 27 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 48 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Man’s relation to technology: a brief history, technology and biological anthropology, the sts approach, classical philosophical anthropology, philosophy of technology, the continental approach to the philosophy of technology, the analytic approach to the philosophy of technology, recent developments: bridging the gap, conclusion and future directions.

• Bibliography

More Technology Research Papers:

• History of Technology Research Paper
• Internet Research Paper
• Nanotechnology Research Paper
• Compstat Research Paper
• Computer Forensics Research Paper
• Healthcare Technology Assessment Research Paper
• Ethics of Information Technology Research Paper
• Neurotechnology Research Paper

The term technology is derived from the Greek word techné. The Greek word refers to all forms of skillful, rule-based mastery in any field of human praxis, originally encompassing both arts (like painting, sculpture, writing, and the like) and craftsmanship (like carpentry, shipbuilding, architecture, and the like). The Roman culture uses the Latin word arts for these domains. Accordingly the medieval terminology distinguishes between the seven free arts (grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry, arithmetic, music, astronomy) and the mechanical arts (e.g., agriculture, architecture, tailoring), thus prefiguring the later distinction between arts (as linked to the study of humans and the humanities) and technology (as linked to engineering and the study and science of nature).

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

The modern word technology finally refers either to procedures and skillful application of sciences for the production of industrial or manual products or to the products of these processes themselves. In this sense, technology nowadays encompasses only a part of the original Greek definition. The place of technology as being on the one hand a product of humans (being thus rooted in human anthropology and human tool usage), and being on the other hand based on a solid scientific understanding of the laws of nature (modern technology), can be seen as the two key features of contemporary and recent approaches to analyze and understand technology. Technology is then in one respect as old as humankind: Many approaches in anthropology thus refer to the general structure of technology in all of human history and relate it to the biological condition of humans. But recent anthropological thinking also reflects on the specific details of modern technology. It has often been argued that there is a structural difference between modern, science-based technology and older forms of craftsmanship of ancient or medieval types of technology. Therefore, a central question for modern anthropology is to analyze the consequences modern technology has for our picture of humankind: how to define man in the age of technology.

Reflection about the anthropological function of technology is probably as old as human self-reflection itself, since the ability to use tools and create cultural products has always been seen as a unique human feature, distinguishing humankind from most other animals (see also the next section on biological anthropology). But an analysis of technology was not at the center of political, social, anthropological, or philosophical thoughts before the development of the modern natural sciences and their counterpart, modern technology. Following Carl Mitcham (1994) one can roughly distinguish three approaches to technology before the 20th century, encompassing many topics that later became essential parts of contemporary discussions about technology (p. 275). The three approaches are as follows:

• In the ancient world, technology is looked at with certain skepticism. The use of tools is seen as necessary for survival, but also regarded as dangerous, since it might lead to human hubris and might raise the envy and anger of the gods. In this sense, mythological thinking envisions technology as, for example, stolen from the gods (the myth of Prometheus), and thus not properly belonging to humans. The extensive use of technology is often seen as leading to megalomaniac fantasies or unjustified overstepping of religious and ethical boundaries (e.g., myth of the Tower of Babel, myth of Icarus). Philosophical reflection, however, acknowledges the value of technology for an otherwise defenseless human being. Already Plato anticipates a central thought of modern anthropology: Human beings are poorly equipped for survival in nature. They need to compensate for this lack by developing skills of rational thinking and the usage of tools (this idea later becomes a central thesis of the famous anthropology of Arnold Gehlen [1988]). But the emphasis in ancient philosophical anthropology lies not so much on man’s capacities to invent technology, but on man’s moral character (exemplified by ancient wisdom or medieval religiosity). The usage of technical knowledge should thus be kept within strict ethical boundaries.
• In the hierarchy of knowledge, ethical wisdom is regarded in principle as higher than and superior to technological skills. Socrates points to the question that we should not only seek knowledge about how to do certain things (technical knowledge), but rather about whether we should perform certain actions (ethical knowledge); this idea can also be found in the medieval distinction between the (superior form of a) life in contemplation ( vita contemplativa ) and the (lower) life in active involvement ( vita activa ). Ancient and medieval technology is thus embedded in an anthropological vision, in which human virtues play an important role. Different forms of virtues are combined in the original crafts, as opposed to the later, modern differentiation of these virtues: In craftmanship one can find a union of economical virtues (e.g., efficient usage of limited resources), technical virtues (creating new entities that did not exist before), and often also aesthetic virtues (a sense of beauty that adds an aesthetic component to these newly created entities going beyond the modern idea that “form follows function”). In the Greek world, these three skills are combined in the realm of poiesis, while in modernity they are separated in the three domains of economy, technology, and art—each relatively independent of the others (Hösle, 2004, p. 366).
• A profound change in the evaluation of technology emerges with modernity, a position that Mitcham (1994) summarizes as Enlightenment optimism. Already in the writings of Francis Bacon (1620), the new science of nature and its application to experimental and technological research is highly welcomed. Progress in technology is seen as very beneficial to humankind, as it may lead to the cure of diseases, mastery over nature, and a constant progress toward a more human society. Many utopian writings mark the beginning of early modern thoughts in which technology is seen as essential in leading to a brighter future for humankind (e.g., Thomas More’s Utopia [1516], J. V. Andreae’s Christianopolis [1619], F. Bacon’s New Atlantis [1627]). In a similar line of thought, Enlightenment thinkers defend science and modern technology against attacks from religious conservatism, pointing at the beneficial consequences of technological and scientific progress.
• A countermovement to the Enlightenment is Romanticism, which accordingly has a different view on technology, referred to by Mitcham (1994) as Romantic uneasiness. Again, the central thought is an anthropological perspective in which man is seen as being good by nature, while it is civilization that poses the danger of alienating man from nature and from his fellow man, focusing only on his rational capacities and suppressing his emotional and social skills. Already Vico (1709) opposed Cartesian rationalism and feared that the new interest in science would lead to a neglect of traditional humanistic education. Rousseau’s critique of modern societies then became influential, seeing an advancement of knowledge and science, but a decay of virtues and immediacy ( Discourse on the Arts and Sciences; Rousseau, 1750). With the age of industrialism, the negative social consequences of modern labor work become the scope of interest of social theorists, leading up to Marx’s famous analysis of modern societies (see subsequent section on cultural and sociological anthropology). In opposition to the positive utopias centered on technology in early modernity, the 20th century then sees the literary success of pessimistic dystopias, in which often technological means of suppression or control play an important role (e.g., already in M. W. Schelley’s Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus [1818] and later in H. G. Wells’s The Island of Doctor Moreau [1896], A. Huxley’s Brave New World [1932], George Orwell’s 1984 [1948], and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 [1953]).

The tension between approaches praising the benefits of technology (in the spirit of the Enlightenment) and approaches focusing on negative consequences (in the spirit of Romanticism) still forms the background of most of the contemporary philosophical and anthropological debate; this debate circles around an understanding of modern technology, often rooted in the different “cultures” of the humanities and the sciences. It can be regarded as being a particularly vivid opposition at the beginning of the 20th century, that only later gave room for more detailed and balanced accounts of technology (some classics of the debate being Snow, 1959; McDermott, 1969).

Recent contributions toward a deeper understanding of the usage and development of technology stem from such different disciplines as biology, sociology, philosophical anthropology, metaphysics, ethics, theory of science, and religious worldviews. This research paper aims at a brief overview of important topics in the debate over technology during the 20th century to the present time. Three anthropological perspectives will be distinguished, depending on the main focus of anthropological interest. This will start with a brief summary of the biological anthropological perspective on technology, move on to those theories which focus more on social or cultural aspects, and conclude with more general philosophical anthropologies. This research paper is thus not chronologically organized, but tries to identify common themes of the debate, even though sometimes the topics might overlap (e.g., the case of Gehlen, a philosophical anthropologist who starts from a biological perspective and then moves on toward a more social view on technology).

In contemporary anthropology, technology becomes a central issue for at least two different reasons:

• From a biological perspective the usage of tools is regarded (next to the development of language and a cognitive rational apparatus) as one of the key features of humanization. Biological anthropology thus initially focuses on the differences and similarities of tool usage in humans and animals, trying to understand the role technology plays in general for an understanding of humans’ biological and social nature. With the focus on human evolution, attention is often drawn to the question of which role technology played at the beginning of humankind.
• While in this way always being a part of human culture, technology becomes arguably one of the single most influential key features of society only in modernity. According to Max Weber, science, technology, and economy form the “superstructure” of modernity, while they all share a common “rationality” (mainly of means-ends reasoning in economy and technology). The experience of the powers and dangers of modern technology (as in industrialized labor work, medical progress, nuclear energy and weapon technology, environmental problems due to pollution, and extensive usage of resources, etc.) has triggered many social, political, and philosophical reflections that—in opposition to biological anthropology—aim primarily at understanding the specifics of modern

Let us look at these two tendencies in turn, starting with the biological perspective, before moving to the social or cultural anthropology of technology.

Biological anthropologists are interested in the role technology played during humanization, and they attempt to give evolutionary accounts of the development of tool usage and technology and compare tool usage in man with tool usage in other animals. The development of technology has often been regarded as an evolutionarily necessary form of adaption or compensation. Since most of man’s organs are less developed than those of other species, he needed to compensate for this disadvantage in the evolutionary struggle for life (see Gehlen, 1980). Initially the usage of tools was considered a unique human feature, distinguishing the genus Homo from other animals (Oakley, 1957), but research on tool usage in different animals, especially chimpanzees, led to a more or less complete revision of this thesis (Schaik, Deaner, & Merrill, 1999).

Nowadays, many examples of tool usage in the animal kingdom are known (Beck, 1980). For example, chimpanzees use sticks to fish for termites, and elephants have been described as having a remarkable capacity for tool usage. Even though tool usage must thus be regarded as more common among animals, attention still needs to be drawn to the specifics of man’s tool usage, which arguably in scope and quality goes beyond what is known from the animal kingdom. It has been pointed out that our biological anatomy offers us several advantages for an extended usage of tools: walking erectly frees the two hands, which can then be used for other purposes. Furthermore, the position of the human thumb and short straight finger are of great benefit, especially in making and using stone tools (Ambrose, 2001). Still debated, however, is whether social and technological developments go hand in hand or whether one of the two factors is prior.

Even though many anthropologists tended to see social behaviors and cultural revolutions mostly as a consequence of a change in tool usage or a development of new technologies, it has also occasionally been argued that the development of social skills precedes the development of technical skills (e.g., in joint group hunting). It has additionally been acknowledged that chimpanzees also pass over some of their technical knowledge through the mechanism of learning and establishing cultural “traditions” that resemble, to some extent, human traditions (Wrangham, 1994; Laland, 2009). But there seems to be a specific difference in human and primate learning, namely in the fact that human children learn tool usage mainly via imitation and by simply copying a shown behavior, even if it is not the most efficient solution to a given problem. Opposed to this, chimpanzees seem to learn through a process called emulation, which implies that they diverge from the paradigmatic solution that has been “taught” to them. It has been argued that learning through imitation has been selected in humans, even though it is a less flexible strategy, because it is a more social strategy of learning (Tomasello, 1999, p. 28). In this way, biological anthropology mirrors a debate in social anthropology about the role of technology; this can be seen either as a driving force born out of necessity that calls for social changes (technical determinism), or as highly mediated or even constructed by culture (social constructivism).

Technology and Social/Cultural Anthropology

As already mentioned, technology was identified early on as a key feature of modern society (Misa, Brey, & Feenberg, 2004). Many studies have been written about the impact of modern technology on society, focusing mainly on the industrial revolution (e.g., Haferkamp, 1992; Pressnell, 1960; Smelser, 1969) or on the more recent revolution of the information society (e.g., Castells, 1999; Nora, 1980), as well as on the impact of technological change on traditional societies.

The analyses of Karl Marx and the Frankfurt School are influential, not only in trying to grasp the role of modern technology in society, but also in hinting on potential anthropological roots of technology and their essential interrelation with social aspects of the human condition. Marx insisted that the study of technology holds the highest relevance for human sciences, since it reveals the way humans deal with nature and sustain life (Marx, 1938). An essential feature of man’s nature is that he has to work in order to sustain his life, that he is the “toolmaking animal” or—as he has later been called—the Homo faber. Marx analyzes the role of technology in Chapter 13 of his first volume of Das Kapital. He argues that the division of labor becomes fostered through machines, which at the same time replace more and more traditional manpower and can furthermore be operated by less skilled employees, thus leading to very bad labor conditions for the working class. Technology in general is, however, still greeted as an option to make humans’ lives easier; it is mainly the social distribution of the possession of the means of production that Marx regards as problematic. (Also later thinkers, inspired by Marxian thought, tend to see technology as an important means toward establishing a better future.) On the other hand, at the same time, technology is seen as rooted in man’s will to dominate nature.

Following this later insight in particular, Theodor Adorno argues that Western civilization has developed powerful tools to ensure its self-preservation against nature. Technical rationality is regarded as the exercise of strategic power to dominate (external) nature, but it is at the same time also leading to a suppression of the inner nature of man (Adorno, 1979). The main strategy of this rationality is quantification, which lies at the heart of the mathematical-scientific interpretation of nature and the development of modern technology. At the same time it brings forth a type of rationality, which leads to a selfmutilation. The will to exercise power becomes the main feature of modern rationality, thus leading to a dialectic that turns the noble aims of the Age of Enlightenment into a morality of humankind that is its very opposite: A new barbaric system of oppression and dictatorship arises, using technology for totalitarian purposes.

While Adorno seeks redemption mainly in the arts (Adorno, 1999), seeming to promise the possibility of a completely different kind of subjectivity, Jürgen Habermas (1971) tries to propose an antidote; this does not lie outside of modern-Enlightenment rationality, but rather returns to its original intention. Habermas argues with Marx and Adorno, asserting that technological knowledge has its anthropological roots in the will to dominate nature and therefore serves a strategic interest of man. With this, man is not only Homo faber but also a social animal. Besides the strategic means-end rationality he also possesses a communicative rationality, aimed at defining common moral values and engaging in discourse over ethically acceptable principles of actions. In thus distinguishing two types of rationality, Habermas tries to incorporate much of the German tradition of cognitivistic ethics into his approach. It is important for Habermas that technology be brought under the control of democratic decision-making processes; his discourse ethics has thus helped to inspire ideas of participatory technology assessment.

Outside the Frankfurt School, technology has not been at the center of social and cultural anthropology, as has been often complained (Pfaffenberger, 1988, 1992). Langdon Winner (1986) coined the term technological somnambulism to refer to those theories that neglect the social dimension of technology. According to this dominant tradition, the human-technology relation is “too obvious” to merit serious reflection. Technology is seen as an independent factor of the material and social world, one that forms a relatively autonomous realm of ethically neutral tools to acquire human ends. But already Winner argues that technology is essentially social and is shaped by cultural conditions and underlying value decisions. He claims in a famous article (Winner, 1980) that Long Island’s low bridges were intentionally built in a way that would keep buses away, making it more difficult for the poor, and mainly the black population, to reach the island. Even though this particular claim has been challenged, Winner seems to be correct in pointing out that value decisions play a role in creating technology, and that the social value system leaves its trace in technological artifacts.

In line with this renewed interest in social issues, a new field of studies related to technology emerged in the 1980s, focusing explicitly on this neglected relation between society and technology: the so-called STS approach. Having been labeled the “turn to technology” (Woolgar, 1991), science and technology studies (STS) analyzes society’s impact on science and technology, and science and technology’s impact on society. Several writers draw attention to the social shaping of technology. An influential author is Bruno Latour, who contributed to both the initial appeal to social constructivism (that he later gave up) and the development of the actor-network theory; both are at the center of the debate about the theoretical underpinnings of STS.

Social Constructivism

Woolgar and Latour employ a social-constructivist perspective in their early case study on the production of scientific results, in which they analyze scientists’ attempt to establish and accumulate recognition and credibility of their research through the “cycle of credibility” (Latour, 1979). The main idea of social constructivism is the attempt to interpret alleged objective “facts” in the social world as being socially constructed, so that knowledge of the world and its interpretation depends on social mechanisms and cannot be traced back to objective facts (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In this sense technology is also not an objective, independent given, but shaped by social ideas and societal interpretations.

Actor-Network Theory

In the 1980s and 1990s, Latour became one of the main proponents of the actor-network theory (Latour, 2005); this is also attractive to scholars who reject social constructivism, since it can be combined with the idea that not all of technology is socially constructed. The social-constructive interpretation of this theory aims to develop a framework in which society and nature, or society and technology, are not separated. The idea of technology as a sociotechnical system implies that agent and tool form a unity, which cannot be explained completely by referring to one of the two elements in isolation. According to this idea, technological artifacts dispose over some form of agency and can be—to some extent—regarded as actants. This ascription of intentionality and agency to technical systems is, however, highly debated. The debate between realism and social constructivism has thus not been settled.

Philosophical Anthropology and the Philosophy of Technology

Research in philosophical anthropology peaked in early 20th-century Germany, discussed in the next section. But outside of anthropological discussions, the topic of technology became an important issue for philosophy, so in this brief overview, important contributions and themes of the continental and analytic tradition will be discussed next. Finally, more recent developments and topics in the philosophy of technology will be sketched that do not try to revitalize a philosophical anthropology, but that nevertheless do touch in one way or another on anthropological perspectives on technology.

Classical philosophical anthropology was mainly interested in understanding the essence of human nature and often draws specific attention to the role of technology. Important contributions came from Gehlen, Plessner, and Scheler during the first half of the 20th century. The attempt to link technology to a biological interpretation of man in Gehlen’s early works especially deserves attention. Given his biological constitution, man must be seen as deficient by nature ( Mängelwesen ), since he is not endowed with instinctive routines and is not adapted well to a specific natural environment, but rather is open to the world ( weltoffen ). He compensates for this deficiency with the help of his mental capacities and tool usage. Gehlen interprets human language and human institutions as relief mechanisms ( Entlastungen ) that help him to interpret and organize the plentitude of impressions (the sensory overload, Reizüberflutung ) that he is exposed to. Most technologies can thus be regarded to be either organ-amplification ( Organverstärkung ) or organ-replacement ( Organersatz ) (Gehlen, 1988). In Man in the Age of Technology (1980), Gehlen focuses more on sociological perspectives of technology. He identifies two essential cultural breaks marking principle changes in humans’ world interpretation and social organization, both of which are linked to technological developments: (1) the neolithic revolution of sedentism, marking the passage from a hunter’s culture to a society of agriculture and cattle breeding, and (2) the industrial revolution in modernity (Gehlen, 1980).

Scheler also analyzes man’s rational capacities from a biological perspective, but he concludes that a purely naturalistic approach does not render justice to our selfunderstanding. The human ways of sustaining life are from an often inefficient biological perspective. Therefore, it must be pointed out that the main function of human knowledge is not only to strategically ensure humans’ own survival, but also to be directed toward the discovery of moral values and toward the process of self-education ( Bildung ). Humans not only live in an environment, but also reflect on their place in the world—a capacity that marks a fundamental difference between humans and animals (Scheler, 1961).

This type of philosophical anthropology came to a certain end when the main interest of philosophers shifted from understanding “man” to understanding “society” during the 1960s. With the recent developments of sociobiology, philosophers have taken a renewed interest in the linkage between biological and cultural interpretations of man. Let us look at some tendencies of later research in the philosophy of technology.

If we look at a philosophical interpretation of technology, we find the first origins of a discipline of the philosophy of technology by the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century (see Kapp, 1877, and Dessauer, 1933). During the first half of the 20th century, the philosophical analysis of technology can, roughly speaking, be divided into two main schools of thought: the continental, often skeptical approach, and the analytical, often optimistic approach . As with all such very generic typologies, this distinction likewise does not claim to be more than an approximation, while the general tendency of recent research seems precisely to be to overcome this gap and to aim for a convergence or crossfertilization of these two approaches. Therefore, what follows is an ideal-type distinction that tries to make some of the basic ideas of these two approaches more visible and aims at understanding their more general features.

The continental approach originally focused on a humanities-centered perspective on technology, its (mainly negative) consequences for society, and its rootedness in a problematic feature of human anthropology (the will to power), and finally tried to understand technology as such (its “essence”). The analytic approach, on the other hand, originally focused on a more science-based understanding of technology, its (mostly beneficial) potential for the progress of societies, and its rootedness in a rational (scientific) way to approach nature, and it finally tried to look not at technology as such but at specific problems or specific types of technologies.

In the continental philosophy of technology, technology is often interpreted as closely linked to a certain form of consciousness, a form of approaching nature (and also human interaction) from a perspective that is rooted in a scientific understanding of the world, which itself is rooted in the will to dominate nature. This approach is seen to replace or at least to endanger a value-based approach to reality. In this sense, Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology regards science and technology as a mere abstraction from the fullfledged real experience of the world we live in. In this way, the sphere of technical knowledge is limited and needs to be guided by value decisions, which do not have their basis in scientific or technical knowledge, but stem from our ethical knowledge of our life-world.

While technology is not at the center of Husserl’s interest, José Ortega y Gasset (1914/1961) was one of the first philosophers who aimed at a deeper understanding of the relation between human nature and technology. Rejecting Husserl’s later emphasis on the transcendental subject, he insists that human nature can only be understood by the formula “I am I plus my circumstances.” Philosophy can thus neither start from the isolated subject (as in idealism), nor can it interpret everything from the perspective of the material conditions (as in materialism). Rather, it must find a middle ground. The essence of humans is for Ortega not determined by nature; this distinguishes humans from plants or animals or from physical objects—all having a defined, specific given nature. Man must determine his own nature by himself by way of the creative imagination. Technology is interpreted as the material realization of this self-image; it is a projection of an inner invention into nature. According to Ortega, technology evolved in three phases: It started as a collection of accidental findings of means toward ends by pure chance. In a later state, these findings became traditions and skills that were passed on to the next generation. Modern technology marks a radical difference, since it is based on a systematic scientific approach, which forms the third phase. This approach, however, tends to become the dominant mode of thinking, so that man’s creative capacity for imagination (which is at the heart of man’s very essence) is in danger of being replaced or losing its importance (Ortega y Gasset, 1914/1961).

Martin Heidegger’s (1977) analysis of technology in his essay “The Question Concerning Technology” is also very influential. His philosophy aims at understanding the notion of being, which—so claims Heidegger—has been misinterpreted or neglected by traditional European philosophy. Since man is the only known being that can ask for the meaning of being, Heidegger’s analysis in Sein und Zeit starts from an interpretation of the existence of such a being ( Da-sein ). Even though his book is meant to be an exercise in philosophical (fundamental) ontology, it offers many anthropological insights about the specific human form of existence, in which the knowledge and the denial of one’s own mortality form essential human features.

In his later work, Heidegger (1977) understands technology as a specific form of disclosing reality. Asked for the essence of technology, people usually refer to it as a means to achieve an end (instrumental definition), or they define technology as an essential human activity (anthropological definition). Even though Heidegger admits that these definitions are “correct,” they do not disclose the essential truth about technology for two reasons. Essentially, (1) technology is not a tool for achieving an end, but rather the perspective under which everything that exists is seen only as a potential resource to achieve an (external) end. Furthermore, (2) this disclosure of reality is not a human-directed practice: Humans are driven objects rather than being themselves the active subjects. According to these conclusions, the instrumental and the anthropological definitions of technology do not capture the whole truth of technology. Let us look at these two points in turn, as follows:

• The essence of technology lies, according to Heidegger, in its capacity to disclose reality ( entbergen ) under a very specific, limited perspective. This perspective reduces everything to a potential object for manipulation, a resource ( Bestand ) for further activity. Technology is thus a way to disclose something hidden. Following his analysis of the Greek word for truth ( aletheia ) as referring to something undisclosed, he sees thus a “truth” at work, under which reality presents itself as a mere collection of resources for external purposes, rid of all inner logic and teleology that was so prominent in traditional understandings of nature. Heidegger points at the different ways in which a river is seen by a poet in an artwork ( Kunst werk), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in which the same river is seen by an engineer as a potential resource for energy generation in a power plant ( Kraft werk).
• Heidegger then goes on to claim that opposed to the image of man being in control of technology and using it for his purposes, he should rather be seen as being provoked ( herausgefordert ) by this coming to pass. Heidegger clearly wants to reject the optimistic idea of “man being in control” through the help of modern technology and, rather, revert it to its opposite: man being driven by a force greater than himself. He calls this driving force the essence of technology, the en-framing ( Ge-stell ) that prompts humans to look at nature under the idea of its usability. In doing so, man is in highest danger, but not because of potential hazards or specific negative consequence of modern technology. The danger is, rather, that he loses sight of understanding nature in a different way and that he might finally end up understanding also himself and other humans only as potential “resources” or potential material for manipulation and instrumentalization. Heidegger suspects that art might be a potential antidote to this development: In Greek, techne originally encompassed also the production of beautiful objects in art. Thus, a deeper understanding of technology might reveal its relation to art and might point to the fact that art offers a potential answer to the challenge that modern technology poses to human self-understanding.

Certainly, Heidegger’s contribution to the modern philosophy of technology lies more in highlighting this essential dimension of technology as a threat, rather than in elaborating strategies to counter these inherent dangers. Heidegger’s article is arguably the single most influential essay written in the philosophy of technology, although his mannered, often dark language allows for different interpretations and often lacks the clarity of philosophical contributions from the analytical school. But the idea that “technology” and technological rationality is a limited form of looking at reality—one that is in strong need of a countervision, and that might further lead to a deformation of intersubjective human relations and that finally affects human self-understanding—has ever since been a prominent topic in different thinkers from Adorno and Marcuse to Jürgen Habermas, as illustrated earlier. This idea has often been linked with an ethical concern: Modern technology calls for new ethical guidelines, and despite some beneficial consequence, poses a potential threat to human existence. Much of this ethical debate about modern technology was triggered by its potential to radically destroy human life, be it through nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or by consequences of environmental pollution and climate change.

Heidegger’s pupil Hans Jonas (1984) was one of the first philosophers to emphasize the need for a specific “ethics for the age of technology,” feeling that modern technology urges us to radically reconsider our ethical intuitions in order to meet the new challenges. Nevertheless, based on humans’ anthropological need to seek protection against nature, classical technology never fully reached this aim. Nature remained always more powerful than men, and the consequences of human actions were mostly not far-reaching. Traditional ethics could therefore focus on the “near and dear.” Modern technology, however, radically changes the picture: Its scope is unknown in premodern times; its consequences and potential dangers could be fatal, far-reaching, and irreversible. Focusing on the environmental problems of modern societies with, as the darkest perspective, the possible extinction of humankind, Jonas suggests broadening the scope of our ethical obligations: If our actions are more far-reaching than ever before in the history of humankind, we need to acquire a new ethical countervision. Jonas finds this remedy in the anthropological feature of our feelings of responsibility. Responsibility often expresses an asymmetrical relation, as in parents who feel responsible to care for their children. The old ethical intuition to derive obligations from the rights of free and conscious individuals, able to participate in argumentation and democratic decisions, seems to be too narrow to account for most environmental problems: Future generations are not yet born, animals and nature cannot in the same sense be regarded as having rights, as has been established in previous ethical approaches to the idea of universal human rights. But obligations may also stem from the idea of responsibility, from the idea that something has been given into our care.

Analytic philosophy is rooted in the quest for clear conceptualization, sound argumentation, and scientific precision. For early analytical philosophy in the Vienna Circle, the mathematical nature of scientific knowledge could serve as a role model for knowledge as such: hence, the need for and the extended usage of logical formalization within analytic philosophy. Skeptical of the quest to address the essence of things like “the technology” in general, analytic philosophers very often focus on concrete problems linked to very specific technologies. Even though many thinkers in the line of logical positivism thus greeted scientific knowledge as the highest form of knowledge, this did not always lead to an unbalanced embrace of technology. In Bertrand Russell (1951), we find a skeptical attitude toward the social benefits of technology, especially if it is linked with totalitarian ideology. Thus, he stresses the importance of democratic education; if placed in a democratic context and applied in well-defined careful steps, technology is, however, beneficial for progress in a way in which Karl Popper (1957) typically advertises as piecemeal social engineering. Important early contributions to an analytic philosophy of technology stem further from Mario Bunge (1979), whose ideas closely link to the program of logical empiricism and oppose the “romantic wailings about the alleged evils of technology” (p. 68).

Even though this distinction between humanities’ philosophy of technology and engineering’s philosophy of technology (Mitcham, 1994) marks the background of the philosophical discussion on technology in the early 20th century, the debate soon moved beyond this opposition. Three tendencies seem to be of importance.

First, continental philosophy was moving away from the attempt to come up with metaphysical, religious, or anthropological answers to the big questions. With the emergence of postmodernism, the alleged end of the “big stories” was proclaimed, thus making a metaphysical approach less fashionable. Appealing to ontology (as in Heidegger), to metaphysics, or to religious ideals (as in Jonas) seemed less promising. Even though early continental philosophy was very critical with regard to strategic rationality and technology, it has been criticized by postmodernism as not moving radically beyond the central modernistic Western ideal of a rational philosophical synthesis or universal world interpretation.

Second, the focus within the philosophy of technology moved toward a renewed interest in looking at concrete technologies and the challenges they pose for analytical and ethical reflection, a movement that has been called the empirical turn in the philosophy of technology (Kroes, 2001).

Third, different attempts were soon made to bridge the gap between the two camps. In post-world-war Germany, the Society of German Engineers (VDI) established a dialogue about the responsibilities of scientists and engineers, addressing topics and worries of the humanities. The experience of the massive and systematic use of technology for organized mass murder during the holocaust and the development of technology for modern warfare, including the development of the nuclear bomb, raised issues about the responsibilities of engineers. The debate of the VDI meetings resulted in a series of important publications on the philosophy of technology (Rapp, 1981); these must be recognized as an important attempt to synthesize different strands of philosophical thinking, even though it can be asked how far the VDI school was really successful in transcending its engineering-philosophical origins (Mitcham, 1994, p. 71).

Along a similar line, authors have tried to combine the phenomenological approach with American pragmatism, thus bridging insights of a more continental and a more analytical tradition. Common to phenomenology and pragmatism is the idea of the priority of praxis over theory and thus the tendency not to see technology as applied science but, rather, science as a purified or abstract form of (technological) praxis. Following the works of John Dewey, thinkers like Paul T. Durbin (1992), Larry Hickman (1990), and Don Ihde (1979) have tried to establish a pragmatist phenomenological approach to technology. The insights of Don Ihde that each technology either extends human bodily experience (e.g., the microscope) or calls for human interpretations (e.g., the thermometer) are of particular anthropological interest. If technology amplifies our experience, then it always does so at the cost of a reduction: In highlighting or amplifying certain aspects of reality, it makes invisible other aspects of this very same reality (as in an ultrasonic picture) (Ihde, 1979). The way technology thus “mediates” our interpretation of the world, and our actions within it, has been a further object of extended research (e.g., Verbeek, 2005).

A further attempt to bridge humanist and engineering tradition has been made by Carl Mitcham (1994), who nevertheless tries to defend the priority of the humanist perspective, but at the same time develops an analytic framework that should serve for further investigation within the philosophy of technology. He distinguishes among technology as object (tools), as type of knowledge, as activity, and as volition (expression of man’s intention or will). The 1980s and 1990s saw an increased interest, especially in the analyses of the first three aspects of this distinction.

With regard to the fourth aspect, ethical issues have been a central topic for many philosophers of technology, ranging from debates about the responsibility of scientists and engineers, medical and bioethics, business ethics, technology assessment, risk assessment and decision under uncertainty, to environmental ethics. Two of these fields are of particular interest from an anthropological perspective: In environmental ethics, those theories might shed light on anthropological questions seeking to interpret the environmental crisis as essentially rooted in human nature. It has been argued that it is a human tendency to value short-term (individual) interests more highly than long-term (collective) interests, thus putting a pessimistic neo-Hobbesian anthropology in the middle of the debate. According to Garrett Hardin (1968), it is this very human tendency (together with a mismatch in the growth of the human population that exceeds the growth of the supply of the food or other resources) that leads to the “tragedy of the commons.” Research in game theory and environmental sociobiology indicates the possibility of holding a more optimistic view of the development of cooperative strategies in humans (Axelrod, 1984), though the issue is still debated and there is room for a more pessimistic perspective, as has been defended early on by some sociobiologists (Dawkins, 1978) or recently by some philosophers (Gardiner, 2001).

In the ethical debate on transhumanism, finally, many links can be found to classical anthropological questions about the essence of man (e.g., Baillie, 2005; Fukuyama, 2004). The central debated question is whether it is morally allowed, forbidden, or even demanded from us to enhance our human capacities through new technologies, ranging from short-term nonevasive ways (like taking performanceenhancing drugs) to fundamental irreversible changes (like genetic engineering). While bioconservativists argue against an extended usage of enhancement technologies, transhumanists point to the potential benefits of these new options. It is reasonable to assume that these issues will be with us as technology advances and opens new possibilities to alter the human condition. This opens a radical new challenge to anthropology, which until recently dedicated itself to understanding the given human nature, while it now has to face the normative question of which we should choose as our future nature, once technology offers radical new options of changing human nature (e.g., as by slowing down or even stopping the process of aging). It seems that the anthropology of the future must take into consideration, more and more, normative claims and it must reach out to incorporate ethics to prepare itself for the challenges modern technology poses.

Looking at recent tendencies in research, it can be argued that the initial focus on linking technology with a universal, philosophical anthropological vision, also rooted in biological knowledge, was one of the key achievements of early philosophical anthropology in the works of Gehlen and others. What made these anthropologies remarkable was their attempt to bring together the different traditions of anthropological thought, ranging from philosophy to sociology and biology. A turn toward a more social perspective was established first by Gehlen himself, the Frankfurt school, and later STS studies, sometimes leading away from or even lacking both an underlying philosophical vision and an interest in our biological nature. Very recently, however, sociologists and philosophers have shown an increased interest in biology (as is visible in the ever-growing numbers of publications in sociobiology and the philosophy of biology). This increased attention has not yet led to a revival of an interest in the links between anthropology and technology. But in order to understand man—both in his evolutionary origins and (maybe even more) in his current historical situation—it seems to demand attention to man’s amazing capacity to develop technology.

It can reasonably be argued that what is thus needed is a new vision of how to synthesize the different fields of biological, social, and cultural anthropology. It seems that after the empirical turn to gather extended details over the biological and social aspects of technology, there is now a call for a new philosophical turn, seeking a new discourse synthesis. Many classical questions of anthropology will tend to remain unanswered, if academic research remains focused only on disciplinary perspectives, which always look at only a part of the whole picture. It is certainly true that man is a social animal, that he has biological roots and that he can ask ethical and philosophical questions about the good and about his place in this universe. The disciplinary separations in biology, sociology, and philosophy (to name just a few) tend, however, to distract from the fact that man in reality is a unity, meaning that a true answer to the most fundamental question of anthropology (What is man?) calls for a plausible combination of these approaches. To synthesize the different aspects of our knowledge about our own human nature is certainly far from being an easy task, but it seems more needed than ever.

But if this is not yet a big enough challenge, there is even a second aspect that makes the quest for a synthesis even more challenging. It seems that a new anthropological vision of humankind must answer a question that classical anthropology has not been dealing with: If technology soon allows us to alter our very nature, then we must know not only what the human condition is, but also what the human condition should be.

Ethics might again enter anthropological reflection, as has been hinted at already by early thinkers such as Scheler and Jonas. Recent attempts to place man in the middle of both a normative vision of ideals, on the one side, and against a profound overview of our descriptive knowledge about our essence, on the other side (as in the voluminous attempt at a synthesis in Hösle, 2004), deserve attention, as they might be the first steps toward a renewed synthetic anthropology that tries to bridge the gaps among the different disciplines. A deepened understanding of technology must be a central part of these efforts, since the way we use tools and produce artifacts is one of the remarkable features of humankind—a feature in much need of guidance by descriptive knowledge and ethical wisdom, especially in our age in which technology (of which humans have been the subject) is about to discover the condition humana as its potential object in a way more radical than ever before.

Bibliography:

• Adorno, T. (1979). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.
• Adorno, T. (1999). Aesthetic theory. London: Athlone.
• Ambrose, S. H. (2001). Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science, 291 (5509), 1748–1753.
• Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Baillie, H. (2005). Is human nature obsolete? Genetics, bioengineering, and the future of the human condition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Beck, B. (1980). Animal tool behaviour. New York: Garland.
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Bunge, M. (1979). The five buds of technophilosophy. Technology in Society, 1 (1), 67–74.
• Castells, M. (1999). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Dawkins, R. (1978). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Durbin, P. (1992). Social responsibility in science, technology, and medicine. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press.
• Fukuyama, F. (2004). Transhumanism. Foreign Policy, 144, 42–43.
• Gardiner, S. M. (2001). The real tragedy of the commons. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30 (4), 387–416.
• Gehlen, A. (1980). Man in the age of technology. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gehlen, A. (1988). Man, his nature and place in the world. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Haferkamp, H. (1992). Social change and modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.
• Hickman, L. (1990). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Hösle, V. (2004). Morals and politics (S. Randall, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis. Boston: D. Reidel.
• Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kroes, P. (2001). The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology. New York: JAI.
• Laland, K. (2009). The question of animal culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. (1979). The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Marx, K. (1938). London: Allen & Unwin.
• McDermott, J. (1969). Technology: The opiate of the intellectuals. The New York Review of Books, 13 (2), 25–35.
• Misa, T. J., Brey, P., & Feenberg, A. (2004). Modernity and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Nora, S. (1980). The computerization of society: A report to the president of France. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Oakley, K. (1957). Man the tool-maker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ortega y Gasset, J. (1961). Meditations on Quixote. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1914)
• Pfaffenberger, B. (1988). Fetishised objects and humanized nature: Towards an anthropology of technology. Man, 23 (2), 236–252.
• Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual Revue of Anthropology, 21, 491–516.
• Pressnell, L. (1960). Studies in the industrial revolution, presented to T. S. Ashton. London: University of LondonAthlone Press.
• Rapp, F. (1981). Analytical philosophy of technology. Boston: D. Reidel.
• Russell, B. (1951). The impact of science on society. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Schaik, C. P., Deaner, R. O., & Merrill, M.Y. (1999).The conditions for tool use in primates: Implications for the evolution of material culture. Journal of Human Evolution, 36 (6), 719–741.
• Scheler, M. (1961). Man’s place in nature. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
• Smelser, N. (1969). Social change in the industrial revolution: An application of theory to the British cotton industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Snow, C. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution (The Rede lecture, 1959). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109, 121–123.
• Winner, L. (1986). Technology as forms of life. In The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Woolgar, S. (1991). The turn to technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16 (1), 20–50.
• Wrangham, R. (1994). Chimpanzee cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Information Technology

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Information Systems Follow Following
• Computer Science Follow Following
• Informatics Follow Following
• Education Follow Following
• Artificial Intelligence Follow Following
• Data Mining Follow Following
• E-learning Follow Following
• Social Media Follow Following
• Information Systems (Business Informatics) Follow Following
• Enterprise Architecture Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Cooler Master
• SilverStone
• Thermaltake
• Event Coverage
• Accessories
• Gaming Chairs
• Graphics Cards
• Mobiles and Tablets
• Motherboards
• Peripherals

Select Page

How To Write A Technology Research Paper

Posted by Ben | Jun 24, 2021

Table of Contents

A research paper is a kind of assignment that students of schools, colleges, or universities write during their studies. To write attractive, meaningful, and engaging assignments, students need to do complete research on a given topic and gather unique information. For many students writing a research paper can be a difficult process if they are not familiar with the writing methods and are also weak in doing good research. In this regard, different services like https://essayshark.com/buy-research-paper.html  offer their pro services to buy research papers. 

However, in this article, we grabbed some useful information for that kind of student to help them in writing a successful research paper. If you are going to write a research paper on technology then just follow the following simple steps;

• Select the main topic
• Formulate a thesis question
• Do complete research on the topic
• Write an outline
• Write the final paper and do necessary editing

5 Tips to write a technology research paper

1- Select a unique and interesting topic about technology for your research paper:

Technology is not a limited subject; in the modern world it is the most advanced and rapidly growing area. You can easily find out the topic of your desire for a research paper. With the passage of time technology is changing continuously and many inventions have been added in this area since the last decade. Select the topic about you which you know already and have some grip on it. If you successfully choose the topic, then you will be able to conduct your research paper easily. One more thing that you need to keep in mind is to select the topic about which you can find enough data on the internet. If your selected topic contains a lot of information, then you must know how to bind it according to the limits of a research paper.

2- Formulating a thesis question:

Question of the thesis defines the topic of your research paper. If you are given a specific subject and asked to select one of your favourite topics to form that subject then it will be very easy for you to select the specific topic. At the same time when your professor mentioned that you have to get your research paper topic from technology then it will be easy for you to find the final topic of your assignment.

Remember the following key points;

• Keep your sentences and writing tone simpler.
• Research a different topic of technology and then select the one about which you get enough data and have some previous knowledge about that topic.
• Do not use irrelevant information in your research paper and follow the authentic sources of information.

3- Do complete research on the topic:

Before starting to write the paper, do complete research and gather valid and relevant information about the topic. Use up-to-date resources that have valid data. Keep in mind the following steps about informative sources;

• When you cite any online information about technology, then make sure that the source belongs to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also a useful source of information and has almost every kind of information on it, but it has unreliable and unverified information about many subjects. So we recommend you avoid it.
• Search for the expert books relevant to your question and get some help.
• Listening to or reading interviews of technology experts is a good idea to get valid information.
• Arrange the sources:

Gather and arrange all your collected sources to organize your final thoughts about the paper. Use a sticky note pad or a highlighting marker to choose the books or sources that you will cite for your research paper.

4- Write an outline:  

It is the portion where you start writing your research paper. An outline of a research paper helps the writer to organize his arguments in a well-defined way and allows him to use evidence about his research. It helps you to write your research paper logically and allows you to support your ideas with valid evidence. It is very beneficial to write your outline some days before writing the final research paper. Moreover, it will give you a chance to recheck it several times and make more required editing and adjustment of data.

5- Writing and editing the final paper:

You have to write the outline of your paper and complete all foundation work, now start the final process of writing. Introduction, body, and conclusion are the three pain parts of a research paper.

The introduction of your topic provides the research background and provides the readers with all the basic information of your research paper. Avoid sharing a personal opinion. 

The body of the research paper is the main central part of your paper. In this section, you will cite the sources from where you get data. There must not be plagiarized content, so don’t copy any other work.

 The conclusion of the research paper should be short and relevant to your paper. Make sure that it reflects the information of your research paper. The right writing format is another big deal that you should follow according to instructions.

Technology is the most advanced and modern area of today’s world. It is not possible to explain it in a single assignment. Technology has made great advanced inventions in the last decade and continues making more. So, there are many topics about technology that you can pick to write your technology paper.

About The Author

Related Posts

SilverStone Release new PS13 PC Case

January 6, 2016

Pioneer DJ releases the HDJ-700 headphones with optimised sound reproduction

November 13, 2015

Thermaltake New Riing Plus 12 LED RGB Radiator Fan

January 28, 2017

Scythe announces third version of Grand Kama Cross CPU Cooler

October 21, 2015

Recent Posts

Bennie Hawra

Emilie Nilsson

Finished Papers

Earl M. Kinkade

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

Fall 2024 CSCI Special Topics Courses

Cloud computing.

Meeting Time: 09:45 AM‑11:00 AM TTh  Instructor: Ali Anwar Course Description: Cloud computing serves many large-scale applications ranging from search engines like Google to social networking websites like Facebook to online stores like Amazon. More recently, cloud computing has emerged as an essential technology to enable emerging fields such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and Machine Learning. The exponential growth of data availability and demands for security and speed has made the cloud computing paradigm necessary for reliable, financially economical, and scalable computation. The dynamicity and flexibility of Cloud computing have opened up many new forms of deploying applications on infrastructure that cloud service providers offer, such as renting of computation resources and serverless computing.    This course will cover the fundamentals of cloud services management and cloud software development, including but not limited to design patterns, application programming interfaces, and underlying middleware technologies. More specifically, we will cover the topics of cloud computing service models, data centers resource management, task scheduling, resource virtualization, SLAs, cloud security, software defined networks and storage, cloud storage, and programming models. We will also discuss data center design and management strategies, which enable the economic and technological benefits of cloud computing. Lastly, we will study cloud storage concepts like data distribution, durability, consistency, and redundancy. Registration Prerequisites: CS upper div, CompE upper div., EE upper div., EE grad, ITI upper div., Univ. honors student, or dept. permission; no cr for grads in CSci. Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/6BvbUwEkBK41tPJ17 ).

CSCI 5980/8980 

Machine learning for healthcare: concepts and applications.

Meeting Time: 11:15 AM‑12:30 PM TTh  Instructor: Yogatheesan Varatharajah Course Description: Machine Learning is transforming healthcare. This course will introduce students to a range of healthcare problems that can be tackled using machine learning, different health data modalities, relevant machine learning paradigms, and the unique challenges presented by healthcare applications. Applications we will cover include risk stratification, disease progression modeling, precision medicine, diagnosis, prognosis, subtype discovery, and improving clinical workflows. We will also cover research topics such as explainability, causality, trust, robustness, and fairness.

Registration Prerequisites: CSCI 5521 or equivalent. Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/z8X9pVZfCWMpQQ6o6  ).

Visualization with AI

Meeting Time: 04:00 PM‑05:15 PM TTh  Instructor: Qianwen Wang Course Description: This course aims to investigate how visualization techniques and AI technologies work together to enhance understanding, insights, or outcomes.

This is a seminar style course consisting of lectures, paper presentation, and interactive discussion of the selected papers. Students will also work on a group project where they propose a research idea, survey related studies, and present initial results.

This course will cover the application of visualization to better understand AI models and data, and the use of AI to improve visualization processes. Readings for the course cover papers from the top venues of AI, Visualization, and HCI, topics including AI explainability, reliability, and Human-AI collaboration.    This course is designed for PhD students, Masters students, and advanced undergraduates who want to dig into research.

Registration Prerequisites: Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/YTF5EZFUbQRJhHBYA  ). Although the class is primarily intended for PhD students, motivated juniors/seniors and MS students who are interested in this topic are welcome to apply, ensuring they detail their qualifications for the course.

Visualizations for Intelligent AR Systems

Meeting Time: 04:00 PM‑05:15 PM MW  Instructor: Zhu-Tian Chen Course Description: This course aims to explore the role of Data Visualization as a pivotal interface for enhancing human-data and human-AI interactions within Augmented Reality (AR) systems, thereby transforming a broad spectrum of activities in both professional and daily contexts. Structured as a seminar, the course consists of two main components: the theoretical and conceptual foundations delivered through lectures, paper readings, and discussions; and the hands-on experience gained through small assignments and group projects. This class is designed to be highly interactive, and AR devices will be provided to facilitate hands-on learning.    Participants will have the opportunity to experience AR systems, develop cutting-edge AR interfaces, explore AI integration, and apply human-centric design principles. The course is designed to advance students' technical skills in AR and AI, as well as their understanding of how these technologies can be leveraged to enrich human experiences across various domains. Students will be encouraged to create innovative projects with the potential for submission to research conferences.

Registration Prerequisites: Complete the following Google form to request a permission number from the instructor ( https://forms.gle/Y81FGaJivoqMQYtq5 ). Students are expected to have a solid foundation in either data visualization, computer graphics, computer vision, or HCI. Having expertise in all would be perfect! However, a robust interest and eagerness to delve into these subjects can be equally valuable, even though it means you need to learn some basic concepts independently.

Sustainable Computing: A Systems View

Meeting Time: 09:45 AM‑11:00 AM  Instructor: Abhishek Chandra Course Description: In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the pervasiveness, scale, and distribution of computing infrastructure: ranging from cloud, HPC systems, and data centers to edge computing and pervasive computing in the form of micro-data centers, mobile phones, sensors, and IoT devices embedded in the environment around us. The growing amount of computing, storage, and networking demand leads to increased energy usage, carbon emissions, and natural resource consumption. To reduce their environmental impact, there is a growing need to make computing systems sustainable. In this course, we will examine sustainable computing from a systems perspective. We will examine a number of questions:   • How can we design and build sustainable computing systems?   • How can we manage resources efficiently?   • What system software and algorithms can reduce computational needs?    Topics of interest would include:   • Sustainable system design and architectures   • Sustainability-aware systems software and management   • Sustainability in large-scale distributed computing (clouds, data centers, HPC)   • Sustainability in dispersed computing (edge, mobile computing, sensors/IoT)

Registration Prerequisites: This course is targeted towards students with a strong interest in computer systems (Operating Systems, Distributed Systems, Networking, Databases, etc.). Background in Operating Systems (Equivalent of CSCI 5103) and basic understanding of Computer Networking (Equivalent of CSCI 4211) is required.

• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

Don’t Drown In Assignments — Hire an Essay Writer to Help!

Does a pile of essay writing prevent you from sleeping at night? We know the feeling. But we also know how to help it. Whenever you have an assignment coming your way, shoot our 24/7 support a message or fill in the quick 10-minute request form on our site. Our essay help exists to make your life stress-free, while still having a 4.0 GPA. When you pay for an essay, you pay not only for high-quality work but for a smooth experience. Our bonuses are what keep our clients coming back for more. Receive a free originality report, have direct contact with your writer, have our 24/7 support team by your side, and have the privilege to receive as many revisions as required.

We have the ultimate collection of writers in our portfolio, so once you ask us to write my essay, we can find you the most fitting one according to your topic. The perks of having highly qualified writers don't end there. We are able to help each and every client coming our way as we have specialists to take on the easiest and the hardest tasks. Whatever essay writing you need help with, let it be astronomy or geography, we got you covered! If you have a hard time selecting your writer, contact our friendly 24/7 support team and they will find you the most suitable one. Once your writer begins the work, we strongly suggest you stay in touch with them through a personal encrypted chat to make any clarifications or edits on the go. Even if miscommunications do happen and you aren't satisfied with the initial work, we can make endless revisions and present you with more drafts ASAP. Payment-free of course. Another reason why working with us will benefit your academic growth is our extensive set of bonuses. We offer a free originality report, title, and reference page, along with the previously mentioned limitless revisions.

• Our Listings
• Our Rentals
• Testimonials
• Tenant Portal

I work with the same writer every time. He knows my preferences and always delivers as promised. It’s like having a 24/7 tutor who is willing to help you no matter what. My grades improved thanks to him. That’s the story.

What's the minimum time you need to complete my order?

Customer Reviews