1 A systematic literature review of education for generation alpha

Generation Alpha has received a lot of attention by scholars seeking to understand how current advances in technology may impact their learning. The underlying assumptions are that Generation Alpha students differ qualitatively from students from other generations and that there should be corresponding changes to education based on these differences. To date, these assumptions have not been systemically examined, though there have been reviews in related areas (e.g., [39]). Accordingly, a systematic review of education literature is necessary to discover whether and how Generation Alpha should be considered by educators. The significance of this review is to guide future educational efforts designed to target specific cohorts like Generation Alpha.

The term “generation” can be used to classify people based on year of birth, age, location, similar values, and/or important events and usually spans about 20 years [47]. The first use of the term “Alpha Generation” is credited to Mark McCrindle who in 2005 coined the term to describe the cohort following Generation Z [103]. While there is general agreement that the Millennial Generation are classified as those born between 1980–1994, and GenZ/iGen are classified as those born between 1995–2012, there are some differences in the literature identifying the starting date for Generation Alpha. This report follows most of the literature which uses 2010 as the starting date []. Table 1 presents different generations and significant technical milestones.

Table 1 Generations and milestones
Full size table

Generation Alpha and those immediately preceding generations could all be understood to be digital generations with the only difference being the quantity and quality of digital opportunities that were available while growing up. All future generations will be considered true digital natives with Generation Alpha simply being the first to be so immersed in digital technology. For comparison, members of Generation Alpha are unlikely to carry a wallet or take a written exam [76]. When all members of this generation have been born, they are expected to number almost two billion [99].

Despite their large numbers, research on characteristics of Generation Alpha is limited. The assumption that Generation Alpha is qualitatively different than Generation Z is largely untested (Nagy & Kolcsey, [81]) and sometimes disputed [59]. There are very few direct comparisons between generations measuring the nature and extent of digital fluency or competence. Perhaps the only certainty is that for this generation, the everyday role of digital devices is not perceived as a “tool” or “instrument” to augment life, but as a normative and necessary means to interact with the world. This chief characteristic has important developmental implications, most notably in the construction of identity and social-emotional learning (SEL). Still, there are some research findings that suggest that Generation Alpha can be distinguished from previous generations.

2 Personal characteristics

In a rare study comparing generational differences, Apaydin and Kaya [14] identified characteristics of Generation Alpha from the perspective of pre-school teachers. Using a qualitative design with a small sample (n = 12) they found Generation Alpha to:

Exhibit behaviors such as being more curious, free from any rules, being more ill-tempered, more mobile and more self-centered than Generation Z; moreover, they also had high self-esteem, and they were more emotional and more conscious. In terms of communication, Generation Alpha was also determined to be more closed and behave more individually than Generation Z. Considering classroom management techniques, preschool teachers were found to use the reconstructive approach for the alpha generation and traditional classroom management techniques for Generation Z. (p. 123)

The above quote from the study by Apaydin and Kaya [14] is frequently cited in the Generation Alpha literature and the basis for most of the generation’s characteristic assumptions. dos Reis [33] found similar findings of cognitive flexibility and dynamism and inferred that Generation Alpha will be employed in jobs characterized by decision-making autonomy. This may lead to Generation Alpha being more entrepreneurial (Ziatdinov & Cillers, 2021). Similarly, Selvi et al. [100] notes Generation Alpha to lack qualities such as “loyalty, thoughtfulness, compassion, open-mindedness, and responsibility” (p. 273).

3 Family dynamics

Few researchers have examined how family dynamics such as family structure and roles of family members interact with Generation Alpha learning. For example, the research looking at family dynamics is almost exclusively concerned with marketing. The marketing industry is especially interested in how Generation Alpha may exert more influence on parental buying decisions because of increased media exposure [45, 63, 89, 109]). In one study of 206 parents in India, the critical factors in the selection of educational toys for Generation Alpha were found to be brand recognition, brand attributes (e.g., safety) and product appeal [92].

4 Social media

The use of social media through mobile devices is a chief characteristic of Generation Alpha. The continuous rise in mobile internet use by Generation Alpha is blurring traditional boundaries between news, information, entertainment, socializing and research. Over 80% of parents of Generation Alpha say their children watch videos or play games on a mobile device daily [24] and on average spend 7–8 h on screen [111]. As early as kindergarten, children’s individual consumption of digitally streamed movies drives their classroom social interactions (Kaplan-Berkeley, [54]).

There are ongoing concerns that the rise in interpersonal communication through text will result in a loss of oral communication skills and that a reliance upon social media influencers to learn about current events will result in less critical thinking. Although there is much written about the potential and real harms of social media, there is little research from which to speculate how the impact on Generation Alpha will be different [38].

5 Social emotional development

The increased use of technology has resulted in a decline in opportunities for social-emotional development. Moreover, the increased use of social media has led to an increase in mental health problems as children who spend more time on screens experience more mental health challenges [112]. The potential good news is that because Generation Alpha are children born to late Millennials or members of Generation Z, these parents often spend more time and are more engaged with their children’s lives [26], 32). Thus, parents and other adults may be able to mediate harmful effects of social media use. In a rare study of adult–child interaction with 100 parents and children, Mariati et al. [73] found that “When social media and online games are introduced into a child’s environment, it has been demonstrated that they mediate their conceptualization of learning and cognitive development,... through the interactions between teachers, children, and technology, children conceptualize higher mental functions such as continuous and ongoing problem-solving dispositions, as well as language acquisition and social learning” (p. 95).

More research is needed to understand the optimal conditions to provide social-emotional learning opportunities with parents and teachers. Settings are also important. Schools also might be designed with embedded instruction of non-cognitive skills and opportunities for interpersonal skill development [67]. Not only schools, but also informal educational settings such as afterschool programs can be reimagined to provide more “edutainment” for Generation Alpha to increase social-emotional development [94].

6 Worldwide concern

There is widespread concern for the social-emotional and mental health of Generation Alpha and role of teachers and parents. In Slovakia, there is concern for the lack of emotional intelligence in Generation Alpha [53]. In Romania, based on the results of a previous investigation carried out in the same locations during the period of 2015–2016, exploratory qualitative research concluded that young children in Romania have a low level of digital literacy due to their parents’ and educators’ lack of technology knowledge and skills. Additionally, issues like online privacy and security are rarely of adults’ concern: parents worry more about their children’s eyesight and social isolation (Bako & Tokes, 2018).

In Indonesia, Zulkifli et al. [119] note “The results of the study [from 25 kindergarten principals] indicate that the role of preschools in the use of gadgets in digital native generation children in Pekanbaru City is included in the low category. Only a few preschools have organized parenting education for parents. There are almost no rules governing children's use of gadgets at home, and few preschools educate children on how to use gadgets properly. It is expected for teachers and preschools to add special programs in the curriculum to provide information about positive gadget use and parenting programs that discuss digital native generation and collaborate with parents to establish rules such as frequency, duration and content of children using gadgets” (p. 1).

In Malaysia, Fadzil et al., [35] concluded “This study showed that more than half of the respondents (parents and kids) surveyed felt very dependent upon gadgets. Parents need them as kids control, while kids need them for their pleasure and entertainment tools. They feeling the need to have their phones on them 24 h or using their phones every day. This will have caused them to feel anxious, disconnected, or even upset if they did not use and utilize it in their future and daily live” (p. 621). Finally, in Russia, [16] found that preschool children with prolonged immersion “in virtual leisure and limited social contacts with other people contribute to a decrease in the level of self-esteem and increase in the level of anxiety and social distancing from parents” (p. 11).

This review synthesizes the research literature on what has been learned so far and seeks to accomplish the following goals: (1) Identify the roles of teachers in the education of Generation Alpha; (2) Identify novel educational strategies in the teaching of Generation Alpha; and (3) Identify the roles blended or hybrid learning played in the education of Generation Alpha. There is a growing body of literature focused on answering the question: What is known about learning practices of Generation Alpha?

7 Methods

The systematic review of the Generation Alpha literature was conducted based on guidelines outlined by The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, updated in November 2021 [85]. Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Systematic literature review

Full size image

In November 2022, searches were conducted using the following databases and search engines: ERIC, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, ProQuest One Academic, Google Scholar, and Clemson Library (a search engine that includes Scopus and 724 other databases). These databases were selected as they include research focused on education, psychology, and other related areas commonly used in the field of education. The databases covered peer-reviewed articles as well as dissertations. Table 2 illustrates the detailed search strategy for this literature review and provides information about the specific search terms used in the specific databases with numbers of searched returned publications. No filters were used, nor were there language or date restrictions while searching the literature.

Table 2 Systematic literature review search strategy
Full size table

The literature search identified a total of 3,067 studies. We retrieved all the records and exported them as a Research Information Systems (RIS) file into Mendeley Reference Manager, where duplicate records were identified and removed from the searches [65]. Subsequently, the records were reviewed, and 974 duplicates were identified. After deleting the duplicates, we exported 2093 records into an Excel document for further review and coding of titles, abstracts, and full texts.

In the first stage of screening, the titles of 2093 records were evaluated to identify the relevant literature and 1,490 studies were excluded. Studies that were older than 2011 were excluded as not applicable to Generation Alpha (children born from 2010 to 2024). Exclusion criteria were applied to titles that clearly indicated topics unrelated to education of Generation Alpha. Excluded studies: (1) were in a language other than English; (2) focused on disciplines unrelated to education (e.g., finances, marketing, medicine); (3) focused on different generations (e.g., Gen X); (4) focused on school leadership; (5) focused on religious education or Sunday church schools; or (6) focused on homeschool education or family education. While topics such as school leadership and religious education other than formal education may seem relevant, the reviewed titles did not indicate any direct connection to education of Generation Alpha (e.g., they were models of religious education or leadership development and styles).

Titles that were included focused on: (1) education; (2) digital education; (3) digital games in education; (4) virtual reality in education; (5) technology use in education; (6) social media use in education; (7) language development; (8) employment skills; (9) generational differences in the workplace; and (10) labor market trends. Studies with titles that were not descriptive enough to apply the inclusion or exclusion criteria were also included for further review.

In the second stage of screening, the abstracts of 603 records were read to identify the relevant literature and 268 studies were eliminated. Because many titles of papers were not specific, an overabundance of abstracts were read to determine if they applied to Generation Alpha. Publications without abstracts were also included in the full text review to ensure that all essential publications for our review were included. After further review, abstracts were eliminated because they focused on: (1) different generations or different age groups; (2) different disciplines (e.g., medicine, investments, economics, technology outside education); (3) different types of education (e.g., character education, citizenship education, religious education); or (4) soft skills. Abstracts that were included focused on: (1) characteristics of Generation Alpha; (2) curriculum development; and (3) technology and specific teaching tools usage in education.

In the third stage of screening, the full text of 335 records were reviewed to assess them for eligibility. From this stage of review, 84 studies were excluded because: (1) the focus was on different generations or different age groups; (2) the focus was from different disciplines (e.g., investments, architecture, marketing); (3) the language of the publication was other than English; and (4) the publication was not available or was available only after purchase. During this stage, we sorted the studies by the country of origin, type of publication, original research, methods/samples, focal point of the paper (e.g., students, teachers, parents).

In the final stage of screening, the full text of 251 publications were extensively reviewed and 168 studies were excluded from the literature review. The publications were excluded due to the following: (1) lack of empirical research, such as being theoretical or without a data-driven analysis; (2) insufficient sections of the publications, such as studies that lacked clear analysis, had insufficiently detailed data collection description, or had an unclear method section that did not distinguished between empirical research and a literature review; (3) had a focus on different generations; (4) had a focus on non-formal education (e.g., out of school educational settings).

The systematic review concluded with 83 relevant publications that could be analyzed and coded for the literature review. We utilized an indictive coding approach, when the codes, categories, and themes naturally emerged from reading and analyzing the articles. The coding process was performed continuously, starting from the title screening stage and repeated throughout the abstract and the full text review phases. Codes were revisited and refined at each step of the literature review to ensure that the thematic structure accurately represented the data. The result of this coding process, including codes, categories, and themes, are summarized in Table 3. Four major themes concerning the education of Generation Alpha emerged from the coding process: (1) the role of teachers (18 studies), (2) the role of new approaches to education (12 studies), (3) the role of teaching tools (43 studies), and (4) the role of blended/online learning (10 studies).

Table 3 Summary o themes, categories, and codes in the literature review
Full size table

8 Results

Publications came from around the world, with a majority from Indonesia (33 studies), Malaysia (17 studies), followed by the United States (11 studies). Figure 2. shows the distribution of publications by country, darker color indicating more studies.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of publications by country

Full size image

The four themes derive from research that was conducted from around the world and describe common points of emphasis to accomplish the following goals: (1) Identify the roles of teachers in the education of Generation Alpha; (2) Identify novel educational strategies in the teaching of Generation Alpha; and (3) Identify the roles blended or hybrid learning played in the education of Generation Alpha.

9 The role of teachers

If Generation Alpha is special, then the expectation is that teachers would be the first to be impacted by the need for innovative teaching strategies. A synthesis of the 18 studies that focused on teachers confirms the gradual impact of an increased technology expertise needed to teach Generation Alpha. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the research tells a story of how teachers struggle to keep up with technology, recognize the importance of staying updated and innovate to teach Generation Alpha. To tell this story, seven publications were from Asia, five publications were from Europe, three from the United States, two from the Middle East, and one from Brazil.

9.1 Teachers struggle

For teachers (and most others), the speed of technological advances generally outpaces the ability to stay current on the latest educational innovations. The gap between teachers’ and students’ digital competence is dependent upon both teacher training and teacher commitment to staying updated. Regarding teacher training, a study conducted by Galindo-Domínguez and Bezanilla [40] showed only a medium level of digital competence among 200 future teachers enrolled in educational degrees in universities in Spain. Once in the classroom, whether or not teachers use social media may depend on attitudes toward its usefulness. In a dissertation, Turnbull [110] explored reasons for the low integration of social media into higher education classroom assignments in the United States. Professors who integrated social media into assignments believed that social media is an important part of students’ present lives and future employability. Professors who did not integrate social media into assignments believed that social media is not relevant to their class and not useful for learning. These professors were also older and unfamiliar with social media. Similarly, Adnan et al. [5] investigated teachers’ content development utilizing innovative teaching and learning technologies among tertiary teachers in Malaysia. The results showed that after training, very few teachers created interactive learning materials (e.g., virtual reality) on their own. The results affirm the necessity of offering opportunities for teachers to master new digital technologies throughout their careers.

9.2 The need for training for teachers

In educational institutions around the world, there is a growing acknowledgment that teacher training needs to be responsive to the assumed growing digital divide between teachers and students. In Brazil, future teachers were able to identify Generation Alpha’s use and ease with digital technologies but also recognized that their courses did not sufficiently prepare them to teach this new generation [25]. Similarly, future teachers in the Czech Republic believed that information and communication technology could support classes such as mathematics and elementary science but reported that for their own learning, they prefer textbooks and notes from lectures rather than the internet [113]. Finally, Aditya et al. [4] found that although early childhood education teachers in Indonesia had positive attitudes toward the use of information and communication technology, the lack of technical support and training led to difficulties with integrating technology in their online activities.

Even if proper teacher training is possible, how to train teachers is an important challenge. In a longitudinal case study dissertation, Mullen [78] investigated teachers’ jobs, administrative technology, education technology, and self-reported educator self-efficacy from the beginning of their employment through orientation and the first 60 days of an onboarding process in the United States. Unfortunately, the results showed that the onboarding intervention resulted only in minor changes in teachers’ self-efficacy.

Can the presence of older more experienced teachers from other generations make a difference? In a dissertation, Teske [108] exanimated generational differences of Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials regarding educational and workplace values among American public-school teachers. Differences were found among the generations in work ethic, ability to establish positive relationships, utilization of technology, willingness to change, patience, and respect for hierarchy. Similarities between generations were found in motivation and types of leadership. In general:

The Baby Boomer generation perceived themselves resisting and experiencing difficulties when making changes . . . Millennials were identified by the other generations and perceived themselves as being flexible and open-minded to change, which was classified as a positive value. Generation Xers felt they aligned with the Baby Boomers’ difficulty to accept change, while the other two generations believed Generation Xers adapted well to change. (p. 174-175)

Overall, the findings suggest that it may be difficult to teach digital skills (see also, [60]).

As a model for understanding teachers’ preparedness, in Indonesia, there is significant national effort directed at measuring teachers’ capacity and competence with scientific literacy and digital technology. A national initiative creates teacher profiles through measures of a teacher’s ability to plan and integrate technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge for effective teaching to support student learning. Known at TPACK (Technological Pedagogy Content Knowledge), the framework has proved useful [60]. For example, Fakhriyah et al. [36] found that TPACK ability was good among future teachers and the factors that contributed the most to the abilities were the pedagogic component and the content knowledge component. Recommendations are for schools to improve teachers TPACK scores through individualized teacher training because group trainings fail to consider teacher characteristics. Following this recommendation, Churiyah et al. [28] evaluated a program that aimed to train and assist Indonesian vocational high school teachers in developing learning media and models that can accommodate the creativity skills of students. The results showed that teachers who took part in the program had skills in developing media and implementing learning models that support the students’ creative skills.

In addition to preparing teachers based on pre-existing competencies, specialized training can increase the chance of digital competence. For example, Karacan and Polat [55] examined the factors that predict Turkish pre-service English teachers’ intentions to use augmented reality in their classes. The pre-service teachers attended a training on augmented reality in language classes and a workshop to create augmented reality experiences. The results indicated that the pre-service teachers who perceived the augmented reality useful were more likely to adopt the augmented reality in their future classes. In addition, pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs also positively affected their adoption of augmented reality.

Training with the use of flipped classrooms had mixed results. Hashim and Shaari [44] examined Malaysian primary and secondary school teachers’ perception of flipped classrooms. Teachers perceived the flipped classroom as useful and believed it can improve their knowledge and skills. However, the teachers faced some challenges during the implementation, most of them believed that their students do not like watching short, flipped videos and they are not interested in the educational material in flipped classrooms.

Competencies other than mastering technologies are still important. Fauyan [37] conducted a study that investigated the roles and competencies of millennial teachers in Indonesia. The results showed that teachers had roles of agents of transferring the knowledge, managers, learning agents that created active and creative learning environment, motivators who encourage students’ involvement by using multimethod, multimedia, and multisource. Additionally, the following competences were found crucial: planning, implementing, and evaluating. Those roles and competencies showed teachers’ readiness in implementation of the latest technology during remote teaching in the COVID-19 period. In summary, there appears to be increasing efforts to understand how best to improve teacher competencies.

9.3 Teachers are Innovating

Teachers have been innovating and experimenting with new teaching methods for Generation Alpha with mixed success. In Ukraine, Morze et al. [77] examined competences required for critical evaluation of internet resources among future primary school teachers. The results showed that most future teachers have faced different types of fraud online and all teachers were aware of cybersecurity measures carried out at the national level. Most of the future teachers believed that critical evaluation of Internet resources should be developed in the computer science classes. The future teachers believed that the following techniques should be used most often in the development of future teachers’ internet critical thinking: project activity, effective use of digital tools, and collaboration in groups. Based on the findings, the authors designed a model of the system of formation of internet resource critical evaluation skills of future primary school teachers.

In another effort to improve Generation Alpha’s reading skills, Aberšek and Kerneža [2] examined Slovenian primary teachers’ attitudes towards an Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) method that aims to improve students’ functional literacy competence when using the internet and screens. Research with previous generations suggest that paper-based reading produced better learning outcomes than screen-based reading [31]. Teachers believed that the IRT method is suitable for developing functional literacy in digital learning environment among students 9–11 years old and should be modified for younger students. There was an acknowledgement that there was no going back to paper-based reading.

Games and robots are also making inroads into Generation Alpha curriculums. Masril et al. [74] found that the use of robotic technology (Lego Mindstorms Ev3) as a learning resource by Indonesian elementary school teachers had a positive effect on behavior and was perceived as a learning tool that should be used in the elementary school curriculum. In Turkey, Akkaya et al. [9] found that most teachers considered themselves competent in using technology and they used digital games mostly in mathematics classes. Teachers believed that although there are many educational benefits, the usage of games could lead to physical health problems, communication problems, focusing problems, mental disorders, and excessive time loss.

In summary, the experimentation with novel approaches has some promising results, but there was no single innovation that has been replicated or scaled to an extent to be seen as universally effective.

10 The role of new approaches to education

New approaches to education are occurring at every level. Twelve studies focused on rethinking curriculums and programs for Generation Alpha. Five studies were from Indonesia, two studies were from Europe, two from the United States, one from Turkey, one from Algeria, and one from Kuwait.

10.1 Rethinking national approaches

In some countries, researchers are discovering how best to train teachers at the national level. In Croatia, Jukić and Škojo [51] conducted interviews with 10 information and communication technology (ICT) experts and 10 university professors to assess the future and integration of technology. Reflecting their orientation, the ICT experts perceived that teachers have insufficient training, their computer literacy is lower than students, and schools do not have adequate equipment. According to the ICT experts, teaching must be more dynamic and should be gamified as future occupations will be related to highly developed technology and artificial intelligence. The professors raised concerns about challenges associated with insufficient social interactions, problems of socialization, and insufficient development of social competencies and communication skills. In other words, social-emotional learning was important. The professors also agreed that the teaching process must be updated to be more interesting, teaching methods need to be multimodal with visualization of the teaching content, the teaching process must be more dynamic with active learning and interactive teaching, and the curriculum must be attractive with elective subjects.

When countries do innovate to meet the needs of Generation Alpha, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach. In Algeria, Sarnou [97] investigated the reasons of unsuccessful technologization of schools and universities and found the major reasons for the failure of an effective integration of ICT into the classrooms were social, cultural, economic, and educational factors. Specifically, there were deeply rooted regional differences in culture, politics, and financing within the country that made integration of ICT difficult. The ineffective integration of ICT was also found to negatively influence the relationship between teachers and students.

In summary, although a few articles depict efforts to understand how best to educate Generation Alpha, the results have not yet translated into national policies.

10.2 Rethinking language programs

An important goal in many educational systems is to improve language proficiency of non-native speakers and there has been some success with new programs aimed at increasing language proficiency for Generation Alpha. For example, Kadir et al. [52] examined the effectiveness of a 3 year foreign language program of Arabic-English-Japanese in three Indonesian schools. The language program implemented smart and creative learning methodologies with audio and visual gadgets. The findings reveled that the program created engaging and enjoyable learning environment for students. Also in Indonesia, Rombot et al. [91] developed a blended learning model for foreign speakers that gave the students the opportunity to repeatedly read the text and ultimately improved Indonesian reading skills. Finally, Shamir et al. [101] explored the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Learning curriculum, a game-based curriculum designed to promote English as a foreign language through reading, writing, and typing among students in kindergarten through second grade. The results showed that students that used the curriculum had significantly higher literacy scores than students who did not use the curriculum.

In summary, as more language curriculums innovate to take advantage of technology, there will likely be an increase of research that capitalizes on Generation Alpha’s presumed digital competence.

10.3 Rethinking STEM and ICT programs

For a generation that is digitally fluent, there is a natural increased emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and information and communications technology (ICT) programs in education. This increased emphasis has yielded research attempting to take advantage of Generation Alpha’s ability to learn. A quasi-experimental dissertation by LiCalsi [68] examined the effects of robotics curriculum on American elementary students’ attitude, interest, persistence, self-efficacy, and career interest in STEM. The results indicated that younger students in the treatment group had an increase in the measured variables compared to older students. Girls in the treatment group had an increase in self-efficacy and career interest in STEM compared to girls in the control group.

In another dissertation, Malallah [71] developed a computational thinking pedagogy framework with a virtual world environment for early childhood education. Using a developed STEM model designed to meet the needs of Arabic/Persian Gulf region students, the STEM program improved students’ computational thinking abilities. The study compared the implementation of the STEM program in the U.S. and in Kuwait and examined factors that influence female and male preference and performance in STEM education in Kuwait.

In a study aimed at second graders, Lucenko et al. [70] examined the effectiveness of an innovative curriculum design in a Ukrainian primary school. The design used project-research activities in the lessons and the teacher’s role was an organizer of the student project activity. The results showed that the innovative curriculum design was more effective than a traditional methodological approach.

Turkish gifted students perceived that a flipped learning model was fun, different, instructive, useful, increased learning, saved time, provided opportunities for practice, advantageous, and flexible in terms of in-class practices. The study also showed that there was not a significant difference in the emotional semantic orientations in the in-class practices between female and male students. However, there were significant differences in the out-of-class effectiveness and entertainment. Male students perceived the flipped learning model more effective than female students and female students perceived that the flipped learning model as more fun than male students did [80].

10.4 Rethinking other programs

Two studies fell outside the category of language and science programs. Akmal et al. [10] evaluated the application of a social-emotional learning model that involves collaboration with parents in early childhood education institutions in Indonesia. The results indicated that a program that aims to teach social-emotional skills in early childhood can be successfully implemented by teachers and parents. In another program aimed at teachers, Defit et al. [30] developed a Literacy and Technology-based Elementary School Teacher Development model that integrates coaching and mentoring. The aim of the program was to optimize teachers’ leadership abilities to improve the quality of Indonesian teachers in the current digital era. The feasibility of the program design was assessed by lecturers and school principals and deemed suitable for teachers.

Overall, the role of new approaches to the education of Generation Alpha has been to reimagine traditional STEM and languages areas and experiment with some non-traditional areas such as social-emotional learning. Although the cited research is included because of the link to Generation Alpha, there are likely many more relevant efforts naturally occurring with this population that do not operationally define their populations by generation.

11 The role of teaching tools

Next to the role of teachers, the availability of teaching tools (broadly construed) to teach Generation Alpha is the most important factor in understanding how and whether education differs for Generation Alpha. Tools were categorized according to whether there was some evaluation or whether they were in development. Forty-three studies examined a development, or a usage, of a specific technological teaching tool designed for use with Generation Alpha. Out of the forty-four studies, thirty-one studies were conducted in Asia (mostly in Indonesia and Malaysia), four in Europe, two in the United States, two in Middle East, one in Australia, one in Ecuador, one in collaboration between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Canada, United Kingdom, and Sweden, one in collaboration between Indonesia and Portugal, and one in a collaboration between Indonesia and Germany.

11.1 Evaluated teaching tools

Eleven studies employed either a pre-test and post-test or experimental design with a control group to evaluate the effect of the educational tool. The teaching tools that were used were the following: virtual reality glasses [93], Project Based Learning assisted by Electronic Media [95], Loose Parts learning media [86], learning media based on modules and GeoGebr [15], augmented reality pictorial storybook [69], QR codes as an Augmented reality [11], Six Facets of Serious Game Design and Ernest Adams’ Game Design [27], jazz chants approach [102], collaborative planning and teaching with virtual reality [72], multimedia learning environment Augmented Reality English Vocabulary Acquisition [114], and AsKINstagram [50].

Overall, the teaching tools were effective. Positive outcomes included improved drawing performance [93], increased motivation [95], improved science process skills [95], improved mathematics learning outcomes and performance [15, 27], improved naturalist intelligence [86], increased anxiety in mathematics learning [69], enhanced student performance [11], improved academic performance in English as a second Language [102, 114], improved vocabulary learning in English as a second Language [72], and improved students’ writing English as a second language [50].

11.2 Unevaluated teaching tools

Nineteen studies focused on a usage of a specific teaching tool without an evaluation of the tool’s effect. The teaching tools that were used were the following: Science Technology Engineering and Math-Project Based Learning [82], Virtual Reality technology [3, 49, 61], serious games [1], expected game-based learning for protracted waste problem [64], code.org [20], Minecraft [107], digital board game Master Malaysia 123 v2 [57], Instagram [18], Instagram interactive face filters [90], social media [116], YouTube [87], WhatsApp [105], interactive digital phonics show [42], voca-lens [117], virtual game using the Sphero haptic device [23], Chromebook [115], educational mobile applications (Nevřelová, 2020), and use of technology [98].

The goals of these projects were to increase cognitive engagement [115], increase phonological awareness [42], increase communication skills [82], increase engagement and entertainment [61], increase reading skills [107], increase computational thinking [20], enhance knowledge [57], increase language skills for English as a second language [116, 117], increase motivation to speak English as a second language [18, 90], engaged students [98], build children’s awareness of waste problems [3], increase early mathematic skills [87], increase early literacy skills [87], increase socio-emotional development [87], increase executive function [87], improve narrative writing [105], improve quality of life [1], and improve the visual-motor coordination [23].

11.3 Tools in development

Thirteen studies focused on a development of a teaching tool specifically to improve or capitalize on the digital competency of Generation Alpha. The following teaching tools were developed: argumentation-based educational digital game (Bağ &Çalık, [19]), game design activity [48], Android based educational games [79, 96], escape room-based mobile game [13], motion comic storyboard [56], digital map application with hand gesture recognition [84], mobile-based learning application [17],Omar & Abd Muin, [83]), story digital book [43], lift the flap book digital media [21], lift-a-flap picture book with audio [62], and Edmodo-Based Science Module [6].

Those teaching tools led to improved mathematical skills [56], improved literacy [43], improved science process skills [6], improved language skills (Omar and Abd Muin, [83]), improved vocabulary learning [62], increased motivation [19], increased creativity [48], improved motivation to learn English [13], improved English language skills [13], increased interests in learning mathematics [96], improved historical learning [84], improved early reading [79], and increased interests in learning science among alpha generation [21].

In a rare study that focused on a disabled sub-population within Generation Alpha, Aziz et al. [17] developed an application to improve math skills for those with poor vision. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the mobile application was not evaluated. Given the benefit of new educational technologies for the disabled, it is surprising that more educational technologies are not developed [46].

Only one study acknowledged disadvantages associated with the use of technology in classrooms. A study conducted by Kurniawati et al. [61] focused on the integration of virtual reality into English vocabulary teaching in Indonesia. Teachers were able to incorporate the virtual reality into classes despite some challenges with device availability, workloads, teaching media, and classroom managerial skills. The students perceived that learning English vocabulary using virtual reality was engaging and entertaining. However, the students reported headaches from prolonged exposure to the virtual reality lens. Overall, the studies reveal technology being developed to appeal to students. The state-of-the-art of research has not yet focused on potential negative effects and how to overcome them.

In summary, the development of tools represents the greatest portion of the literature reviewed and reflects the ongoing interest in discovering how best to teach Generation Alpha.

12 The role of blended/online learning

The review of blended/online learning for Generation Alpha is a subset of a far greater research literature on teaching modalities. The literature review directly related to Generation Alpha produced ten studies that examined online or blended learning: five studies were conducted in Asia, two studies in Europe, one study in the United States, and two studies in the Middle East. The findings of the articles are best synthesized and sorted into categories describing the importance of experienced teachers and parents in improving experiences with Generation Alpha and describing some successes and some challenges with adopting distance and blended learning.

12.1 Experienced adults are important

During distance learning, parent–child interaction was an important factor that influenced the success of early childhood education in Indonesia [88]. To ensure success for distance learning, teachers in Turkey recommended parental support, active participation of students, use of Web 2.0 tools, gamification, and sharing information about training for parents [29]. Another study showed that experience with technology matters. Masry-Herzallah and Stavissky [75] found that older elementary and middle school teachers and younger elementary students had more difficulties than younger teachers and older students to transition to online learning during the pandemic in Israel.

12.2 Success with online and blended learning

Although the entire world adopted online and blended learning models during the pandemic, only a few studies used the term “Generation Alpha” in defining their success. Because the overall findings in the literature review are not driven by common research paradigms or common outcome measures, the results are specific to the researchers’ interests and relevant primarily within the context of the country’s education system. Thus, there is a limitation in generalizing the findings from the following countries:

  1. (1)

    In Ukraine, when teachers incorporated videos and online learning games, students perceived the online learning more beneficial [106].

  2. (2)

    In Indonesia, secondary school teachers reported that the best way to provide learning materials was through WhatsApp, Google Classroom and for some students, directly through the school [7]. In another study, Indonesian high school teachers reported that they used synchronous video conference platforms, asynchronous learning management systems (LMSs), and various learning media to help them conduct laboratory work [12]. The implementation of the blended learning when done in collaboration between Indonesians schools, teachers, parents, and students leads to more effective and meaningful learning [41]. Duggal et al. [34] found that Indian students were accepting the online education but there was a need to keep them engaged and enticed. The implementation of new learning methodologies such as gamified online education can help to overcome the online education challenges.

  3. (3)

    In Turkey, teachers reported the use of Google Classroom, Edmodo, Classdojo, Microsoft Teams, and Twinspace during distance teaching. They used these Learning Management Systems (LMS) for course and project management, flipped education practices, personal and professional development activities, and management of extracurricular and guidance activities. They described that the LMSs allowed to quickly follow the learning process of the students, allowed students individual progress, and the lessons were more efficient [29].

  4. (4)

    In the United States, Kingsbury [58] compared U. S. students’ online learning experience between schools that were already virtual and traditional in-person schools during the pandemic. He found that the virtual schools outperformed the in-person schools and parents were more likely to report that their child learned a lot during online learning.

12.3 Teacher and school challenges

The challenges to implementing online and blended learning as related to Generation Alpha fell into two categories: teacher challenges and school challenges.

During kindergarten distance teaching in Israel, pre-service teachers came across some challenges with communications, attitudes, tools, and technological skills [8]. Legvart et al. [66] found that Slovenian elementary school teachers experienced issues with students limited digital literacy competences which impacted the communication between teachers and students and among the students. In Indonesia, secondary school teachers experienced obstacles with applications, limited internet data, learning management, assessment, and supervision [7]. Similarly for high school, Indonesian teachers experienced technical issues and reduced interaction during learning process [12]. Finally, Turkish teachers experienced the most issues with the deficiencies related to technological equipment [29].

Schools also faced challenges and some research addresses how improvements might be made. In a study of middle-schoolers, Bruggeman [22] confirmed that “the micro-school environment, with an intentional overlay of a student-centered philosophy, personalized learning, and small mixed-age classroom settings, has a positive impact on the development of three elements of student agency: motivation, choice, and competency” (p. 220). In addition to redesigning classroom settings, a study of 500 elementary school students in Indonesia show that the increased use of smartphones and social media (YouTube, Google) may necessitate the reimagining of how libraries remain relevant [104]. Given the slow rate of adaption to change, even universities should start thinking of how to meet the needs of Generation Alpha [118].

13 Conclusions

Despite frequent use of the term “Generation Alpha” in the research literature, relatively few studies report generational differences that reveal how children of this generation are characteristically different from previous generations. There is simply a strong assumption that Generation Alpha is different. A major worldwide concern is that the use of technology by Generation Alpha has decreased opportunities for social-emotional development and increased mental health problems. Where research has been conducted, the underlying goal is to discover how educational practices may benefit with parents and adults mediating technology use.

Within the reviewed literature, no reference was found to any field of studies or organization of scholars focused exclusively on Generation Alpha. Rather, the examined studies reveal research to be the work of independent researchers focused on mostly practical educational strategies. Most of the research literature assumes differences between Generation Alpha and previous generations without systematic observation. An open question is how Generation Alpha is qualitatively different from previous generations. Therefore, future research should utilize theoretical frameworks to identify and understand the unique characteristics, behaviors, and traits of the digital native Generation Alpha.

The term “Generation Alpha” frequently appears in international research literature and is not commonly used in studies the United States. Future researchers might conduct comparative studies across diverse cultures and educational settings while using international collaboration to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Generation Alpha’s characteristics and needs. Longitudinal studies could help understand how Generation Alpha’s experiences and exposure to technology shape their identities, needs, career choices, social-emotional development.

To improve education for members of Generation Alpha and all subsequent digital natives, research might also best be focused less on children’s use of technology and more on the roles and competencies of adults and teachers to create environments that facilitate both digital and social-emotional learning.

On a final note, during the pandemic, out of necessity, schools use of novel digital approaches to education accelerated and there may be many studies published in the future which are relevant to Generation Alpha. As noted, this literature review captures only a small portion of the education research directed at this population as there are many studies that target this age group but do not use the term “Generation Alpha.” A primary takeaway from the review should be that experienced adults matter in the success of Generation Alpha. To be sure, there are also many tools and digital educational tools and online strategies being developed and tested but none have emerged to be dominant. Indeed, there is not even consensus on the best approach. There is still much research needed to produce evidence-based tools that can be recommended. What is happening in the education research on Generation Alpha is an increased recognition of their presumed digital capacity without a corresponding consensus on best educational practices. Future policies and practices would benefit from more specific research on how generational cohorts differ from one another in their exposure and experience with technology.