The Focus on Students’ Attention! Does TikTok’s EduTok Initiative Propose an Alternative Perspective to the Design of Institutional Learning Environments?

  • Markus RachEmail author
  • Marc Lounis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 136)


This paper aims to provide a literature-based review of the current state of knowledge with regards to digital media and technology applications in learning environments. A systematic literature review of 27 sources was conducted to capture the current state of research and implementation of digital media and digital technology in learning environments. Findings exposed that scholars and learning practitioners alike apply a constructivist approach to shaping learning environments, yet almost all fall short to consider students’ natural attention bias while assuming an exclusive focus on the learning environment. This paper follows to contrast the rapid growth of EduTok, TikTok’s learning initiative to the digital media application of established learning institutions. The later provides a new perspective to re-evaluate the current state of digital media application in learning environments to propose an alternate framework for the application of digital media in learning environments by considering the so far neglected factor of attention arbitrage.


Digital media Digital technology Learning environments Social media TikTok EduTok Technology adoption Educational technology Education 


  1. 1.
    Minoli, D.: Distance Learning Technology and Applications. Artech House Inc., Norwood (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yuen, A.H., Ma, W.W.: Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 36(3), 229–243 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henry, P.: E-learning technology, content and services. Educ.+Train. 43(4/5), 249–255 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Facer, K.: Learning Futures: Education, Technology and Social Change, 1st edn. Routledge, London (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mirrlees, T., Alvi, S.: EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age. Routledge, London (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Premack, R.: Teachers Across America are Obsessed with Google Products—Here’s how Apple and Microsoft Plan to Win Them Back. Business Insider (2018). Accessed 10 Feb 2020
  7. 7.
    Schacter, J.: The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saettler, P.: The Evolution of American Educational Technology. IAP, Bridgeport (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Domingo, M.G., Garganté, A.B.: Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 21–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ball, D.M., Levy, Y.: Emerging educational technology: assessing the factors that influence instructors’ acceptance in information systems and other classrooms. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 19(4), 8 (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., Tondeur, J.: The technology acceptance model (TAM): a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Comput. Educ. 128, 13–35 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson, B.G.: Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, pp. 3–8. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bada, S.O., Olusegun, S.: Constructivism learning theory: a paradigm for teaching and learning. J. Res. Method Educ. 5(6), 66–70 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bereiter, C.: Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s world 3. Educ. Res. 23(7), 21–23 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knuth, R.A., Cunningham, D.J.: Tools for constructivism. In: Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, pp. 163–188. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dede, C.: The evolution of constructivist learning environments: immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educ. Technol. 35(5), 46–52 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore, J.L., Dickson-Deane, C., Galyen, K.: e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: are they the same? Internet High. Educ. 14(2), 129–135 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Januszewski, A., Molenda, M. (eds.): Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. Routledge, Abingdon (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aagaard, J.: Drawn to distraction: a qualitative study of off-task use of educational technology. Comput. Educ. 87, 90–97 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., Scherer, R.: Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: its meaning and measurement. Comput. Educ. 94, 134–150 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M.K., Franey, J.J., Bassett, K.: Teaching in a digital age: how educators use technology to improve student learning. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 48(3), 194–211 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu, C., Xu, X., Zhang, W., Chen, J., Evans, R.: How health communication via Tik Tok makes a difference: a content analysis of Tik Tok accounts run by Chinese provincial health committees. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17(1), 192 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson, K.E.: Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: it is time to talk about TikTok. Libr. Hi Tech News (2020)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu, L., Yan, X., Zhang, Z.: Research on the causes of the “Tik Tok” app becoming popular and the existing problems. J. Adv. Manage. Sci. 7(2), 59–63 (2019)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, H., Zhang, Q.: Tik Tok app should convey correct values: taking the influence of Tik Tok on college students as an example. Theory Pract. Contemp. Educ. 5, 19 (2019)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zuo, H., Wang, T.: Analysis of Tik Tok user behavior from the perspective of popular culture. Front. Art Res. 1(3), 1–5 (2019)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    TikTok. Accessed 19 Feb 2020
  30. 30.
    Aldunate, R., Nussbaum, M.: Teacher adoption of technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(3), 519–524 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    John, S.P.: The integration of information technology in higher education: a study of faculty’s attitude towards IT adoption in the teaching process. Contaduría y Administración 60, 230–252 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petko, D., Egger, N., Cantieni, A., Wespi, B.: Digital media adoption in schools: bottom-up, top-down, complementary or optional? Comput. Educ. 84, 49–61 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabi, H.M., Uzoka, F.M.E., Langmia, K., Njeh, F.N.: Conceptualizing a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36(2), 183–191 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J.: Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. College Rec. 108(6), 1017–1054 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borthwick, A.C., Hansen, R.: Digital literacy in teacher education: are teacher educators competent? J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 33(2), 46–48 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, E.E., Kahlke, R., Judd, T.: From digital natives to digital literacy: Anchoring digital practices through learning design (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zdravkova, K.: Reinforcing social media based learning, knowledge acquisition and learning evaluation. Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 228, 16–23 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon 9(5), 45–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Underwood, J., Dillon, G.: Capturing complexity through maturity modelling. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 13(2), 213–225 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harrison, C., Tomás, C., Crook, C.: An e-maturity analysis explains intention–behavior disjunctions in technology adoption in UK schools. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 345–351 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hasen, R.L.: Cheap speech and what it has done (to American Democracy). First Amend. L. Rev. 16, 200 (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Robinson, A., Cook, D.: “Stickiness”: gauging students’ attention to online learning activities. Inf. Learn. Sci. 119(7/8), 460–468 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Greenhow, C., Lewin, C.: Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learn. Med. Technol. 41(1), 6–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Balakrishnan, V., Gan, C.L.: Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telemat. Inform. 33(3), 808–821 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    American Psychology Society, Bradbury, N.A.: Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Accessed 20 Feb 2019
  46. 46.
    Bunce, D.M., Flens, E.A., Neiles, K.Y.: How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. J. Chem. Educ. 87(12), 1438–1443 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bolliger, D.U., Supanakorn, S., Boggs, C.: Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Comput. Educ. 55(2), 714–722 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dabbagh, N., Kitsantas, A.: Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. Int. J. E-learn. 3(1), 40–47 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandOltenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Communication Sciences and CognitionsUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations