Reflection

Vendor lock-in is widespread in Estonia’s education system and poses a serious threat to the smart development and use of digital solutions. At the University of Tartu, Microsoft products dominate; at Tallinn University, Google services; in schools, either Google for Education or Microsoft 365 are prevalent, alongside devices and applications from various Asian manufacturers. Learning management systems also vary – Moodle, eKool and Stuudium, among others. Once a particular system is adopted, integrating tools from other providers often becomes difficult. In some cases, these barriers are deliberately created by vendors; in others, they stem from our own limited capacity to ensure universal access and support, compounded by habit.

Every digital tool or device carries potential risks for users – from cyberthreats to dangers related to device use and data processing. If we wanted to be truly secure in the digital realm, the only logical step would be to stop using digital solutions altogether. But is that what we want? How great is the benefit of digital innovation, and when does it justify taking certain risks? How can we mitigate those risks and ensure the resilience of the digital ecosystem? In teachers’ professional standards, resilience is defined as the ability to cope with change on emotional, cognitive and behavioural levels, responding appropriately and restoring balance for self-care. How well can we manage when a digital product or service disappears, or when a new one appears? Can we prioritise our learning or teaching goals and, when necessary, adjust our behaviour quickly and thoughtfully – one might say organically – to incorporate different digital possibilities into the process?

What would it take to allow digital innovation to thrive?

The national system must support flexible integration between different technology providers. If the goal is to use the best solutions and focus on learning outcomes rather than mastering a specific tool, schools must not be divided between ‘Microsoft schools’ and ‘Google schools’ or similar. When technology giants show little interest in interoperability, we should consider how to support it at the national level to reduce the risk of educational inequality. It would help if new solutions were procured centrally for all schools, while each institution remains responsible for supporting teachers and learners in their use.

Teachers require strong digital competence. A teacher is both a guide for learners and a continual learner themselves. A learning professional does not shy away from new challenges or cling to old habits but faces them head-on, explores, experiments and, when results are positive, adapts existing practices. At present, teachers’ digital competence is not assessed in Estonia, yet OECD PISA data show that the use of digital tools for learning correlates more strongly with lower mathematics performance here than in most other countries. This indicates that teachers’ digital competence is alarmingly low and in urgent need of systematic development. Those without digital skills cannot take advantage of digital opportunities, and in this way, we waste our potential.

We must reduce fears surrounding copyright, data protection and artificial intelligence. In education, there has long been a sense that much of the available digital content cannot be used legally because of copyright restrictions and cost, coupled with limited resources. While copyright is indeed important, studies on the educational exception conducted at the University of Tartu a few years ago revealed that the situation is far less restrictive than often assumed. The educational exception allows for extensive use of materials for learning within a closed environment. Meanwhile, new anxieties have emerged around data collection, data use and AI hallucinations. Striking a balance requires raising public awareness, which is the foundation for the confident and intelligent use of digital solutions.