It was an interesting finding in the learners’ questionnaire that the fourth digital competence, Using search engines, proved to be an unreliable construct; however, in the instructors’ questionnaire, it proved to be reliable. Through the interview studies it turned out that the majority of expert teachers involve digital technologies in their teaching practices, including familiarising students with online databases and advanced search tools; however, it might be the case that the majority of students in the main questionnaire sample did not yet need to use search engines often, and as the student interview confirmed, much of their readings and resources were usually pre-selected by their instructors and uploaded to the LSM system. This suggests that learning about tools in isolation or sporadically does not effectively result in their use without sufficient practice opportunities. Through the example of Sándor, the student who learned process essay writing using Google Documents, this study managed to provide evidence for explicit ICT instruction resulting in a change affecting how he views technology inclusion and he managed to adopt the view that additional development is the result of experimenting with ever new features of digital environments proactively.

In the questionnaire studies, it could also be observed that while the correlations between learners’ Willingness to use ICT devices and DigComp3: Judging the reliability of online sources was weak (r = .270; Sig. (2-tailed): p < 0.05), in the instructors’ case it was high (r = .611; Sig. (2-tailed): p < 0.05). Also considering what the interview participants said, these values could be possible explanations for how many layers of importance learners and instructors attach to digital technologies. While learners use them for recreational, learning and some of them for teaching purposes, in the case of the instructors, ICT use has become the most natural way of keeping in touch with their learners as well as a tool for conducting research. This might mean that the instructors look at digital technologies not only as means of recreation, but as professional tools; thus, by reflecting on the research assistant potential of technology, perhaps even more instructors’ beliefs could be positively altered about inclusion. Both in the learners’ and instructors’ correlational analyses of the connections between digital competences and the other surveyed dimensions of ICT literacy (Tables 28 and 39) and in the two interview studies it was confirmed how prior positive experiences and instruction shape the individual’s beliefs about technology inclusion signalled by students’ and instructors’ high correlations between Acceptance of ICT devices and their Willingness to develop their skills.

Additionally, while gender differences did not prove to be significant in terms of ICT use, age as an individual variable was detected to be significant in the instructors’ questionnaire study. These questionnaire results, however, had to be interpreted with caution, which was confirmed by the interview results. Teachers with more than 20 years of teaching experience in the questionnaire sample proved to be significantly less likely to support technology inclusion, but the interview participants all favoured and advocated inclusion regardless of their age and emphasised how the importance of learning and teaching about digital competences was rather in connection with one’s invested time and effort into learning and experiencing the use of technologies. Both the instructors’ questionnaire study and the interview participants’ ideas confirmed that in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, prior digital competences correlated with the ease of online transition, which is hardly surprising, but suggests that despite repeated calls for action, the digital transformation of education had not necessarily been a widely supported and adopted view in education.

Education having had to turn entirely online proved to be a challenging, but techno-pedagogically fruitful endeavour. While in the instructors’ questionnaire study, the participants reported statistically significant gains in their technological knowledge, synchronously managed online classes, and ease of transition between the first and second Covid-waves, the interview data, and the surveyed professional discourse still point towards certain insufficiency in realising the digital transformation (Dringó-Horváth & Gonda, 2018; EU, 2018; MDOS, 2016; Öveges & Csizér, 2018). For some teachers – largely depending on their prior beliefs and their institution’s support of digital environments – the Covid pandemic was the first instance they turned to LMS systems and online correspondence with their learners, whereas receiving student assignments and sending them back had previously been in practice, too. Even though one of the interview participants expressed that some colleagues at his university “took a leave of absence” (László) in Covid-times, most instructors nationwide went to great lengths to provide their learners with synchronous learning opportunities; however, it was mainly the lecturers who emphasised how disengaging and demoralising it was to record their talks without any audience. The questionnaire and interview participants’ nevertheless all expressed welcome effects of the pandemic regarding learners’ and teachers’ technological and technological pedagogical knowledge, but it remains a question how much of what was learnt could become part of learners’ digital study, and instructors’ digital teaching skills.

While in the learners’ questionnaire study, the correlations between learners’ three Digital skills and Using ICT for language learning purposes proved to be weak (Table 29), the interview participants expressed that it was mainly in their language development and teaching methodological courses where they mostly learnt about digital technologies that could be utilised for their language learning endeavours. The expert teachers, some of whom are not only teachers of language development classes but academic English or academic writing skills classes, expressed that they used technology in all their classes and reasoned for technology use as part of translation- and academic skills-related classes too. However, the learners almost exclusively mentioned applications, tools, and websites that they used as part of language development classes. This might be a coincidence that has to do with the sampling procedure, but it might be worthwhile looking into how and why other, non-language development-oriented technologies are less likely to transform into learners’ digital repertoires.

One possible explanation to this emerging theme might be that learners in the sample had prior knowledge on, e.g., vocabulary development-related software, and thus it is more likely that they have developed positive beliefs and attach feeling of success to these digital tools as opposed to the relatively new ones introduced at the beginning of their university studies. Another possible explanation that could perhaps coexist with the former one was voiced by Zsombor; he claimed that he did not pay enough attention to developing his learners’ EFL skills, albeit in one of his classes, students follow a computer-based process-writing approach all semester long and learn about proofreading, text organisation and thesauruses. Perhaps making a more explicit connection between the multi-layered benefits of technology inclusion (it develops subject-related, language-related as well as digital competences) could influence students’ mindset about turning not only to language development-related tools.

Interestingly, techno-anxiety was traceable in all four studies. Based on the data collected, it could be observed that teachers were mainly afraid of experimenting with digital technologies because they are afraid of losing face in front of their learners or what would happen if a sudden technical error (e.g., a power cut) made it impossible for them to use technology. While preparing for ICT-inclusive lessons requires substantial time-investment, preparing with a plan B requires double the efforts on behalf of teachers. Learners are much rather afraid of technology-related issues if it involves their presentations in the classroom, but they do not feel the pressure of experimenting with devices. What makes the instructors’ job harder is the pressure they voiced to have felt regarding educational policy and the demands of 21st century education to include technology in their classes. While there does not exist a perfect checklist of technology inclusion, the instructor interview participants unanimously expressed that inclusion should be pedagogically reasoned for. This also means that practising and future teachers’ technological, technological pedagogical, and technological pedagogical content knowledge skills should be developed simultaneously, best – according to the expert teachers – by reflectively integrating technology into as many university classes as possible.

Finally, learners and teachers alike in the interview studies referred to themselves as holding positive beliefs about technology inclusion in their learning, teaching and prospective teaching practices, but it is very difficult to estimate the quality of technology inclusion without considering the exact spatiotemporal context. Some instructor interview participants also echoed what the professional discourse sees as the importance of a critical mass; teachers who invest time and effort into developing their TPACK skills as well as their learners’ digital competences regardless of the subject(s) they teach. When it comes to technology inclusion into education, lifelong learning emerges as one of the most important concepts. As the framework of digital literacy continuously changes, a fundamental goal of education emerges to be vesting learners with the necessary attitudes to be independent on the 21st century job market and ensuring that teachers regardless of their area of expertise are supported in experimenting with the digital technologies that could aid them while preparing for and implementing their classes and regarding their professional development and research areas. In this respect the importance of (learners’ and instructors’) lifelong learning should also include constant learning about (educational) technology and developing digital skills.