using technology in education

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

How Important Is Technology in Education? Benefits, Challenges, and Impact on Students

Many of today’s high-demand jobs were created in the last decade, according to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). As advances in technology drive globalization and digital transformation, teachers can help students acquire the necessary skills to succeed in the careers of the future.

How important is technology in education? The COVID-19 pandemic is quickly demonstrating why online education should be a vital part of teaching and learning. By integrating technology into existing curricula, as opposed to using it solely as a crisis-management tool, teachers can harness online learning as a powerful educational tool.

The effective use of digital learning tools in classrooms can increase student engagement, help teachers improve their lesson plans, and facilitate personalized learning. It also helps students build essential 21st-century skills.

Virtual classrooms, video, augmented reality (AR), robots, and other technology tools can not only make class more lively, they can also create more inclusive learning environments that foster collaboration and inquisitiveness and enable teachers to collect data on student performance.

Still, it’s important to note that technology is a tool used in education and not an end in itself. The promise of educational technology lies in what educators do with it and how it is used to best support their students’ needs.

Educational Technology Challenges

BuiltIn reports that 92 percent of teachers understand the impact of technology in education. According to Project Tomorrow, 59 percent of middle school students say digital educational tools have helped them with their grades and test scores. These tools have become so popular that the educational technology market is projected to expand to $342 billion by 2025, according to the World Economic Forum.

However, educational technology has its challenges, particularly when it comes to implementation and use. For example, despite growing interest in the use of AR, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technology, less than 10 percent of schools report having these tools in their classrooms, according to Project Tomorrow. Additional concerns include excessive screen time, the effectiveness of teachers using the technology, and worries about technology equity.

Prominently rising from the COVID-19 crisis is the issue of content. Educators need to be able to develop and weigh in on online educational content, especially to encourage students to consider a topic from different perspectives. The urgent actions taken during this crisis did not provide sufficient time for this. Access is an added concern — for example, not every school district has resources to provide students with a laptop, and internet connectivity can be unreliable in homes.

Additionally, while some students thrive in online education settings, others lag for various factors, including support resources. For example, a student who already struggled in face-to-face environments may struggle even more in the current situation. These students may have relied on resources that they no longer have in their homes.

Still, most students typically demonstrate confidence in using online education when they have the resources, as studies have suggested. However, online education may pose challenges for teachers, especially in places where it has not been the norm.

Despite the challenges and concerns, it’s important to note the benefits of technology in education, including increased collaboration and communication, improved quality of education, and engaging lessons that help spark imagination and a search for knowledge in students.

The Benefits of Technology in Education

Teachers want to improve student performance, and technology can help them accomplish this aim. To mitigate the challenges, administrators should help teachers gain the competencies needed to enhance learning for students through technology. Additionally, technology in the classroom should make teachers’ jobs easier without adding extra time to their day.

Technology provides students with easy-to-access information, accelerated learning, and fun opportunities to practice what they learn. It enables students to explore new subjects and deepen their understanding of difficult concepts, particularly in STEM. Through the use of technology inside and outside the classroom, students can gain 21st-century technical skills necessary for future occupations.

Still, children learn more effectively with direction. The World Economic Forum reports that while technology can help young students learn and acquire knowledge through play, for example, evidence suggests that learning is more effective through guidance from an adult, such as a teacher.

Leaders and administrators should take stock of where their faculty are in terms of their understanding of online spaces. From lessons learned during this disruptive time, they can implement solutions now for the future. For example, administrators could give teachers a week or two to think carefully about how to teach courses not previously online. In addition to an exploration of solutions, flexibility during these trying times is of paramount importance.

Below are examples of how important technology is in education and the benefits it offers to students and teachers.

Increased Collaboration and Communication

Educational technology can foster collaboration. Not only can teachers engage with students during lessons, but students can also communicate with each other. Through online lessons and learning games, students get to work together to solve problems. In collaborative activities, students can share their thoughts and ideas and support each other. At the same time, technology enables one-on-one interaction with teachers. Students can ask classroom-related questions and seek additional help on difficult-to-understand subject matter. At home, students can upload their homework, and teachers can access and view completed assignments using their laptops.

Personalized Learning Opportunities

Technology allows 24/7 access to educational resources. Classes can take place entirely online via the use of a laptop or mobile device. Hybrid versions of learning combine the use of technology from anywhere with regular in-person classroom sessions. In both scenarios, the use of technology to tailor learning plans for each student is possible. Teachers can create lessons based on student interests and strengths. An added benefit is that students can learn at their own pace. When they need to review class material to get a better understanding of essential concepts, students can review videos in the lesson plan. The data generated through these online activities enable teachers to see which students struggled with certain subjects and offer additional assistance and support.

Curiosity Driven by Engaging Content

Through engaging and educational content, teachers can spark inquisitiveness in children and boost their curiosity, which research says has ties to academic success. Curiosity helps students get a better understanding of math and reading concepts. Creating engaging content can involve the use of AR, videos, or podcasts. For example, when submitting assignments, students can include videos or interact with students from across the globe.

Improved Teacher Productivity and Efficiency

Teachers can leverage technology to achieve new levels of productivity, implement useful digital tools to expand learning opportunities for students, and increase student support and engagement. It also enables teachers to improve their instruction methods and personalize learning. Schools can benefit from technology by reducing the costs of physical instructional materials, enhancing educational program efficiency, and making the best use of teacher time.

Become a Leader in Enriching Classrooms through Technology

Educators unfamiliar with some of the technology used in education may not have been exposed to the tools as they prepared for their careers or as part of their professional development. Teachers looking to make the transition and acquire the skills to incorporate technology in education can take advantage of learning opportunities to advance their competencies. For individuals looking to help transform the education system through technology, American University’s School of Education online offers a Master of Arts in Teaching and a Master of Arts in Education Policy and Leadership to prepare educators with essential tools to become leaders. Courses such as Education Program and Policy Implementation and Teaching Science in Elementary School equip graduate students with critical competencies to incorporate technology into educational settings effectively.

Learn more about American University’s School of Education online and its master’s degree programs.

Virtual Reality in Education: Benefits, Tools, and Resources

Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: 11 Tips for Teachers & Administration

Helping Girls Succeed in STEM

BuiltIn, “Edtech 101”

EdTech, “Teaching Teachers to Put Tech Tools to Work”

International Society for Technology in Education, “Preparing Students for Jobs That Don’t Exist”

The Journal, “How Teachers Use Technology to Enrich Learning Experiences”

Pediatric Research, “Early Childhood Curiosity and Kindergarten Reading and Math Academic Achievement”

Project Tomorrow, “Digital Learning: Peril or Promise for Our K-12 Students”

World Economic Forum, “The Future of Jobs Report 2018”

World Economic Forum, “Learning through Play: How Schools Can Educate Students through Technology”

Request Information

AU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our  privacy policy .

REALIZING THE PROMISE:

Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, this “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” publication kicks off the Center for Universal Education’s first playbook in a series to help improve education around the world.

It is intended as an evidence-based tool for ministries of education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, to adopt and more successfully invest in education technology.

While there is no single education initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere—as school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies—an important first step is understanding how technology is used given specific local contexts and needs.

The surveys in this playbook are designed to be adapted to collect this information from educators, learners, and school leaders and guide decisionmakers in expanding the use of technology.  

Introduction

While technology has disrupted most sectors of the economy and changed how we communicate, access information, work, and even play, its impact on schools, teaching, and learning has been much more limited. We believe that this limited impact is primarily due to technology being been used to replace analog tools, without much consideration given to playing to technology’s comparative advantages. These comparative advantages, relative to traditional “chalk-and-talk” classroom instruction, include helping to scale up standardized instruction, facilitate differentiated instruction, expand opportunities for practice, and increase student engagement. When schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.

Further, COVID-19 has laid bare that, in today’s environment where pandemics and the effects of climate change are likely to occur, schools cannot always provide in-person education—making the case for investing in education technology.

Here we argue for a simple yet surprisingly rare approach to education technology that seeks to:

• Understand the needs, infrastructure, and capacity of a school system—the diagnosis;
• Survey the best available evidence on interventions that match those conditions—the evidence; and
• Closely monitor the results of innovations before they are scaled up—the prognosis.

RELATED CONTENT

Podcast: How education technology can improve learning for all students

To make ed tech work, set clear goals, review the evidence, and pilot before you scale

The framework.

Our approach builds on a simple yet intuitive theoretical framework created two decades ago by two of the most prominent education researchers in the United States, David K. Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. They argue that what matters most to improve learning is the interactions among educators and learners around educational materials. We believe that the failed school-improvement efforts in the U.S. that motivated Cohen and Ball’s framework resemble the ed-tech reforms in much of the developing world to date in the lack of clarity improving the interactions between educators, learners, and the educational material. We build on their framework by adding parents as key agents that mediate the relationships between learners and educators and the material (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The instructional core

Adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999)

As the figure above suggests, ed-tech interventions can affect the instructional core in a myriad of ways. Yet, just because technology can do something, it does not mean it should. School systems in developing countries differ along many dimensions and each system is likely to have different needs for ed-tech interventions, as well as different infrastructure and capacity to enact such interventions.

The diagnosis:

How can school systems assess their needs and preparedness.

A useful first step for any school system to determine whether it should invest in education technology is to diagnose its:

• Specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order skills);
• Infrastructure to adopt technology-enabled solutions (e.g., electricity connection, availability of space and outlets, stock of computers, and Internet connectivity at school and at learners’ homes); and
• Capacity to integrate technology in the instructional process (e.g., learners’ and educators’ level of familiarity and comfort with hardware and software, their beliefs about the level of usefulness of technology for learning purposes, and their current uses of such technology).

Before engaging in any new data collection exercise, school systems should take full advantage of existing administrative data that could shed light on these three main questions. This could be in the form of internal evaluations but also international learner assessments, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and/or the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS). But if school systems lack information on their preparedness for ed-tech reforms or if they seek to complement existing data with a richer set of indicators, we developed a set of surveys for learners, educators, and school leaders. Download the full report to see how we map out the main aspects covered by these surveys, in hopes of highlighting how they could be used to inform decisions around the adoption of ed-tech interventions.

The evidence:

How can school systems identify promising ed-tech interventions.

There is no single “ed-tech” initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere, simply because school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies. Instead, to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning, decisionmakers should focus on four potential uses of technology that play to its comparative advantages and complement the work of educators to accelerate student learning (Figure 2). These comparative advantages include:

• Scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons.
• Facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring.
• Expanding opportunities to practice.
• Increasing learner engagement through videos and games.

Figure 2: Comparative advantages of technology

Here we review the evidence on ed-tech interventions from 37 studies in 20 countries*, organizing them by comparative advantage. It’s important to note that ours is not the only way to classify these interventions (e.g., video tutorials could be considered as a strategy to scale up instruction or increase learner engagement), but we believe it may be useful to highlight the needs that they could address and why technology is well positioned to do so.

When discussing specific studies, we report the magnitude of the effects of interventions using standard deviations (SDs). SDs are a widely used metric in research to express the effect of a program or policy with respect to a business-as-usual condition (e.g., test scores). There are several ways to make sense of them. One is to categorize the magnitude of the effects based on the results of impact evaluations. In developing countries, effects below 0.1 SDs are considered to be small, effects between 0.1 and 0.2 SDs are medium, and those above 0.2 SDs are large (for reviews that estimate the average effect of groups of interventions, called “meta analyses,” see e.g., Conn, 2017; Kremer, Brannen, & Glennerster, 2013; McEwan, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015; Evans & Yuan, 2020.)

*In surveying the evidence, we began by compiling studies from prior general and ed-tech specific evidence reviews that some of us have written and from ed-tech reviews conducted by others. Then, we tracked the studies cited by the ones we had previously read and reviewed those, as well. In identifying studies for inclusion, we focused on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of education technology interventions from pre-school to secondary school in low- and middle-income countries that were released between 2000 and 2020. We only included interventions that sought to improve student learning directly (i.e., students’ interaction with the material), as opposed to interventions that have impacted achievement indirectly, by reducing teacher absence or increasing parental engagement. This process yielded 37 studies in 20 countries (see the full list of studies in Appendix B).

Scaling up standardized instruction

One of the ways in which technology may improve the quality of education is through its capacity to deliver standardized quality content at scale. This feature of technology may be particularly useful in three types of settings: (a) those in “hard-to-staff” schools (i.e., schools that struggle to recruit educators with the requisite training and experience—typically, in rural and/or remote areas) (see, e.g., Urquiola & Vegas, 2005); (b) those in which many educators are frequently absent from school (e.g., Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017); and/or (c) those in which educators have low levels of pedagogical and subject matter expertise (e.g., Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, & Wiederhold, 2018; Bold et al., 2017; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012; Santibañez, 2006) and do not have opportunities to observe and receive feedback (e.g., Bruns, Costa, & Cunha, 2018; Cilliers, Fleisch, Prinsloo, & Taylor, 2018). Technology could address this problem by: (a) disseminating lessons delivered by qualified educators to a large number of learners (e.g., through prerecorded or live lessons); (b) enabling distance education (e.g., for learners in remote areas and/or during periods of school closures); and (c) distributing hardware preloaded with educational materials.

Prerecorded lessons

Technology seems to be well placed to amplify the impact of effective educators by disseminating their lessons. Evidence on the impact of prerecorded lessons is encouraging, but not conclusive. Some initiatives that have used short instructional videos to complement regular instruction, in conjunction with other learning materials, have raised student learning on independent assessments. For example, Beg et al. (2020) evaluated an initiative in Punjab, Pakistan in which grade 8 classrooms received an intervention that included short videos to substitute live instruction, quizzes for learners to practice the material from every lesson, tablets for educators to learn the material and follow the lesson, and LED screens to project the videos onto a classroom screen. After six months, the intervention improved the performance of learners on independent tests of math and science by 0.19 and 0.24 SDs, respectively but had no discernible effect on the math and science section of Punjab’s high-stakes exams.

One study suggests that approaches that are far less technologically sophisticated can also improve learning outcomes—especially, if the business-as-usual instruction is of low quality. For example, Naslund-Hadley, Parker, and Hernandez-Agramonte (2014) evaluated a preschool math program in Cordillera, Paraguay that used audio segments and written materials four days per week for an hour per day during the school day. After five months, the intervention improved math scores by 0.16 SDs, narrowing gaps between low- and high-achieving learners, and between those with and without educators with formal training in early childhood education.

Yet, the integration of prerecorded material into regular instruction has not always been successful. For example, de Barros (2020) evaluated an intervention that combined instructional videos for math and science with infrastructure upgrades (e.g., two “smart” classrooms, two TVs, and two tablets), printed workbooks for students, and in-service training for educators of learners in grades 9 and 10 in Haryana, India (all materials were mapped onto the official curriculum). After 11 months, the intervention negatively impacted math achievement (by 0.08 SDs) and had no effect on science (with respect to business as usual classes). It reduced the share of lesson time that educators devoted to instruction and negatively impacted an index of instructional quality. Likewise, Seo (2017) evaluated several combinations of infrastructure (solar lights and TVs) and prerecorded videos (in English and/or bilingual) for grade 11 students in northern Tanzania and found that none of the variants improved student learning, even when the videos were used. The study reports effects from the infrastructure component across variants, but as others have noted (Muralidharan, Romero, & Wüthrich, 2019), this approach to estimating impact is problematic.

A very similar intervention delivered after school hours, however, had sizeable effects on learners’ basic skills. Chiplunkar, Dhar, and Nagesh (2020) evaluated an initiative in Chennai (the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu, India) delivered by the same organization as above that combined short videos that explained key concepts in math and science with worksheets, facilitator-led instruction, small groups for peer-to-peer learning, and occasional career counseling and guidance for grade 9 students. These lessons took place after school for one hour, five times a week. After 10 months, it had large effects on learners’ achievement as measured by tests of basic skills in math and reading, but no effect on a standardized high-stakes test in grade 10 or socio-emotional skills (e.g., teamwork, decisionmaking, and communication).

Drawing general lessons from this body of research is challenging for at least two reasons. First, all of the studies above have evaluated the impact of prerecorded lessons combined with several other components (e.g., hardware, print materials, or other activities). Therefore, it is possible that the effects found are due to these additional components, rather than to the recordings themselves, or to the interaction between the two (see Muralidharan, 2017 for a discussion of the challenges of interpreting “bundled” interventions). Second, while these studies evaluate some type of prerecorded lessons, none examines the content of such lessons. Thus, it seems entirely plausible that the direction and magnitude of the effects depends largely on the quality of the recordings (e.g., the expertise of the educator recording it, the amount of preparation that went into planning the recording, and its alignment with best teaching practices).

These studies also raise three important questions worth exploring in future research. One of them is why none of the interventions discussed above had effects on high-stakes exams, even if their materials are typically mapped onto the official curriculum. It is possible that the official curricula are simply too challenging for learners in these settings, who are several grade levels behind expectations and who often need to reinforce basic skills (see Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Another question is whether these interventions have long-term effects on teaching practices. It seems plausible that, if these interventions are deployed in contexts with low teaching quality, educators may learn something from watching the videos or listening to the recordings with learners. Yet another question is whether these interventions make it easier for schools to deliver instruction to learners whose native language is other than the official medium of instruction.

Distance education

Technology can also allow learners living in remote areas to access education. The evidence on these initiatives is encouraging. For example, Johnston and Ksoll (2017) evaluated a program that broadcasted live instruction via satellite to rural primary school students in the Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. For this purpose, the program also equipped classrooms with the technology needed to connect to a studio in Accra, including solar panels, a satellite modem, a projector, a webcam, microphones, and a computer with interactive software. After two years, the intervention improved the numeracy scores of students in grades 2 through 4, and some foundational literacy tasks, but it had no effect on attendance or classroom time devoted to instruction, as captured by school visits. The authors interpreted these results as suggesting that the gains in achievement may be due to improving the quality of instruction that children received (as opposed to increased instructional time). Naik, Chitre, Bhalla, and Rajan (2019) evaluated a similar program in the Indian state of Karnataka and also found positive effects on learning outcomes, but it is not clear whether those effects are due to the program or due to differences in the groups of students they compared to estimate the impact of the initiative.

In one context (Mexico), this type of distance education had positive long-term effects. Navarro-Sola (2019) took advantage of the staggered rollout of the telesecundarias (i.e., middle schools with lessons broadcasted through satellite TV) in 1968 to estimate its impact. The policy had short-term effects on students’ enrollment in school: For every telesecundaria per 50 children, 10 students enrolled in middle school and two pursued further education. It also had a long-term influence on the educational and employment trajectory of its graduates. Each additional year of education induced by the policy increased average income by nearly 18 percent. This effect was attributable to more graduates entering the labor force and shifting from agriculture and the informal sector. Similarly, Fabregas (2019) leveraged a later expansion of this policy in 1993 and found that each additional telesecundaria per 1,000 adolescents led to an average increase of 0.2 years of education, and a decline in fertility for women, but no conclusive evidence of long-term effects on labor market outcomes.

It is crucial to interpret these results keeping in mind the settings where the interventions were implemented. As we mention above, part of the reason why they have proven effective is that the “counterfactual” conditions for learning (i.e., what would have happened to learners in the absence of such programs) was either to not have access to schooling or to be exposed to low-quality instruction. School systems interested in taking up similar interventions should assess the extent to which their learners (or parts of their learner population) find themselves in similar conditions to the subjects of the studies above. This illustrates the importance of assessing the needs of a system before reviewing the evidence.

Preloaded hardware

Technology also seems well positioned to disseminate educational materials. Specifically, hardware (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, or tablets) could also help deliver educational software (e.g., word processing, reference texts, and/or games). In theory, these materials could not only undergo a quality assurance review (e.g., by curriculum specialists and educators), but also draw on the interactions with learners for adjustments (e.g., identifying areas needing reinforcement) and enable interactions between learners and educators.

In practice, however, most initiatives that have provided learners with free computers, laptops, and netbooks do not leverage any of the opportunities mentioned above. Instead, they install a standard set of educational materials and hope that learners find them helpful enough to take them up on their own. Students rarely do so, and instead use the laptops for recreational purposes—often, to the detriment of their learning (see, e.g., Malamud & Pop-Eleches, 2011). In fact, free netbook initiatives have not only consistently failed to improve academic achievement in math or language (e.g., Cristia et al., 2017), but they have had no impact on learners’ general computer skills (e.g., Beuermann et al., 2015). Some of these initiatives have had small impacts on cognitive skills, but the mechanisms through which those effects occurred remains unclear.

To our knowledge, the only successful deployment of a free laptop initiative was one in which a team of researchers equipped the computers with remedial software. Mo et al. (2013) evaluated a version of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program for grade 3 students in migrant schools in Beijing, China in which the laptops were loaded with a remedial software mapped onto the national curriculum for math (similar to the software products that we discuss under “practice exercises” below). After nine months, the program improved math achievement by 0.17 SDs and computer skills by 0.33 SDs. If a school system decides to invest in free laptops, this study suggests that the quality of the software on the laptops is crucial.

To date, however, the evidence suggests that children do not learn more from interacting with laptops than they do from textbooks. For example, Bando, Gallego, Gertler, and Romero (2016) compared the effect of free laptop and textbook provision in 271 elementary schools in disadvantaged areas of Honduras. After seven months, students in grades 3 and 6 who had received the laptops performed on par with those who had received the textbooks in math and language. Further, even if textbooks essentially become obsolete at the end of each school year, whereas laptops can be reloaded with new materials for each year, the costs of laptop provision (not just the hardware, but also the technical assistance, Internet, and training associated with it) are not yet low enough to make them a more cost-effective way of delivering content to learners.

Evidence on the provision of tablets equipped with software is encouraging but limited. For example, de Hoop et al. (2020) evaluated a composite intervention for first grade students in Zambia’s Eastern Province that combined infrastructure (electricity via solar power), hardware (projectors and tablets), and educational materials (lesson plans for educators and interactive lessons for learners, both loaded onto the tablets and mapped onto the official Zambian curriculum). After 14 months, the intervention had improved student early-grade reading by 0.4 SDs, oral vocabulary scores by 0.25 SDs, and early-grade math by 0.22 SDs. It also improved students’ achievement by 0.16 on a locally developed assessment. The multifaceted nature of the program, however, makes it challenging to identify the components that are driving the positive effects. Pitchford (2015) evaluated an intervention that provided tablets equipped with educational “apps,” to be used for 30 minutes per day for two months to develop early math skills among students in grades 1 through 3 in Lilongwe, Malawi. The evaluation found positive impacts in math achievement, but the main study limitation is that it was conducted in a single school.

Facilitating differentiated instruction

Another way in which technology may improve educational outcomes is by facilitating the delivery of differentiated or individualized instruction. Most developing countries massively expanded access to schooling in recent decades by building new schools and making education more affordable, both by defraying direct costs, as well as compensating for opportunity costs (Duflo, 2001; World Bank, 2018). These initiatives have not only rapidly increased the number of learners enrolled in school, but have also increased the variability in learner’ preparation for schooling. Consequently, a large number of learners perform well below grade-based curricular expectations (see, e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2011; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). These learners are unlikely to get much from “one-size-fits-all” instruction, in which a single educator delivers instruction deemed appropriate for the middle (or top) of the achievement distribution (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Technology could potentially help these learners by providing them with: (a) instruction and opportunities for practice that adjust to the level and pace of preparation of each individual (known as “computer-adaptive learning” (CAL)); or (b) live, one-on-one tutoring.

Computer-adaptive learning

One of the main comparative advantages of technology is its ability to diagnose students’ initial learning levels and assign students to instruction and exercises of appropriate difficulty. No individual educator—no matter how talented—can be expected to provide individualized instruction to all learners in his/her class simultaneously . In this respect, technology is uniquely positioned to complement traditional teaching. This use of technology could help learners master basic skills and help them get more out of schooling.

Although many software products evaluated in recent years have been categorized as CAL, many rely on a relatively coarse level of differentiation at an initial stage (e.g., a diagnostic test) without further differentiation. We discuss these initiatives under the category of “increasing opportunities for practice” below. CAL initiatives complement an initial diagnostic with dynamic adaptation (i.e., at each response or set of responses from learners) to adjust both the initial level of difficulty and rate at which it increases or decreases, depending on whether learners’ responses are correct or incorrect.

Existing evidence on this specific type of programs is highly promising. Most famously, Banerjee et al. (2007) evaluated CAL software in Vadodara, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in which grade 4 students were offered two hours of shared computer time per week before and after school, during which they played games that involved solving math problems. The level of difficulty of such problems adjusted based on students’ answers. This program improved math achievement by 0.35 and 0.47 SDs after one and two years of implementation, respectively. Consistent with the promise of personalized learning, the software improved achievement for all students. In fact, one year after the end of the program, students assigned to the program still performed 0.1 SDs better than those assigned to a business as usual condition. More recently, Muralidharan, et al. (2019) evaluated a “blended learning” initiative in which students in grades 4 through 9 in Delhi, India received 45 minutes of interaction with CAL software for math and language, and 45 minutes of small group instruction before or after going to school. After only 4.5 months, the program improved achievement by 0.37 SDs in math and 0.23 SDs in Hindi. While all learners benefited from the program in absolute terms, the lowest performing learners benefited the most in relative terms, since they were learning very little in school.

We see two important limitations from this body of research. First, to our knowledge, none of these initiatives has been evaluated when implemented during the school day. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the adaptive software from that of additional instructional time. Second, given that most of these programs were facilitated by local instructors, attempts to distinguish the effect of the software from that of the instructors has been mostly based on noncausal evidence. A frontier challenge in this body of research is to understand whether CAL software can increase the effectiveness of school-based instruction by substituting part of the regularly scheduled time for math and language instruction.

Live one-on-one tutoring

Recent improvements in the speed and quality of videoconferencing, as well as in the connectivity of remote areas, have enabled yet another way in which technology can help personalization: live (i.e., real-time) one-on-one tutoring. While the evidence on in-person tutoring is scarce in developing countries, existing studies suggest that this approach works best when it is used to personalize instruction (see, e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Banerji, Berry, & Shotland, 2015; Cabezas, Cuesta, & Gallego, 2011).

There are almost no studies on the impact of online tutoring—possibly, due to the lack of hardware and Internet connectivity in low- and middle-income countries. One exception is Chemin and Oledan (2020)’s recent evaluation of an online tutoring program for grade 6 students in Kianyaga, Kenya to learn English from volunteers from a Canadian university via Skype ( videoconferencing software) for one hour per week after school. After 10 months, program beneficiaries performed 0.22 SDs better in a test of oral comprehension, improved their comfort using technology for learning, and became more willing to engage in cross-cultural communication. Importantly, while the tutoring sessions used the official English textbooks and sought in part to help learners with their homework, tutors were trained on several strategies to teach to each learner’s individual level of preparation, focusing on basic skills if necessary. To our knowledge, similar initiatives within a country have not yet been rigorously evaluated.

Expanding opportunities for practice

A third way in which technology may improve the quality of education is by providing learners with additional opportunities for practice. In many developing countries, lesson time is primarily devoted to lectures, in which the educator explains the topic and the learners passively copy explanations from the blackboard. This setup leaves little time for in-class practice. Consequently, learners who did not understand the explanation of the material during lecture struggle when they have to solve homework assignments on their own. Technology could potentially address this problem by allowing learners to review topics at their own pace.

Practice exercises

Technology can help learners get more out of traditional instruction by providing them with opportunities to implement what they learn in class. This approach could, in theory, allow some learners to anchor their understanding of the material through trial and error (i.e., by realizing what they may not have understood correctly during lecture and by getting better acquainted with special cases not covered in-depth in class).

Existing evidence on practice exercises reflects both the promise and the limitations of this use of technology in developing countries. For example, Lai et al. (2013) evaluated a program in Shaanxi, China where students in grades 3 and 5 were required to attend two 40-minute remedial sessions per week in which they first watched videos that reviewed the material that had been introduced in their math lessons that week and then played games to practice the skills introduced in the video. After four months, the intervention improved math achievement by 0.12 SDs. Many other evaluations of comparable interventions have found similar small-to-moderate results (see, e.g., Lai, Luo, Zhang, Huang, & Rozelle, 2015; Lai et al., 2012; Mo et al., 2015; Pitchford, 2015). These effects, however, have been consistently smaller than those of initiatives that adjust the difficulty of the material based on students’ performance (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Muralidharan, et al., 2019). We hypothesize that these programs do little for learners who perform several grade levels behind curricular expectations, and who would benefit more from a review of foundational concepts from earlier grades.

We see two important limitations from this research. First, most initiatives that have been evaluated thus far combine instructional videos with practice exercises, so it is hard to know whether their effects are driven by the former or the latter. In fact, the program in China described above allowed learners to ask their peers whenever they did not understand a difficult concept, so it potentially also captured the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed this gap in the evidence.

Second, most of these programs are implemented before or after school, so we cannot distinguish the effect of additional instructional time from that of the actual opportunity for practice. The importance of this question was first highlighted by Linden (2008), who compared two delivery mechanisms for game-based remedial math software for students in grades 2 and 3 in a network of schools run by a nonprofit organization in Gujarat, India: one in which students interacted with the software during the school day and another one in which students interacted with the software before or after school (in both cases, for three hours per day). After a year, the first version of the program had negatively impacted students’ math achievement by 0.57 SDs and the second one had a null effect. This study suggested that computer-assisted learning is a poor substitute for regular instruction when it is of high quality, as was the case in this well-functioning private network of schools.

In recent years, several studies have sought to remedy this shortcoming. Mo et al. (2014) were among the first to evaluate practice exercises delivered during the school day. They evaluated an initiative in Shaanxi, China in which students in grades 3 and 5 were required to interact with the software similar to the one in Lai et al. (2013) for two 40-minute sessions per week. The main limitation of this study, however, is that the program was delivered during regularly scheduled computer lessons, so it could not determine the impact of substituting regular math instruction. Similarly, Mo et al. (2020) evaluated a self-paced and a teacher-directed version of a similar program for English for grade 5 students in Qinghai, China. Yet, the key shortcoming of this study is that the teacher-directed version added several components that may also influence achievement, such as increased opportunities for teachers to provide students with personalized assistance when they struggled with the material. Ma, Fairlie, Loyalka, and Rozelle (2020) compared the effectiveness of additional time-delivered remedial instruction for students in grades 4 to 6 in Shaanxi, China through either computer-assisted software or using workbooks. This study indicates whether additional instructional time is more effective when using technology, but it does not address the question of whether school systems may improve the productivity of instructional time during the school day by substituting educator-led with computer-assisted instruction.

Increasing learner engagement

Another way in which technology may improve education is by increasing learners’ engagement with the material. In many school systems, regular “chalk and talk” instruction prioritizes time for educators’ exposition over opportunities for learners to ask clarifying questions and/or contribute to class discussions. This, combined with the fact that many developing-country classrooms include a very large number of learners (see, e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2015), may partially explain why the majority of those students are several grade levels behind curricular expectations (e.g., Muralidharan, et al., 2019; Muralidharan & Zieleniak, 2014; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Technology could potentially address these challenges by: (a) using video tutorials for self-paced learning and (b) presenting exercises as games and/or gamifying practice.

Video tutorials

Technology can potentially increase learner effort and understanding of the material by finding new and more engaging ways to deliver it. Video tutorials designed for self-paced learning—as opposed to videos for whole class instruction, which we discuss under the category of “prerecorded lessons” above—can increase learner effort in multiple ways, including: allowing learners to focus on topics with which they need more help, letting them correct errors and misconceptions on their own, and making the material appealing through visual aids. They can increase understanding by breaking the material into smaller units and tackling common misconceptions.

In spite of the popularity of instructional videos, there is relatively little evidence on their effectiveness. Yet, two recent evaluations of different versions of the Khan Academy portal, which mainly relies on instructional videos, offer some insight into their impact. First, Ferman, Finamor, and Lima (2019) evaluated an initiative in 157 public primary and middle schools in five cities in Brazil in which the teachers of students in grades 5 and 9 were taken to the computer lab to learn math from the platform for 50 minutes per week. The authors found that, while the intervention slightly improved learners’ attitudes toward math, these changes did not translate into better performance in this subject. The authors hypothesized that this could be due to the reduction of teacher-led math instruction.

More recently, Büchel, Jakob, Kühnhanss, Steffen, and Brunetti (2020) evaluated an after-school, offline delivery of the Khan Academy portal in grades 3 through 6 in 302 primary schools in Morazán, El Salvador. Students in this study received 90 minutes per week of additional math instruction (effectively nearly doubling total math instruction per week) through teacher-led regular lessons, teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons, or similar lessons assisted by technical supervisors with no content expertise. (Importantly, the first group provided differentiated instruction, which is not the norm in Salvadorian schools). All three groups outperformed both schools without any additional lessons and classrooms without additional lessons in the same schools as the program. The teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons performed 0.24 SDs better, the supervisor-led lessons 0.22 SDs better, and the teacher-led regular lessons 0.15 SDs better, but the authors could not determine whether the effects across versions were different.

Together, these studies suggest that instructional videos work best when provided as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, regular instruction. Yet, the main limitation of these studies is the multifaceted nature of the Khan Academy portal, which also includes other components found to positively improve learner achievement, such as differentiated instruction by students’ learning levels. While the software does not provide the type of personalization discussed above, learners are asked to take a placement test and, based on their score, educators assign them different work. Therefore, it is not clear from these studies whether the effects from Khan Academy are driven by its instructional videos or to the software’s ability to provide differentiated activities when combined with placement tests.

Games and gamification

Technology can also increase learner engagement by presenting exercises as games and/or by encouraging learner to play and compete with others (e.g., using leaderboards and rewards)—an approach known as “gamification.” Both approaches can increase learner motivation and effort by presenting learners with entertaining opportunities for practice and by leveraging peers as commitment devices.

There are very few studies on the effects of games and gamification in low- and middle-income countries. Recently, Araya, Arias Ortiz, Bottan, and Cristia (2019) evaluated an initiative in which grade 4 students in Santiago, Chile were required to participate in two 90-minute sessions per week during the school day with instructional math software featuring individual and group competitions (e.g., tracking each learner’s standing in his/her class and tournaments between sections). After nine months, the program led to improvements of 0.27 SDs in the national student assessment in math (it had no spillover effects on reading). However, it had mixed effects on non-academic outcomes. Specifically, the program increased learners’ willingness to use computers to learn math, but, at the same time, increased their anxiety toward math and negatively impacted learners’ willingness to collaborate with peers. Finally, given that one of the weekly sessions replaced regular math instruction and the other one represented additional math instructional time, it is not clear whether the academic effects of the program are driven by the software or the additional time devoted to learning math.

The prognosis:

How can school systems adopt interventions that match their needs.

Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning.

1. Take stock of how your current schools, educators, and learners are engaging with technology .

Carry out a short in-school survey to understand the current practices and potential barriers to adoption of technology (we have included suggested survey instruments in the Appendices); use this information in your decisionmaking process. For example, we learned from conversations with current and former ministers of education from various developing regions that a common limitation to technology use is regulations that hold school leaders accountable for damages to or losses of devices. Another common barrier is lack of access to electricity and Internet, or even the availability of sufficient outlets for charging devices in classrooms. Understanding basic infrastructure and regulatory limitations to the use of education technology is a first necessary step. But addressing these limitations will not guarantee that introducing or expanding technology use will accelerate learning. The next steps are thus necessary.

“In Africa, the biggest limit is connectivity. Fiber is expensive, and we don’t have it everywhere. The continent is creating a digital divide between cities, where there is fiber, and the rural areas.  The [Ghanaian] administration put in schools offline/online technologies with books, assessment tools, and open source materials. In deploying this, we are finding that again, teachers are unfamiliar with it. And existing policies prohibit students to bring their own tablets or cell phones. The easiest way to do it would have been to let everyone bring their own device. But policies are against it.” H.E. Matthew Prempeh, Minister of Education of Ghana, on the need to understand the local context.

2. Consider how the introduction of technology may affect the interactions among learners, educators, and content .

Our review of the evidence indicates that technology may accelerate student learning when it is used to scale up access to quality content, facilitate differentiated instruction, increase opportunities for practice, or when it increases learner engagement. For example, will adding electronic whiteboards to classrooms facilitate access to more quality content or differentiated instruction? Or will these expensive boards be used in the same way as the old chalkboards? Will providing one device (laptop or tablet) to each learner facilitate access to more and better content, or offer students more opportunities to practice and learn? Solely introducing technology in classrooms without additional changes is unlikely to lead to improved learning and may be quite costly. If you cannot clearly identify how the interactions among the three key components of the instructional core (educators, learners, and content) may change after the introduction of technology, then it is probably not a good idea to make the investment. See Appendix A for guidance on the types of questions to ask.

3. Once decisionmakers have a clear idea of how education technology can help accelerate student learning in a specific context, it is important to define clear objectives and goals and establish ways to regularly assess progress and make course corrections in a timely manner .

For instance, is the education technology expected to ensure that learners in early grades excel in foundational skills—basic literacy and numeracy—by age 10? If so, will the technology provide quality reading and math materials, ample opportunities to practice, and engaging materials such as videos or games? Will educators be empowered to use these materials in new ways? And how will progress be measured and adjusted?

4. How this kind of reform is approached can matter immensely for its success.

It is easy to nod to issues of “implementation,” but that needs to be more than rhetorical. Keep in mind that good use of education technology requires thinking about how it will affect learners, educators, and parents. After all, giving learners digital devices will make no difference if they get broken, are stolen, or go unused. Classroom technologies only matter if educators feel comfortable putting them to work. Since good technology is generally about complementing or amplifying what educators and learners already do, it is almost always a mistake to mandate programs from on high. It is vital that technology be adopted with the input of educators and families and with attention to how it will be used. If technology goes unused or if educators use it ineffectually, the results will disappoint—no matter the virtuosity of the technology. Indeed, unused education technology can be an unnecessary expenditure for cash-strapped education systems. This is why surveying context, listening to voices in the field, examining how technology is used, and planning for course correction is essential.

5. It is essential to communicate with a range of stakeholders, including educators, school leaders, parents, and learners .

Technology can feel alien in schools, confuse parents and (especially) older educators, or become an alluring distraction. Good communication can help address all of these risks. Taking care to listen to educators and families can help ensure that programs are informed by their needs and concerns. At the same time, deliberately and consistently explaining what technology is and is not supposed to do, how it can be most effectively used, and the ways in which it can make it more likely that programs work as intended. For instance, if teachers fear that technology is intended to reduce the need for educators, they will tend to be hostile; if they believe that it is intended to assist them in their work, they will be more receptive. Absent effective communication, it is easy for programs to “fail” not because of the technology but because of how it was used. In short, past experience in rolling out education programs indicates that it is as important to have a strong intervention design as it is to have a solid plan to socialize it among stakeholders.

Beyond reopening: A leapfrog moment to transform education?

On September 14, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) will host a webinar to discuss strategies, including around the effective use of education technology, for ensuring resilient schools in the long term and to launch a new education technology playbook “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?”

file-pdf Full Playbook – Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? file-pdf References file-pdf Appendix A – Instruments to assess availability and use of technology file-pdf Appendix B – List of reviewed studies file-pdf Appendix C – How may technology affect interactions among students, teachers, and content?

About the Authors

Alejandro j. ganimian, emiliana vegas, frederick m. hess.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Global Education Monitoring Report

• 2023 GEM REPORT

Technology in education

• Recommendations
• 2023 Webpage
• Press Release
• RELATED PUBLICATIONS
• Background papers
• 2021/2 GEM Report
• 2020 Report
• 2019 Report
• 2017/8 Report
• 2016 Report

A tool on whose terms?

Ismael Martínez Sánchez/ProFuturo

• Monitoring SDG 4
• 2023 webpage

Major advances in technology, especially digital technology, are rapidly transforming the world. Information and communication technology (ICT) has been applied for 100 years in education, ever since the popularization of radio in the 1920s. But it is the use of digital technology over the past 40 years that has the most significant potential to transform education. An education technology industry has emerged and focused, in turn, on the development and distribution of education content, learning management systems, language applications, augmented and virtual reality, personalized tutoring, and testing. Most recently, breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI), methods have increased the power of education technology tools, leading to speculation that technology could even supplant human interaction in education.

In the past 20 years, learners, educators and institutions have widely adopted digital technology tools. The number of students in MOOCs increased from 0 in 2012 to at least 220 million in 2021. The language learning application Duolingo had 20 million daily active users in 2023, and Wikipedia had 244 million page views per day in 2021. The 2018 PISA found that 65% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries were in schools whose principals agreed that teachers had the technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction and 54% in schools where an effective online learning support platform was available; these shares are believed to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Globally, the percentage of internet users rose from 16% in 2005 to 66% in 2022. About 50% of the world’s lower secondary schools were connected to the internet for pedagogical purposes in 2022.

The adoption of digital technology has resulted in many changes in education and learning. The set of basic skills that young people are expected to learn in school, at least in richer countries, has expanded to include a broad range of new ones to navigate the digital world. In many classrooms, paper has been replaced by screens and pens by keyboards. COVID-19 can be seen as a natural experiment where learning switched online for entire education systems virtually overnight. Higher education is the subsector with the highest rate of digital technology adoption, with online management platforms replacing campuses. The use of data analytics has grown in education management. Technology has made a wide range of informal learning opportunities accessible.

Yet the extent to which technology has transformed education needs to be debated. Change resulting from the use of digital technology is incremental, uneven and bigger in some contexts than others. The application of digital technology varies by community and socioeconomic level, by teacher willingness and preparedness, by education level, and by country income. Except in the most technologically advanced countries, computers and devices are not used in classrooms on a large scale. Technology use is not universal and will not become so any time soon. Moreover, evidence is mixed on its impact: Some types of technology seem to be effective in improving some kinds of learning. The short- and long-term costs of using digital technology appear to be significantly underestimated. The most disadvantaged are typically denied the opportunity to benefit from this technology.

Too much attention on technology in education usually comes at a high cost. Resources spent on technology, rather than on classrooms, teachers and textbooks for all children in low- and lower-middle-income countries lacking access to these resources are likely to lead to the world being further away from achieving the global education goal, SDG 4. Some of the world’s richest countries ensured universal secondary schooling and minimum learning competencies before the advent of digital technology. Children can learn without it.

However, their education is unlikely to be as relevant without digital technology. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the purpose of education as promoting the ‘full development of the human personality’, strengthening ‘respect for … fundamental freedoms’ and promoting ‘understanding, tolerance and friendship’. This notion needs to move with the times. An expanded definition of the right to education could include effective support by technology for all learners to fulfil their potential, regardless of context or circumstance.

Clear objectives and principles are needed to ensure that technology use is of benefit and avoids harm. The negative and harmful aspects in the use of digital technology in education and society include risk of distraction and lack of human contact. Unregulated technology even poses threats to democracy and human rights, for instance through invasion of privacy and stoking of hatred. Education systems need to be better prepared to teach about and through digital technology, a tool that must serve the best interests of all learners, teachers and administrators. Impartial evidence showing that technology is being used in some places to improve education, and good examples of such use, need to be shared more widely so that the optimal mode of delivery can be assured for each context.

CAN TECHNOLOGY HELP SOLVE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION?

Discussions about education technology are focused on technology rather than education. The first question should be: What are the most important challenges in education? As a basis for discussion, consider the following three challenges:

• Equity and inclusion: Is fulfilment of the right to choose the education one wants and to realize one’s full potential through education compatible with the goal of equality? If not, how can education become the great equalizer?
• Quality: Do education’s content and delivery support societies in achieving sustainable development objectives? If not, how can education help learners to not only acquire knowledge but also be agents of change?
• Efficiency: Does the current institutional arrangement of teaching learners in classrooms support the achievement of equity and quality? If not, how can education balance individualized instruction and socialization needs?

How best can digital technology be included in a strategy to tackle these challenges, and under what conditions? Digital technology packages and transmits information on an unprecedented scale at high speed and low cost. Information storage has revolutionized the volume of accessible knowledge. Information processing enables learners to receive immediate feedback and, through interaction with machines, adapt their learning pace and trajectory: Learners can organize the sequence of what they learn to suit their background and characteristics. Information sharing lowers the cost of interaction and communication. But while such technology has tremendous potential, many tools have not been designed for application to education. Not enough attention has been given to how they are applied in education and even less to how they should be applied in different education contexts.

On the question of equity and inclusion , ICT – and digital technology in particular – helps lower the education access cost for some disadvantaged groups: Those who live in remote areas are displaced, face learning difficulties, lack time or have missed out on past education opportunities. But while access to digital technology has expanded rapidly, there are deep divides in access. Disadvantaged groups own fewer devices, are less connected to the internet (Figure 1) and have fewer resources at home. The cost of much technology is falling rapidly but is still too high for some. Households that are better off can buy technology earlier, giving them more advantages and compounding disparity. Inequality in access to technology exacerbates existing inequality in access to education, a weakness exposed during the COVID-19 school closures.

Figure 1: Internet connectivity is highly unequal

Percentage of 3- to 17-year-olds with internet connection at home, by wealth quintile, selected countries, 2017–19 Source: UNICEF database.

Education quality is a multifaceted concept. It encompasses adequate inputs (e.g. availability of technology infrastructure), prepared teachers (e.g. teacher standards for technology use in classrooms), relevant content (e.g. integration of digital literacy in the curriculum) and individual learning outcomes (e.g. minimum levels of proficiency in reading and mathematics). But education quality should also encompass social outcomes. It is not enough for students to be vessels receiving knowledge; they need to be able to use it to help achieve sustainable development in social, economic and environmental terms.

There are a variety of views on the extent to which digital technologies can enhance education quality. Some argue that, in principle, digital technology creates engaging learning environments, enlivens student experiences, simulates situations, facilitates collaboration and expands connections. But others say digital technology tends to support an individualized approach to education, reducing learners’ opportunities to socialize and learn by observing each other in real-life settings. Moreover, just as new technology overcomes some constraints, it brings its own problems. Increased screen time has been associated with adverse impact on physical and mental health. Insufficient regulation has led to unauthorized use of personal data for commercial purposes. Digital technology has also helped spread misinformation and hate speech, including through education.

Improvements to efficiency may be the most promising way for digital technology to make a difference in education. Technology is touted as being able to reduce the time students and teachers spend on menial tasks, time that can be used in other, educationally more meaningful activities. However, there are conflicting views on what is meaningful. The way that education technology is used is more complex than just a substitution of resources. Technology may be one-to-many, one-to-one or peer-to-peer technology. It may require students to learn alone or with others, online or offline, independently or networked. It delivers content, creates learner communities and connects teachers with students. It provides access to information. It may be used for formal or informal learning and can assess what has been learned. It is used as a tool for productivity, creativity, communication, collaboration, design and data management. It may be professionally produced or have user-generated content. It may be specific to schools and place-based or transcend time and place. As in any complex system, each technology tool involves distinct infrastructure, design, content and pedagogy, and each may promote different types of learning.

Technology is evolving too fast to permit evaluation that could inform decisions on legislation, policy and regulation. Research on technology in education is as complex as technology itself. Studies evaluate experiences of learners of various ages using various methodologies applied in contexts as different as self-study, classrooms and schools of diverse sizes and features, non-school settings, and at system level. Findings that apply in some contexts are not always replicable elsewhere. Some conclusions can be drawn from long-term studies as technologies mature but there is an endless stream of new products. Meanwhile, not all impact can be easily measured, given technology’s ubiquity, complexity, utility and heterogeneity. In brief, while there is much general research on education technology, the amount of research for specific applications and contexts is insufficient, making it difficult to prove that a particular technology enhances a particular kind of learning.

Why is there often the perception nevertheless that technology can address major education challenges? To understand the discourse around education technology, it is necessary to look behind the language being used to promote it, and the interests it serves. Who frames the problems technology should address? What are the consequences of such framing for education? Who promotes education technology as a precondition for education transformation? How credible are such claims? What criteria and standards need to be set to evaluate digital technology’s current and potential future contribution to education so as to separate hype from substance? Can evaluation go beyond short-term assessments of impact on learning and capture potential far-reaching consequences of the generalized use of digital technology in education?

Exaggerated claims about technology go hand in hand with exaggerated estimates of its global market size. In 2022, business intelligence providers’ estimates ranged from USD 123 billion to USD 300 billion. These accounts are almost always projected forward, predicting optimistic expansion, yet they fail to give historic trends and verify whether past projections proved true. Such reporting routinely characterizes education technology as essential and technology companies as enablers and disruptors. If optimistic projections are not fulfilled, responsibility is implicitly placed on governments as a way of maintaining indirect pressure on them to increase procurement. Education is criticized as being slow to change, stuck in the past and a laggard when it comes to innovation. Such coverage plays on users’ fascination with novelty but also their fear of being left behind.

The sections below further explore the three challenges this report addresses: equity and inclusion (in terms of access to education for disadvantaged groups and access to content), quality (in terms of teaching through and about digital technology) and efficiency (in terms of education management). After identifying technology’s potential to tackle these challenges, it discusses three conditions that need to be met for that potential to be fulfilled: equitable access, appropriate governance and regulation, and sufficient teacher capacity.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION: ACCESS FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS

A wide range of technology brings education to hard-to-reach learners. Technology has historically opened up education to learners facing significant obstacles in access to schools or well-trained teachers. Interactive radio instruction is used in nearly 40 countries. In Nigeria, radio instruction combined with print and audiovisual materials has been used since the 1990s, reaching nearly 80% of nomads and increasing their literacy, numeracy and life skills. Television has helped educate marginalized groups, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Telesecundaria programme in Mexico, combining televised lessons with in-class support and extensive teacher training, increased secondary school enrolment by 21%. Mobile learning devices, often the only type of device accessible to disadvantaged learners, have been used in hard-to-reach areas and emergencies to share educational materials; complement in-person or remote channels; and foster interactions between students, teachers and parents, notably during COVID-19. Adults have been the main target of online distance learning, with open universities having increased participation for both working and disadvantaged adults.

Inclusive technology supports accessibility and personalization for learners with disabilities. Assistive technology removes learning and communication barriers, with numerous studies reporting a significant positive impact on academic engagement, social participation and the well-being of learners with disabilities. However, such devices remain inaccessible and unaffordable in many countries, and teachers often lack specialized training to use them effectively in learning environments. While people with disabilities used to rely exclusively on specialized devices to gain access to education, technology platforms and devices are increasingly incorporating accessibility features, which support inclusive, personalized learning for all students.

Technology supports learning continuity in emergencies. Mapping of 101 distance education projects in crisis contexts in 2020 showed that 70% used radio, television and basic mobile phones. During the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria, the Technology Enhanced Learning for All programme used mobile phones and radios to support the learning continuity of 22,000 disadvantaged children, with recorded improvement in literacy and numeracy skills. However, there are significant gaps in terms of rigorous evaluation of education technology in emergencies, despite some limited recorded impact. Meanwhile, most projects are led by non-state actors as short-term crisis responses, raising sustainability concerns; education ministries implemented only 12% of the 101 projects.

Technology supported learning during COVID-19, but millions were left out. During school closures, 95% of education ministries carried out some form of distance learning, potentially reaching over 1 billion students globally. Many of the resources used during the pandemic were first developed in response to previous emergencies or rural education, with some countries building on decades of experience with remote learning. Sierra Leone revived the Radio Teaching Programme, developed during the Ebola crisis, one week after schools closed. Mexico expanded content from its Telesecundaria programme to all levels of education. However, at least half a billion, or 31% of students worldwide – mostly the poorest (72%) and those in rural areas (70%) – could not be reached by remote learning. Although 91% of countries used online learning platforms to deliver distance learning during school closures, the platforms only reached a quarter of students globally. For the rest, low-tech interventions such as radio and television were largely used, in combination with paper-based materials and mobile phones for increased interactivity.

Some countries are expanding existing platforms to reach marginalized groups. Less than half of all countries developed long-term strategies for increasing their resilience and the sustainability of interventions as part of their COVID-19 response plans. Many have abandoned distance learning platforms developed during COVID-19, while others are repurposing them to reach marginalized learners. The digital platform set up in Ukraine during the pandemic was expanded once the war broke out in 2022, allowing 85% of schools to complete the academic year.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION: ACCESS TO CONTENT

Technology facilitates content creation and adaptation. Open educational resources (OERs) encourage the reuse and repurposing of materials to cut development time, avoid duplication of work and make materials more context-specific or relevant to learners. They also significantly reduce the cost of access to content. In the US state of North Dakota, an initial investment of USD 110,000 to shift to OERs led to savings of over USD 1 million in student costs. Social media increases access to user-generated content. YouTube, a major player in both formal and informal learning, is used by about 80% of the world’s top 113 universities. Moreover, collaborative digital tools can improve the diversity and quality of content creation. In South Africa, the Siyavule initiative supported tutor collaboration on the creation of primary and secondary education textbooks.

Digitization of educational content simplifies access and distribution. Many countries, including Bhutan and Rwanda, have created static digital versions of traditional textbooks to increase availability. Others, including India and Sweden, have produced digital textbooks that encourage interactivity and multimodal learning. Digital libraries and educational content repositories such as the National Academic Digital Library of Ethiopia, National Digital Library of India and Teachers Portal in Bangladesh help teachers and learners find relevant materials. Learning management platforms, which have become a key part of the contemporary learning environment, help organize content by integrating digital resources into course structures.

Open access resources help overcome barriers. Open universities and MOOCs can eliminate time, location and cost barriers to access. In Indonesia, where low participation in tertiary education is largely attributed to geographical challenges, MOOCs play an important role in expanding access to post-secondary learning. During COVID-19, MOOC enrolment surged, with the top three providers adding as many users in April 2020 as in all of 2019. Technology can also remove language barriers. Translation tools help connect teachers and learners from various countries and increase the accessibility of courses by non-native students.

Ensuring and assessing the quality of digital content is difficult. The sheer quantity of content and its decentralized production pose logistical challenges for evaluation. Several strategies have been implemented to address this. China established specific quality criteria for MOOCs to be nationally recognized. The European Union developed its OpenupED quality label. India strengthened the link between non-formal and formal education. Micro-credentials are increasingly used to ensure that institution and learner both meet minimum standards. Some platforms aim to improve quality by recentralizing content production. YouTube, for example, has been funnelling financing and resources to a few trusted providers and partnering with well-established education institutions.

Technology may reinforce existing inequality in both access to and production of content. Privileged groups still produce most content. A study of higher-education repositories with OER collections found that nearly 90% were created in Europe or North America; 92% of the material in the OER Commons global library is in English. This influences who has access to digital content. MOOCs, for example, mainly benefit educated learners – studies have shown around 80% of participants on major platforms already have a tertiary degree – and those from richer countries. The disparity is due to divides in digital skills, internet access, language and course design. Regional MOOCs cater to local needs and languages but can also worsen inequality.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Technology has been used to support teaching and learning in multiple ways. Digital technology offers two broad types of opportunities. First, it can improve instruction by addressing quality gaps, increasing opportunities to practise, increasing available time and personalizing instruction. Second, it can engage learners by varying how content is represented, stimulating interaction and prompting collaboration. Systematic reviews over the past two decades on technology’s impact on learning find small to medium-sized positive effects compared to traditional instruction. However, evaluations do not always isolate technology’s impact in an intervention, making it difficult to attribute positive effects to technology alone rather than to other factors, such as added instruction time, resources or teacher support. Technology companies can have disproportionate influence on evidence production. For example, Pearson funded studies contesting independent analysis that showed its products had no impact.

The prevalence of ICT use in classrooms is not high, even in the world’s richest countries. The 2018 PISA found that only about 10% of 15-year-old students in over 50 participating education systems used digital devices for more than an hour a week in mathematics and science lessons, on average (Figure 2) . The 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) showed that in the 12 participating education systems, simulation and modelling software in classrooms was available to just over one third of students, with country levels ranging from 8% in Italy to 91% in Finland.

Figure 2: Even in upper-middle- and high-income countries, technology use in mathematics and science classrooms is limited

Percentage of 15-year-old students who used digital devices for at least one hour per week in mathematics or science classroom lessons, selected upper-middle- and high-income countries, 2018 Source: 2018 PISA database.

Recorded lessons can address teacher quality gaps and improve teacher time allocation. In China, lesson recordings from high-quality urban teachers were delivered to 100 million rural students. An impact evaluation showed improvements in Chinese skills by 32% and a 38% long-term reduction in the rural–urban earning gap. However, just delivering materials without contextualizing and providing support is insufficient. In Peru, the One Laptop Per Child programme distributed over 1 million laptops loaded with content, but no positive impact on learning resulted, partly due to the focus on provision of devices instead of the quality of pedagogical integration.

Enhancing technology-aided instruction with personalization can improve some types of learning. Personalized adaptive software generates analytics that can help teachers track student progress, identify error patterns, provide differentiated feedback and reduce workload on routine tasks. Evaluations of the use of a personalized adaptive software in India documented learning gains in after-school settings and for low-performing students. However, not all widely used software interventions have strong evidence of positive effects compared to teacher-led instruction. A meta-analysis of studies on an AI learning and assessment system that has been used by over 25 million students in the United States found it was no better than traditional classroom teaching in improving outcomes.

Varied interaction and visual representation can enhance student engagement. A meta-analysis of 43 studies published from 2008 to 2019 found that digital games improved cognitive and behavioural outcomes in mathematics. Interactive whiteboards can support teaching and learning if well integrated in pedagogy; but in the United Kingdom, despite large-scale adoption, they were mostly used to replace blackboards. Augmented, mixed or virtual reality used as an experiential learning tool for repeated practice in life-like conditions in technical, vocational and scientific subjects is not always as effective as real-life training but may be superior to other digital methods, such as video demonstrations.

Technology offers teachers low-cost and convenient ways to communicate with parents. The Colombian Institute of Family Welfare’s distance education initiative, which targeted 1.7 million disadvantaged children, relied on social media platforms to relay guidance to caregivers on pedagogical activities at home. However, uptake and effectiveness of behavioural interventions targeting caregivers are limited by parental education levels, as well as lack of time and material resources.

Student use of technology in classrooms and at home can be distracting, disrupting learning. A meta-analysis of research on student mobile phone use and its impact on education outcomes, covering students from pre-primary to higher education in 14 countries, found a small negative effect, and a larger one at the university level. Studies using PISA data indicate a negative association between ICT use and student performance beyond a threshold of moderate use. Teachers perceive tablet and phone use as hampering classroom management. More than one in three teachers in seven countries participating in the 2018 ICILS agreed that ICT use in classrooms distracted students. Online learning relies on student ability to self-regulate and may put low-performing and younger learners at increased risk of disengagement.

DIGITAL SKILLS

The definition of digital skills has been evolving along with digital technology. An analysis for this report shows that 54% of countries have identified digital skills standards for learners. The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp), developed on behalf of the European Commission, has five competence areas: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving. Some countries have adopted digital skills frameworks developed by non-state, mostly commercial, actors. The International Computer Driving Licence (ICDL) has been promoted as a ‘digital skills standard’ but is associated mainly with Microsoft applications. Kenya and Thailand have endorsed the ICDL as the digital literacy standard for use in schools.

Digital skills are unequally distributed. In the 27 European Union (EU) countries, 54% of adults had at least basic digital skills in 2021. In Brazil, 31% of adults had at least basic skills, but the level was twice as high in urban as in rural areas, three times as high among those in the labour force as among those outside it, and nine times as high in the top socioeconomic group as in the two bottom groups. The overall gender gap in digital skills is small, but wider in specific skills. In 50 countries, 6.5% of males and 3.2% of females could write a computer program. In Belgium, Hungary and Switzerland, no more than 2 women for every 10 men could program; in Albania, Malaysia and Palestine, 9 women for every 10 men could do so. According to the 2018 PISA, 5% of 15-year-olds with the strongest reading skills but 24% of those with the weakest ones were at risk of being misled by a typical phishing email.

Formal skills training may not be the main way of acquiring digital skills. About one quarter of adults in EU countries, ranging from 16% in Italy to 40% in Sweden, had acquired skills through a ‘formalised educational institution’. Informal learning, such as self-study and informal assistance from colleagues, relatives and friends, was used by twice as many. Still, formal education is important: In 2018, those with tertiary education in Europe were twice as likely (18%) as those with upper secondary education (9%) to engage in free online training or self-study to improve their computer, software or application use. Solid mastery of literacy and numeracy skills is positively associated with mastery of at least some digital skills.

A curriculum content mapping of 16 education systems showed that Greece and Portugal dedicated less than 10% of the curriculum to data and media literacy while Estonia and the Republic of Korea embedded both in half their curricula. In some countries, media literacy in curricula is explicitly connected to critical thinking in subject disciplines, as under Georgia’s New School Model. Asia is characterized by a protectionist approach to media literacy that prioritizes information control over education. But in the Philippines, the Association for Media and Information Literacy successfully advocated for incorporation of media and information literacy in the curriculum, and it is now a core subject in grades 11 and 12.

Digital skills in communication and collaboration matter in hybrid learning arrangements. Argentina promoted teamwork skills as part of a platform for programming and robotics competitions in primary and secondary education. Mexico offers teachers and students digital education resources and tools for remote collaboration, peer learning and knowledge sharing. Ethical digital behaviour includes rules, conventions and standards to be learned, understood and practised by digital users when using digital spaces. Digital communication’s anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity and minimization of authority can make it difficult for individuals to understand its complexities.

Competences in digital content creation include selecting appropriate delivery formats and creating copy, audio, video and visual assets; integrating digital content; and respecting copyright and licences. The ubiquitous use of social media has turned content creation into a skill with direct application in electronic commerce. In Indonesia, the Siberkreasi platform counts collaborative engagement among its core activities. The Kenya Copyright Board collaborates closely with universities to provide copyright education and conducts frequent training sessions for students in the visual arts and ICT.

Education systems need to strengthen preventive measures and respond to many safety challenges, from passwords to permissions, helping learners understand the implications of their online presence and digital footprint. In Brazil, 29% of schools have conducted debates or lectures on privacy and data protection. In New Zealand, the Te Mana Tūhono (Power of Connectivity) programme delivers digital protection and security services to almost 2,500 state and state-integrated schools. A systematic review of interventions in Australia, Italy, Spain and the United States estimated that the average programme had a 76% chance of reducing cyberbullying perpetration. In Wales, United Kingdom, the government has advised schools how to prepare for and respond to harmful viral online content and hoaxes.

The definition of problem-solving skills varies widely among education systems. Many countries perceive them in terms of coding and programming and as part of a computer science curriculum that includes computational thinking, algorithm use and automation. A global review estimated that 43% of students in high-income countries, 62% in upper-middle-income, 5% in lower-middle-income but no students in low-income countries take computer science as compulsory in primary and/or secondary education. Only 20% of education systems require schools to offer computer science as an elective or core course. Non-state actors often support coding and programming skills. In Chile, Code.org has partnered with the government to provide educational resources in computer science.

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT

Education management information systems focus on efficiency and effectiveness. Education reforms have been characterized by increased school autonomy, target setting and results-based performance, all of which require more data. By one measure, since the 1990s, the number of policies making reference to data, statistics and information has increased by 13 times in high-income, 9 times in upper-middle-income, and 5 times in low- and lower-middle-income countries. But only 54% of countries globally – and as low as 22% in sub-Saharan Africa – have unique student identification mechanisms.

Geospatial data can support education management. Geographical information systems help address equity and efficiency in infrastructure and resource distribution in education systems. School mapping has been used to foster diversity and reduce inequality of opportunity. Ireland links three databases to decide in which of its 314 planning areas to build new schools. Geospatial data can identify areas where children live too far from the nearest school. For instance, it has been estimated that 5% of the population in Guatemala and 41% in the United Republic of Tanzania live more than 3 kilometres away from the nearest primary school.

Education management information systems struggle with data integration. In 2017, Malaysia introduced the Education Data Repository as part of its 2019–23 ICT Transformation Plan to progressively integrate its 350 education data systems and applications scattered across institutions. By 2019, it had integrated 12 of its main data systems, aiming for full integration through a single data platform by the end of 2023. In New Zealand, schools had been procuring student management systems independently and lack of interoperability between them was preventing authorities from tracking student progress. In 2019, the government began setting up the National Learner Repository and Data Exchange to be hosted in cloud data centres, but deployment was paused in 2021 due to cybersecurity concerns. European countries have been addressing interoperability concerns collectively to facilitate data sharing between countries and across multiple applications used in higher-education management through the EMREX project.

Computer-based assessments and computer adaptive testing have been replacing many paper-based assessments. They reduce test administration costs, improve measurement quality and provide rapid scoring. As more examinations shift online, the need for online cheating detection and proctoring tools has also increased. While these can reduce cheating, their effectiveness should be weighed against fairness and psychological effects. Evidence on the quality and usefulness of technology-based assessments has started to emerge, but much less is known about cost efficiency. Among 34 papers on technology-based assessments reviewed for this report, transparent data on cost were lacking.

Learning analytics can increase formative feedback and enable early detection systems. In China, learning analytics has been used to identify learners’ difficulties, predict learning trajectories and manage teacher resources. In the United States, Course Signals is a system used to flag the likelihood of a student not passing a course; educators can then target them for additional support. However, learning analytics requires all actors to have sufficient data literacy. Successful education systems typically have absorptive capacity, including strong school leaders and confident teachers willing to innovate. Yet often seemingly trivial issues, such as maintenance and repair, are ignored or underestimated.

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY: EQUITY, EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Access to electricity and devices is highly unequal between and within countries. In 2021, almost 9% of the global population – and more than 70% of people in rural sub-Saharan Africa – lacked access to electricity. Globally, one in four primary schools do not have electricity. A 2018 study in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Myanmar, Nepal and Niger found that 31% of public schools were on grid and 9% were off grid, with only 16% enjoying uninterrupted power supply. Globally, 46% of households had a computer at home in 2020; the share of schools with computers for pedagogical purposes was 47% in primary, 62% in lower secondary and 76% in upper secondary education. There were at most 10 computers per 100 students in Brazil and Morocco but 160 computers per 100 students in Luxembourg, according to the 2018 PISA.

Internet access, a vital enabler of economic, social and cultural rights, is also unequal. In 2022, two in three people globally used the internet. In late 2021, 55% of the world’s population had mobile broadband access. In low- and middle-income countries, 16% less women than men used mobile internet in 2021. An estimated 3.2 billion people do not use mobile internet services despite being covered by a mobile broadband network. Globally, 40% of primary, 50% of lower secondary and 65% of upper secondary schools are connected to the internet. In India, 53% of private unaided and 44% of private aided schools are connected, compared with only 14% of government schools.

Various policies are used to improve access to devices. Some one in five countries have policies granting subsidies or deductions to buy devices. One-to-one technology programmes were established in 30% of countries at one time; currently only 15% of countries pursue such programmes. A number of upper-middle- and high-income countries are shifting from providing devices to allowing students to use their own devices in school. Jamaica adopted a Bring Your Own Device policy framework in 2020 to aim for sustainability.

Some countries champion free and open source software. Education institutions with complex ICT infrastructure, such as universities, can benefit from open source software to add new solutions or functionalities. By contrast, proprietary software does not permit sharing and has vendor locks that hinder interoperability, exchange and updates. In India, the National e-Governance Plan makes it mandatory for all software applications and services used in government to be built on open source software to achieve efficiency, transparency, reliability and affordability.

Countries are committed to universal internet provision at home and in school. About 85% of countries have policies to improve school or learner connectivity and 38% have laws on universal internet provision. A review of 72 low- and middle-income countries found that 29 had used universal service funds to reduce costs for underserved groups. In Kyrgyzstan, renegotiated contracts helped cut prices by nearly half and almost doubled internet speed. In Costa Rica, the Hogares Conectados (Connected Households) programme, which provided an internet cost subsidy to the poorest 60% of households with school-age children, helped reduce the share of unconnected households from 41% in 2016 to 13% in 2019. Zero-rating, or providing free internet access for education or other purposes, has been used, especially during COVID-19, but is not without problems, as it violates the net neutrality principle.

Education technology is often underutilized. In the United States, an average of 67% of education software licences were unused and 98% were not used intensively. According to the EdTech Genome Project, 85% of some 7,000 pedagogical tools, which cost USD 13 billion, were ‘either a poor fit or implemented incorrectly’. Less than one in five of the top 100 education technology tools used in classrooms met the requirements of the US Every Student Succeeds Act. Research had been published for 39% of these tools but the research was aligned with the act in only 26% of cases.

Evidence needs to drive education technology decisions. A review in the United Kingdom found that only 7% of education technology companies had conducted randomized controlled trials, 12% had used third-party certification and 18% had engaged in academic studies. An online survey of teachers and administrators in 17 US states showed that only 11% requested peer-reviewed evidence prior to adopting education technology. Recommendations influence purchase decisions, yet ratings can be manipulated through fake reviews disseminated on social media. Few governments try to fill the evidence gap, so demand has grown for independent reviews. Edtech Tulna, a partnership between a private think tank and a public university in India, offers quality standards, an evaluation toolkit and publicly available expert reviews.

Education technology procurement decisions need to take economic, social and environmental sustainability into account. With respect to economic considerations, it is estimated that initial investment in education technology accounts for just 25% or less of the eventual total cost. Regarding social concerns, procurement processes need to address equity, accessibility, local ownership and appropriation. In France, the Territoires Numériques Educatifs (Digital Educational Territories) initiative was criticized because not all subsidized equipment met local needs, and local governments were left out of the decisions on which equipment to purchase. Both issues have since been addressed. Concerning environmental considerations, it has been estimated that extending the lifespan of all laptops in the European Union by a year would save the equivalent of taking almost 1 million cars off the road in terms of CO2 emissions.

Regulation needs to address risks in education technology procurement. Public procurement is vulnerable to collusion and corruption. In 2019, Brazil’s Comptroller General of the Union found irregularities in the electronic bidding process for the purchase of 1.3 million computers, laptops and notebooks for state and municipal public schools. Decentralizing public procurement to local governments is one way to balance some of the risks. Indonesia has used its SIPLah e-commerce platform to support school-level procurement processes. However, decentralization is vulnerable to weak organizational capacity. A survey of administrators in 54 US school districts found that they had rarely carried out needs assessments.

GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION

Governance of the education technology system is fragmented. A department or an agency responsible for education technology has been identified in 82% of countries. Placing education ministries in charge of education technology strategies and plans could help ensure that decisions are primarily based on pedagogical principles. However, this is the case in just 58% of countries. In Kenya, the 2019 National Information, Communications and Technology Policy led the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology to integrate ICT at all levels of education.

Participation is often limited in the development of education technology strategies and plans. Nepal established a Steering and a Coordination Committee under the 2013–17 ICT in Education Master Plan for intersectoral and inter-agency coordination and cooperation in its implementation. Including administrators, teachers and students can help bridge the knowledge gap with decision makers to ensure that education technology choices are appropriate. In 2022, only 41% of US education sector leaders agreed that they were regularly included in planning and strategic conversations about technology.

The private sector’s commercial interests can clash with government equity, quality and efficiency goals. In India, the government alerted families about the hidden costs of free online content. Other risks relate to data use and protection, privacy, interoperability and lock-in effects, whereby students and teachers are compelled to use specific software or platforms. Google, Apple and Microsoft produce education platforms tied to particular hardware and operating systems.

Privacy risks to children make their learning environment unsafe. One analysis found that 89% of 163 education technology products recommended for children’s learning during the COVID-19 pandemic could or did watch children outside school hours or education settings. In addition, 39 of 42 governments providing online education during the pandemic fostered uses that ‘risked or infringed’ upon children’s rights. Data used for predictive algorithms can bias predictions and decisions and lead to discrimination, privacy violations and exclusion of disadvantaged groups. The Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Education introduced regulations in 2019 requiring parental consent before devices powered by AI, such as cameras and headbands, could be used with students in schools and required data to be encrypted.

Children’s exposure to screen time has increased. A survey of screen time of parents of 3- to 8-year-olds in Australia, China, Italy, Sweden and the United States found that their children’s screen exposure increased by 50 minutes during the pandemic for both education and leisure. Extended screen time can negatively affect self-control and emotional stability, increasing anxiety and depression. Few countries have strict regulations on screen time. In China, the Ministry of Education limited the use of digital devices as teaching tools to 30% of overall teaching time. Less than one in four countries are banning the use of smartphones in schools. Italy and the United States have banned the use of specific tools or social media from schools. Cyberbullying and online abuse are rarely defined as offences but can fall under existing laws, such as stalking laws as in Australia and harassment laws in Indonesia.

Monitoring of data protection law implementation is needed. Only 16% of countries explicitly guarantee data privacy in education by law and 29% have a relevant policy, mainly in Europe and Northern America. The number of cyberattacks in education is rising. Such attacks increase exposure to theft of identity and other personal data, but capacity and funds to address the issue are often insufficient. Globally, 5% of all ransomware attacks targeted the education sector in 2022, accounting for more than 30% of cybersecurity breaches. Regulations on sharing children’s personal information are rare but are starting to emerge under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. China and Japan have binding instruments on protecting children’s data and information.

Technology has an impact on the teaching profession. Technology allows teachers to choose, modify and generate educational materials. Personalized learning platforms offer teachers customized learning paths and insights based on student data. During the COVID-19 pandemic, France facilitated access to 17 online teaching resource banks mapped against the national curriculum. The Republic of Korea temporarily eased copyright restrictions for teachers. Online teacher-student collaboration platforms provide access to support services, facilitate work team creation, allow participation in virtual sessions and promote sharing of learning materials.

Obstacles to integrating technology in education prevent teachers from fully embracing it. Inadequate digital infrastructure and lack of devices hinder teachers’ ability to integrate technology in their practice. A survey in 165 countries during the pandemic found that two in five teachers used their own devices, and almost one third of schools had only one device for education use. Some teachers lack training to use digital devices effectively. Older teachers may struggle to keep up with rapidly changing technology. The 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) found that older teachers in 48 education systems had weaker skills and lower self-efficacy in using ICT. Some teachers may lack confidence. Only 43% of lower secondary school teachers in the 2018 TALIS said they felt prepared to use technology for teaching after training, and 78% of teachers in the 2018 ICILS were not confident in using technology for assessment.

Education systems support teachers in developing technology-related professional competencies. About half of education systems worldwide have ICT standards for teachers in a competency framework, teacher training framework, development plan or strategy. Education systems set up annual digital education days for teachers, promote OER, support the exchange of experiences and resources between teachers, and offer training. One quarter of education systems have legislation to ensure teachers are trained in technology, either through initial or in-service training. Some 84% of education systems have strategies for in-service teacher professional development, compared with 72% for pre-service teacher education in technology. Teachers can identify their development needs using digital self-assessment tools such as that provided by the Centre for Innovation in Brazilian Education.

Technology is changing teacher training. Technology is used to create flexible learning environments, engage teachers in collaborative learning, support coaching and mentoring, increase reflective practice, and improve subject or pedagogical knowledge. Distance education programmes have promoted teacher learning in South Africa and even equalled the impact of in-person training in Ghana. Virtual communities have emerged, primarily through social networks, for communication and resource sharing. About 80% of teachers surveyed in the Caribbean belonged to professional WhatsApp groups and 44% used instant messaging to collaborate at least once a week. In Senegal, the Reading for All programme used in-person and online coaching. Teachers considered face-to-face coaching more useful, but online coaching cost 83% less and still achieved a significant, albeit small, improvement in how teachers guided students’ reading practice. In Flanders, Belgium, KlasCement, a teacher community network created by a non-profit and now run by the Ministry of Education, expanded access to digital education and provided a platform for discussions on distance education during the pandemic.

Many actors support teacher professional development in ICT. Universities, teacher training institutions and research institutes provide specialized training, research opportunities and partnerships with schools for professional development in ICT. In Rwanda, universities collaborated with teachers and the government to develop the ICT Essentials for Teachers course. Teacher unions also advocate for policies that support teachers. The Confederation of Education Workers of the Argentine Republic established the right of teachers to disconnect. Civil society organizations, including the Carey Institute for Global Good, offer support through initiatives such as providing OER and online courses for refugee teachers in Chad, Kenya, Lebanon and Niger.

New global data reveal education technology’s impact on learning

The promise of technology in the classroom is great: enabling personalized, mastery-based learning; saving teacher time; and equipping students with the digital skills they will need  for 21st-century careers. Indeed, controlled pilot studies have shown meaningful improvements in student outcomes through personalized blended learning. 1 John F. Pane et al., “How does personalized learning affect student achievement?,” RAND Corporation, 2017, rand.org. During this time of school shutdowns and remote learning , education technology has become a lifeline for the continuation of learning.

As school systems begin to prepare for a return to the classroom , many are asking whether education technology should play a greater role in student learning beyond the immediate crisis and what that might look like. To help inform the answer to that question, this article analyzes one important data set: the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published in December 2019 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Every three years, the OECD uses PISA to test 15-year-olds around the world on math, reading, and science. What makes these tests so powerful is that they go beyond the numbers, asking students, principals, teachers, and parents a series of questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and resources. An optional student survey on information and communications technology (ICT) asks specifically about technology use—in the classroom, for homework, and more broadly.

In 2018, more than 340,000 students in 51 countries took the ICT survey, providing a rich data set for analyzing key questions about technology use in schools. How much is technology being used in schools? Which technologies are having a positive impact on student outcomes? What is the optimal amount of time to spend using devices in the classroom and for homework? How does this vary across different countries and regions?

From other studies we know that how education technology is used, and how it is embedded in the learning experience, is critical to its effectiveness. This data is focused on extent and intensity of use, not the pedagogical context of each classroom. It cannot therefore answer questions on the eventual potential of education technology—but it can powerfully tell us the extent to which that potential is being realized today in classrooms around the world.

Five key findings from the latest results help answer these questions and suggest potential links between technology and student outcomes:

• The type of device matters—some are associated with worse student outcomes.
• Geography matters—technology is associated with higher student outcomes in the United States than in other regions.
• Who is using the technology matters—technology in the hands of teachers is associated with higher scores than technology in the hands of students.
• Intensity matters—students who use technology intensely or not at all perform better than those with moderate use.
• A school system’s current performance level matters—in lower-performing school systems, technology is associated with worse results.

This analysis covers only one source of data, and it should be interpreted with care alongside other relevant studies. Nonetheless, the 2018 PISA results suggest that systems aiming to improve student outcomes should take a more nuanced and cautious approach to deploying technology once students return to the classroom. It is not enough add devices to the classroom, check the box, and hope for the best.

What can we learn from the latest PISA results?

How will the use, and effectiveness, of technology change post-covid-19.

The PISA assessment was carried out in 2018 and published in December 2019. Since its publication, schools and students globally have been quite suddenly thrust into far greater reliance on technology. Use of online-learning websites and adaptive software has expanded dramatically. Khan Academy has experienced a 250 percent surge in traffic; smaller sites have seen traffic grow fivefold or more. Hundreds of thousands of teachers have been thrown into the deep end, learning to use new platforms, software, and systems. No one is arguing that the rapid cobbling together of remote learning under extreme time pressure represents best-practice use of education technology. Nonetheless, a vast experiment is underway, and innovations often emerge in times of crisis. At this point, it is unclear whether this represents the beginning of a new wave of more widespread and more effective technology use in the classroom or a temporary blip that will fade once students and teachers return to in-person instruction. It is possible that a combination of software improvements, teacher capability building, and student familiarity will fundamentally change the effectiveness of education technology in improving student outcomes. It is also possible that our findings will continue to hold true and technology in the classroom will continue to be a mixed blessing. It is therefore critical that ongoing research efforts track what is working and for whom and, just as important, what is not. These answers will inform the project of reimagining a better education for all students in the aftermath of COVID-19.

PISA data have their limitations. First, these data relate to high-school students, and findings may not be applicable in elementary schools or postsecondary institutions. Second, these are single-point observational data, not longitudinal experimental data, which means that any links between technology and results should be interpreted as correlation rather than causation. Third, the outcomes measured are math, science, and reading test results, so our analysis cannot assess important soft skills and nonacademic outcomes.

It is also worth noting that technology for learning has implications beyond direct student outcomes, both positive and negative. PISA cannot address these broader issues, and neither does this paper.

But PISA results, which we’ve broken down into five key findings, can still provide powerful insights. The assessment strives to measure the understanding and application of ideas, rather than the retention of facts derived from rote memorization, and the broad geographic coverage and sample size help elucidate the reality of what is happening on the ground.

Finding 1: The type of device matters

The evidence suggests that some devices have more impact than others on outcomes (Exhibit 1). Controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location, 2 Specifically, we control for a composite indicator for economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) derived from questions about general wealth, home possessions, parental education, and parental occupation; for school type “Is your school a public or a private school” (SC013); and for school location (SC001) where the options are a village, hamlet or rural area (fewer than 3,000 people), a small town (3,000 to about 15,000 people), a town (15,000 to about 100,000 people), a city (100,000 to about 1,000,000 people), and a large city (with more than 1,000,000 people). the use of data projectors 3 A projector is any device that projects computer output, slides, or other information onto a screen in the classroom. and internet-connected computers in the classroom is correlated with nearly a grade-level-better performance on the PISA assessment (assuming approximately 40 PISA points to every grade level). 4 Students were specifically asked (IC009), “Are any of these devices available for you to use at school?,” with the choices being “Yes, and I use it,” “Yes, but I don’t use it,” and “No.” We compared the results for students who have access to and use each device with those who do not have access. The full text for each device in our chart was as follows: Data projector, eg, for slide presentations; Internet-connected school computers; Desktop computer; Interactive whiteboard, eg, SmartBoard; Portable laptop or notebook; and Tablet computer, eg, iPad, BlackBerry PlayBook.

On the other hand, students who use laptops and tablets in the classroom have worse results than those who do not. For laptops, the impact of technology varies by subject; students who use laptops score five points lower on the PISA math assessment, but the impact on science and reading scores is not statistically significant. For tablets, the picture is clearer—in every subject, students who use tablets in the classroom perform a half-grade level worse than those who do not.

Some technologies are more neutral. At the global level, there is no statistically significant difference between students who use desktop computers and interactive whiteboards in the classroom and those who do not.

Finding 2: Geography matters

Looking more closely at the reading results, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, 5 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. we can see that the relationship between technology and outcomes varies widely by country and region (Exhibit 2). For example, in all regions except the United States (representing North America), 6 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. students who use laptops in the classroom score between five and 12 PISA points lower than students who do not use laptops. In the United States, students who use laptops score 17 PISA points higher than those who do not. It seems that US students and teachers are doing something different with their laptops than those in other regions. Perhaps this difference is related to learning curves that develop as teachers and students learn how to get the most out of devices. A proxy to assess this learning curve could be penetration—71 percent of US students claim to be using laptops in the classroom, compared with an average of 37 percent globally. 7 The rate of use excludes nulls. The United States measures higher than any other region in laptop use by students in the classroom. US = 71 percent, Asia = 40 percent, EU = 35 percent, Latin America = 31 percent, MENA = 21 percent, Non-EU Europe = 41 percent. We observe a similar pattern with interactive whiteboards in non-EU Europe. In every other region, interactive whiteboards seem to be hurting results, but in non-EU Europe they are associated with a lift of 21 PISA points, a total that represents a half-year of learning. In this case, however, penetration is not significantly higher than in other developed regions.

Finding 3: It matters whether technology is in the hands of teachers or students

The survey asks students whether the teacher, student, or both were using technology. Globally, the best results in reading occur when only the teacher is using the device, with some benefit in science when both teacher and students use digital devices (Exhibit 3). Exclusive use of the device by students is associated with significantly lower outcomes everywhere. The pattern is similar for science and math.

Again, the regional differences are instructive. Looking again at reading, we note that US students are getting significant lift (three-quarters of a year of learning) from either just teachers or teachers and students using devices, while students alone using a device score significantly lower (half a year of learning) than students who do not use devices at all. Exclusive use of devices by the teacher is associated with better outcomes in Europe too, though the size of the effect is smaller.

Finding 4: Intensity of use matters

PISA also asked students about intensity of use—how much time they spend on devices, 8 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. both in the classroom and for homework. The results are stark: students who either shun technology altogether or use it intensely are doing better, with those in the middle flailing (Exhibit 4).

The regional data show a dramatic picture. In the classroom, the optimal amount of time to spend on devices is either “none at all” or “greater than 60 minutes” per subject per week in every region and every subject (this is the amount of time associated with the highest student outcomes, controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location). In no region is a moderate amount of time (1–30 minutes or 31–60 minutes) associated with higher student outcomes. There are important differences across subjects and regions. In math, the optimal amount of time is “none at all” in every region. 9 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. In reading and science, however, the optimal amount of time is greater than 60 minutes for some regions: Asia and the United States for reading, and the United States and non-EU Europe for science.

The pattern for using devices for homework is slightly less clear cut. Students in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and non-EU Europe score highest when they spend “no time at all” on devices for their homework, while students spending a moderate amount of time (1–60 minutes) score best in Latin America and the European Union. Finally, students in the United States who spend greater than 60 minutes are getting the best outcomes.

One interpretation of these data is that students need to get a certain familiarity with technology before they can really start using it to learn. Think of typing an essay, for example. When students who mostly write by hand set out to type an essay, their attention will be focused on the typing rather than the essay content. A competent touch typist, however, will get significant productivity gains by typing rather than handwriting.

Would you like to learn more about our Social Sector Practice ?

Finding 5: the school systems’ overall performance level matters.

Diving deeper into the reading outcomes, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, we can see the magnitude of the impact of device use in the classroom. In Asia, Latin America, and Europe, students who spend any time on devices in their literacy and language arts classrooms perform about a half-grade level below those who spend none at all. In MENA, they perform more than a full grade level lower. In the United States, by contrast, more than an hour of device use in the classroom is associated with a lift of 17 PISA points, almost a half-year of learning improvement (Exhibit 5).

At the country level, we see that those who are on what we would call the “poor-to-fair” stage of the school-system journey 10 Michael Barber, Chinezi Chijoke, and Mona Mourshed, “ How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better ,” November 2010. have the worst relationships between technology use and outcomes. For every poor-to-fair system taking the survey, the amount of time on devices in the classroom associated with the highest student scores is zero minutes. Good and great systems are much more mixed. Students in some very highly performing systems (for example, Estonia and Chinese Taipei) perform highest with no device use, but students in other systems (for example, Japan, the United States, and Australia) are getting the best scores with over an hour of use per week in their literacy and language arts classrooms (Exhibit 6). These data suggest that multiple approaches are effective for good-to-great systems, but poor-to-fair systems—which are not well equipped to use devices in the classroom—may need to rethink whether technology is the best use of their resources.

What are the implications for students, teachers, and systems?

Looking across all these results, we can say that the relationship between technology and outcomes in classrooms today is mixed, with variation by device, how that device is used, and geography. Our data do not permit us to draw strong causal conclusions, but this section offers a few hypotheses, informed by existing literature and our own work with school systems, that could explain these results.

First, technology must be used correctly to be effective. Our experience in the field has taught us that it is not enough to “add technology” as if it were the missing, magic ingredient. The use of tech must start with learning goals, and software selection must be based on and integrated with the curriculum. Teachers need support to adapt lesson plans to optimize the use of technology, and teachers should be using the technology themselves or in partnership with students, rather than leaving students alone with devices. These lessons hold true regardless of geography. Another ICT survey question asked principals about schools’ capacity using digital devices. Globally, students performed better in schools where there were sufficient numbers of devices connected to fast internet service; where they had adequate software and online support platforms; and where teachers had the skills, professional development, and time to integrate digital devices in instruction. This was true even accounting for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location.

COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime

Second, technology must be matched to the instructional environment and context. One of the most striking findings in the latest PISA assessment is the extent to which technology has had a different impact on student outcomes in different geographies. This corroborates the findings of our 2010 report, How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better . Those findings demonstrated that different sets of interventions were needed at different stages of the school-system reform journey, from poor-to-fair to good-to-great to excellent. In poor-to-fair systems, limited resources and teacher capabilities as well as poor infrastructure and internet bandwidth are likely to limit the benefits of student-based technology. Our previous work suggests that more prescriptive, teacher-based approaches and technologies (notably data projectors) are more likely to be effective in this context. For example, social enterprise Bridge International Academies equips teachers across several African countries with scripted lesson plans using e-readers. In general, these systems would likely be better off investing in teacher coaching than in a laptop per child. For administrators in good-to-great systems, the decision is harder, as technology has quite different impacts across different high-performing systems.

Third, technology involves a learning curve at both the system and student levels. It is no accident that the systems in which the use of education technology is more mature are getting more positive impact from tech in the classroom. The United States stands out as the country with the most mature set of education-technology products, and its scale enables companies to create software that is integrated with curricula. 11 Common Core State Standards sought to establish consistent educational standards across the United States. While these have not been adopted in all states, they cover enough states to provide continuity and consistency for software and curriculum developers. A similar effect also appears to operate at the student level; those who dabble in tech may be spending their time learning the tech rather than using the tech to learn. This learning curve needs to be built into technology-reform programs.

Taken together, these results suggest that systems that take a comprehensive, data-informed approach may achieve learning gains from thoughtful use of technology in the classroom. The best results come when significant effort is put into ensuring that devices and infrastructure are fit for purpose (fast enough internet service, for example), that software is effective and integrated with curricula, that teachers are trained and given time to rethink lesson plans integrating technology, that students have enough interaction with tech to use it effectively, and that technology strategy is cognizant of the system’s position on the school-system reform journey. Online learning and education technology are currently providing an invaluable service by enabling continued learning over the course of the pandemic; this does not mean that they should be accepted uncritically as students return to the classroom.

Jake Bryant is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Felipe Child is a partner in the Bogotá office; Emma Dorn is the global Education Practice manager in the Silicon Valley office; and Stephen Hall is an associate partner in the Dubai office.

The authors wish to thank Fernanda Alcala, Sujatha Duraikkannan, and Samuel Huang for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Safely back to school after coronavirus closures

How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• 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

What 126 studies say about education technology

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

In recent years, there has been widespread excitement around the transformative potential of technology in education. In the United States alone, spending on education technology has now exceeded $13 billion . Programs and policies to promote the use of education technology may expand access to quality education, support students’ learning in innovative ways, and help families navigate complex school systems.

However, the rapid development of education technology in the United States is occurring in a context of deep and persistent inequality . Depending on how programs are designed, how they are used, and who can access them, education technologies could alleviate or aggravate existing disparities. To harness education technology’s full potential, education decision-makers, product developers, and funders need to understand the ways in which technology can help — or in some cases hurt — student learning.

To address this need, J-PAL North America recently released a new publication summarizing 126 rigorous evaluations of different uses of education technology. Drawing primarily from research in developed countries, the publication looks at randomized evaluations and regression discontinuity designs across four broad categories: (1) access to technology, (2) computer-assisted learning or educational software, (3) technology-enabled nudges in education, and (4) online learning.

This growing body of evidence suggests some areas of promise and points to four key lessons on education technology.

First, supplying computers and internet alone generally do not improve students’ academic outcomes from kindergarten to 12th grade, but do increase computer usage and improve computer proficiency. Disparities in access to information and communication technologies can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Students without access at school or at home may struggle to complete web-based assignments and may have a hard time developing digital literacy skills.

Broadly, programs to expand access to technology have been effective at increasing use of computers and improving computer skills. However, computer distribution and internet subsidy programs generally did not improve grades and test scores and in some cases led to adverse impacts on academic achievement. The limited rigorous evidence suggests that distributing computers may have a more direct impact on learning outcomes at the postsecondary level.

Second, educational software (often called “computer-assisted learning”) programs designed to help students develop particular skills have shown enormous promise in improving learning outcomes, particularly in math. Targeting instruction to meet students’ learning levels has been found to be effective in improving student learning, but large class sizes with a wide range of learning levels can make it hard for teachers to personalize instruction. Software has the potential to overcome traditional classroom constraints by customizing activities for each student. Educational software programs range from light-touch homework support tools to more intensive interventions that re-orient the classroom around the use of software.

Most educational software that have been rigorously evaluated help students practice particular skills through personalized tutoring approaches. Computer-assisted learning programs have shown enormous promise in improving academic achievement, especially in math. Of all 30 studies of computer-assisted learning programs, 20 reported statistically significant positive effects, 15 of which were focused on improving math outcomes.

Third, technology-based nudges — such as text message reminders — can have meaningful, if modest, impacts on a variety of education-related outcomes, often at extremely low costs. Low-cost interventions like text message reminders can successfully support students and families at each stage of schooling. Text messages with reminders, tips, goal-setting tools, and encouragement can increase parental engagement in learning activities, such as reading with their elementary-aged children.

Middle and high schools, meanwhile, can help parents support their children by providing families with information about how well their children are doing in school. Colleges can increase application and enrollment rates by leveraging technology to suggest specific action items, streamline financial aid procedures, and/or provide personalized support to high school students.

Online courses are developing a growing presence in education, but the limited experimental evidence suggests that online-only courses lower student academic achievement compared to in-person courses. In four of six studies that directly compared the impact of taking a course online versus in-person only, student performance was lower in the online courses. However, students performed similarly in courses with both in-person and online components compared to traditional face-to-face classes.

The new publication is meant to be a resource for decision-makers interested in learning which uses of education technology go beyond the hype to truly help students learn. At the same time, the publication outlines key open questions about the impacts of education technology, including questions relating to the long-term impacts of education technology and the impacts of education technology on different types of learners.

To help answer these questions, J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative is working to build the evidence base on promising uses of education technology by partnering directly with education leaders.

Education leaders are invited to submit letters of interest to partner with J-PAL North America through its  Innovation Competition . Anyone interested in learning more about how to apply is encouraged to contact initiative manager Vincent Quan .

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• J-PAL Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative
• Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition
• Article: "Will Technology Transform Education for the Better?"
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences
• Education, teaching, academics
• Technology and society
• Computer science and technology

Related Articles

J-PAL North America calls for proposals from education leaders

J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition announces inaugural partners

New learning opportunities for displaced persons

J-PAL North America announces new partnerships with three state and local governments

A new way to measure women’s and girls’ empowerment in impact evaluations

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

3 Questions: How to prove humanity online

Read full story →

When the lights turned on in the universe

Lincoln Laboratory and National Strategic Research Institute launch student research program to tackle biothreats to national security

Christine Ortiz named director of MIT Technology and Policy Program

MIT engineers design tiny batteries for powering cell-sized robots

New open-source tool helps to detangle the brain

• 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

• IIEP Buenos Aires

• A global institute
• Governing Board
• Expert directory
• 60th anniversary
• Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

• Upcoming events
• PlanED: The IIEP podcast
• Partnering with IIEP
• Career opportunities
• 11th Medium-Term Strategy
• Planning and management to improve learning
• Inclusion in education
• Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
• Ethics and corruption in education
• Digital technology to transform education
• Crisis-sensitive educational planning
• Rethinking national school calendars for climate-resilient learning
• Skills for the future
• Interactive map
• Foundations of education sector planning programmes
• Online specialized courses
• Customized, on-demand training
• Training in Buenos Aires
• Training in Dakar
• Preparation of strategic plans
• Sector diagnosis
• Costs and financing of education
• Tools for planning
• Crisis-sensitive education planning
• Supporting training centres
• Support for basic education quality management
• Gender at the Centre
• Teacher careers
• Geospatial data
• Cities and Education 2030
• Learning assessment data
• Governance and quality assurance
• School grants
• Early childhood education
• Flexible learning pathways in higher education
• Instructional leaders
• Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
• Planning to fulfil the right to education
• Thematic resource portals
• Policy Fora
• Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
• Strategic Debates
• Publications
• Briefs, Papers, Tools
• Search the collection
• Visitors information
• Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
• IIEP Learning Portal
• Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
• PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
• SITEAL (Latin America)
• Policy toolbox
• Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
• Health and Education Resource Centre
• Interactive Map
• Search deploy
• The institute

Digital technology is everywhere. How can it help plan better education systems?

C_ismael_martinez_sanchez-8308_1.jpg.

At its best, digital technologies can help build a more equitable and sustainable future. The 2023 GEM Report on technology and education , launched on 26 July 2023, similarly makes the case that, when used responsibly, digital technologies can help unlock the transformative power of education.

However, the journey has had many twists and turns. Over the years, technology has been seen as a threat, a pedagogical distraction, but also a panacea capable to solve a myriad of educational challenges. Today, the global education community embraces an overall more nuanced and balanced view – digital technology ushers in countless opportunities for new learning models, but also serious challenges that must be addressed to promote greater inclusion and equity.

The presence of technology in education today is unavoidable. In a post-pandemic context, we have learned that students are more likely to learn with technology than without it - especially in vulnerable and emergency contexts. It is also permeating the world of planning and management - the so-called behind-the-scenes of education. It is influencing how education systems are designed and redrawing the parameters for how educational administrations function.

When implemented at a macro level, technology has the capacity to produce significant impacts in education systems, offering tools and solutions that streamline processes and improve the efficiency of institutions.” -Martín Benavides, IIEP-UNESCO Director

3 ways technology can enhance planning

At IIEP, we have been working with countries to include technology in educational planning and management. From improved data collection to better transparency, here’s where we are seeing an impact in and through our work with ministries of education and their partners. 

1. Technology can improve efficiency in the planning and management of education systems, including more equitable use of resources.

In countries worldwide, IIEP’s technical teams are seeing how technology can boost an Education Management Information System – or EMIS  - the most important source of educational data. Technology can support everything from the collection, integration, processing, and maintenance, to the dissemination of data and information to improve decision-making, analysis, and policy formulation. EMIS is also key to monitoring progress toward educational goals and targets, both at the national and international levels.

Technology can also help create projections and modelling to manage the allocation of human and material resources. It can help planners find gaps in access to resources (e.g. teacher gaps in rural contexts) and fill them effectively and can help with time management. Tools such as context-specific school calendars , taking into account environmental and social variables (e.g. rainy seasons and harvest times) help to promote equity.

2. Technology can enhance transparency in the functioning of education.

Technology can provide open access to relevant information about how an education system functions, such as student performance reports. It can help construction open overnment where stakeholders can participate in formulating public policies and monitoring.

3. Technology can boost professional development.

Just like for teachers, technology is also used for the professional development of planners. Online learning platforms and communities of practice can provide resources that support peer-to-peer learning, the acquisition of new skills, and the dissemination of best practices .

These examples illustrate how digital tools in education reach far beyond classrooms. It can help planners do their jobs better and more efficiently, offering new pathways to improving educational quality and equity, now and in the future. 

However, as the GEM report on technology and education explores, clear objectives and principles are needed to ensure that the use of technology avoids harm. To do this, it is crucial to understand some of the key challenges facing the integration of technology and its appropriate use in education today.

The challenge of access

Access is often the first challenge many think of when it comes to technology in education. Despite progress, the lack of equitable access to education in many regions of the world exacerbates educational inequalities, both at the individual and systemic levels.

The GEM report notes that, globally, only 40% of primary schools, 50% of lower secondary, and 65% of upper secondary schools have access to the Internet.

Additionally, learning gaps run the risk of widening as long as education systems exist without access to the necessary infrastructure, e.g., devices or connectivity.

During COVID-19, for example, a paradoxical situation arose: on the one hand, digital technologies helped to mitigate the effects of social isolation and made educational continuity possible. However, in their absence, socio-educational inequalities deepened.

To ensure that technologies do not lead to new inequalities, it is essential to promote and revitalize Internet access policies to ensure inclusion and equality in education, i.e. by placing vulnerable populations at the centre of policies.

The challenge of managing and maintaining technology

Technology is generally a private offering and this can complicate management processes in education. The diversity of suppliers is a factor, as choosing the right technology can be complex, especially when considering cost, quality, interoperability, and adaptability to specific educational needs.

Another frequent blind spot is placing an excessive focus on the procurement of devices and software without adequate consideration of how they align with the goals and needs of the education system, as well as the overarching digital transformation policies of states.

In terms of maintenance, the right infrastructure and technical support need to be in place to ensure that solutions function well, as seemingly prosaic factors, such as insufficient connectivity or lack of maintenance, can hinder their effective use.

To overcome these challenges related to technology management, spaces for dialogue with stakeholders must be fostered so that consensus can be built on the benefits and goals of integrating technology, robust mechanisms for evaluation, monitoring and learning, and committed institutional leadership.

In addition, the creation of specific public-private partnerships can achieve greater transparency in educational technology management processes.

The challenge of developing digital skills

The availability of technology does not necessarily guarantee its use. Just as the integration of digital technologies goes beyond the classroom, the challenge of developing digital competencies goes beyond students and teachers and must extend to all actors involved in the educational environment. Families, managers, and policy-makers must be included in this scheme to ensure that all actors can effectively contribute to the use of technology in the educational context and promote a digital culture in society at large.

What’s next?

Let’s focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, where despite more than two decades of integrating various types of digital policies, a deep learning crisis remains. Drawing on its Regional Forum on Education Policies, IIEP has put forward a number of recommendations to further exploit the use of technology in planning and management - with an equity lens.

First, sufficient resources are critical to finance educational change. To have a robust public education system that can close gaps and give everyone at least a minimum of opportunities to learn, constant investment is needed. But some countries fail to do this, either entirely or partially, often because of a lack of coordination or political will.

Second, it is critical to foster cross-sectoral coordination of education ministries with other government sectors. Many learning problems, especially those linked to conditions of extreme poverty, violence, or marginalization, cannot be solved by education policies alone.

Third, there must be a dialogue between the government and society as a whole. The more distant education policy decisions are from the multiple actors in the system, the less sustainable they will be.

Finally, to avoid having policies become distorted or diluted when they reach schools, there should be better articulation between central-level policy-making and district levels. This will help connect the dots in the transmission chain, making digital technologies a smoother journey for all.

• Gender at the Centre Initiative for education: A journey in graphics 01 August 2024
• How civil society uses digital tools to increase accountability in education 30 July 2024
• Community input is key to successful educational planning: Q&A from Samoa 25 July 2024
• Enhancing digital technology to transform education

Download the 2023 GEM Report: Technology in education

• Privacy Notice

• Our Mission

Effective Uses of Technology in Elementary School

Minimizing screen time and maximizing student interactions are worthwhile, but there are still good uses of technology in the elementary grades.

Following months of virtual schooling and tuning in to a device for synchronous and asynchronous learning, many teachers and students have been happy this year to move away from digital experiences and return to analog learning activities.

Many elementary school activities engage children in hands-on, dynamic activities that do not require the use of technology, limiting how much time students spend in front of a screen. However, there are ways that technology can develop and sustain unique learning opportunities in schools.

As an educational technologist, I collaborate with teachers to implement technologies that improve student learning. I’ll talk about and share examples of how teachers can use technology in the classroom to provide instructional guidance and support, encourage students’ self-reflection, and spark creativity.

Using Technology as an Instructional Tool

Teachers can create short audio or video clips to supplement and extend classroom instruction. Many teachers have discovered how simple it is to create a short video that students can use to review a concept or reread a set of instructions while participating in remote learning.

You can create detailed instructions or give information to guide students through a series of exercises for a lesson or project. Plan a class activity in which students, for example, rotate among different stations (individually or in small groups) to complete a series of independent tasks.

Each station could have its own device, such as an iPad or a Chromebook, where students can review prerecorded instructions or rewatch brief presentations while doing activities at that station. You might create a screencast  as a tutorial or explain the steps to completing a math review worksheet .

Students Using Technology to Self-Reflect on Their Learning and Progress

Students can use technology to keep track of their progress. They can use images or a short video to document special classroom moments, activities, projects, or presentations, and then create a presentation that highlights their learning from these snapshots.

For example, a third-grade student learning about the composition of a cell could create a presentation that included a photo of a cell diagram, descriptions of why certain parts of a cell were included, explanations of what materials were used to create the cell model, and a written reflection of what they learned about the parts of a cell. For a framework of how to write a self-reflection, you can provide students with protocols such as Project Zero’s thinking routine “ I Used to Think… Now I Think .” John Spencer’s blog post about digital portfolios is another resource you can use to prompt students’ self-reflection.

To help students develop their metacognitive skills, you can combine learning snapshots with opportunities for their self-reflection. During a large or small group presentation, students can present a slide show with voice-overs or explain what they were doing and what they learned at the moment. They can respond to questions such as “Did this learning experience make you feel successful?” and “What would you do differently next time?” Students can revisit these reflections later in the year to assess and celebrate their progress.

In one upper elementary classroom I visited, for example, students were trying out different study strategies to see which ones worked best for them. After they completed a formative assessment activity, the teacher asked them to reflect on whether they had felt successful throughout the assessment activity because of using study strategies.

The teacher asked students to identify which strategies they used and whether they thought the strategies were effective in helping them explore new content and ideas. One student described how using flash cards and rereading a chapter helped her prepare for and pass a science quiz.

You can allow students to reflect with fewer specific prompts as they become accustomed to considering their work and feel comfortable exploring how they think throughout a learning experience.

Using Technology to Provide Choice and Spark Students’ Creativity

You can design projects that allow students to choose how they want to use technology. Students can create digital art by using various websites and tools. They can create original artwork or learning resources such as math manipulatives using classroom art supplies and then record a brief video explaining or displaying their work.

Comic strips, slide shows, green screen images, infographics, timelines, digital posters, videos, podcasts, mini-portfolios, and video book talks are other forms of digital student creation. When students combine these various modalities, they have even more opportunities for creativity and self-expression.

With the help of technology, sharing digital creations like these is simple. Google’s share settings can publish Google Slideshows or documents. Google Sites is also an excellent tool for students to keep track of their assignments. Students can include video, images, Google Drive files, PDF files, and much more on a Google Site. Microsoft Office 365 tools, Flipgrid, and Padlet are some of the other platforms for creating, curating, and sharing student work.

When using technology in the elementary classroom, be judicious and intentional. Before implementing it, consider your goals for using it and whether it provides a functional improvement to a learning task. Documenting student learning, providing extra student support via audio or video, and enhancing student creation capabilities are all excellent ways for technology to improve the teaching and learning process.

Become an Insider

Sign up today to receive premium content.

Technology in the Classroom & The Benefits for K-12 Schools

Rebecca Torchia is a web editor for  EdTech: Focus on K–12 . Previously, she has produced podcasts and written for several publications in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and her hometown of Pittsburgh.

Technology integration is no longer about whether tech belongs in classrooms. In today’s education landscape, it pertains to how technology is chosen and used for learning.

Schools have received waves of government funding for educational technology. Administrators and IT leadership still have  until September 2022 and September 2023  to obligate ESSER I and ESSER II funds, respectively. To get the best return on investment with this funding, districts must ensure technology integration is done effectively.

Students benefit from technology integration when it is done well. It can lead to a more equitable educational experience and give students the tools to be successful in life.

Click the banner to unlock exclusive tech content when you register as an Insider.

What Does Technology in The Classroom Look Like Today?

Technology integration is the use of technology in teaching and learning to achieve academic goals.

“I don’t use tech unless it solves a problem I have in the classroom,” says Lisa Highfill, a technology integration specialist at  Pleasanton Virtual Academy  in California.

For example, Highfill says, she’ll use a  Jamboard  where students can post their responses instead of calling on them one at a time. “Then, when they’re all quiet, what are they doing? They’re reading each other’s comments.”

Meaningful tech integration should be done thoughtfully to enhance a learning experience. “You don’t want to use technology just for technology’s sake,” says Melissa Lim, a technology integration specialist at Oregon’s  Portland Public Schools . “We recommend using the Triple E Framework as a simple tool to help determine if it’s worth using technology or if you’re just using it as a substitute.”

The Triple E Framework  was developed by Liz Kolb, a clinical associate professor of education and learning technologies at the University of Michigan. When K–12 IT leaders evaluate new tech based on this framework, they can determine “how well technology tools integrated into lessons are helping students engage in, enhance and extend learning goals,” according to Kolb’s website for the framework.

“It’s all about the learning first,” Lim says.

Why Is Integrating Technology Important in Education?

Technology integration in Education is important for multiple reasons. It makes learning more equitable for K–12 students, and — when used in lower grades — it sets them up for success in school and, moving forward, in their careers.

“If you’re a teacher who doesn’t use a lot of technology, your students aren’t getting equitable access to learning experiences that another teacher who uses technology is giving to their students,” Lim says.

Melissa Lim Technology Integration Specialist, Portland Public Schools

Now that many students have devices and access to technology, educators and school leaders must work to  narrow the digital divide  through equity of use. If students aren’t exposed to technology and taught how to use it, they will fall behind their peers.

“Educators should make sure logging in is a really easy, smooth process,” Highfill says. “Once I get everyone logged in, the No. 1 thing I have to get students to learn how to do is share their screen.”

This not only helps her work through problems with students, she says, but also helps students take  a more active role in their learning . Students will find new ways to achieve a goal or manipulate a technology and can show the class — and the teacher — how they’ve accomplished it by sharing their screen. “You empower them and put them in the teaching role,” Highfill adds.

What Are the Benefits of Technology for Students?

Through technology, schools can support all students. There are roughly 60 grade school students and nearly 250 high school students enrolled at Pleasanton Virtual Academy. “I’m so excited our district put in that investment,” Highfill says. “We’re a public school virtual academy. They invested in a quality virtual academy to meet the needs of all students.”

Even students who are learning in an in-person environment are  using technology in their daily lives . Integrating it into the classroom gives them an opportunity to learn to use tech in a meaningful way.

READ MORE:   Build the themes of digital citizenship into instruction and business planning.

“If you have the skills and know how to research and find information and discern whether that information is true or not, that’s going to help you not only in school with your schoolwork, but also with life in general,” Lim says.

“I watch the kids, and they’re very addicted to their devices,” says Highfill. “So, it’s my new teaching point: How can you take a digital diet, and how can you identify when tech is not doing good things for you?”

Highfill says that anytime there’s a fear about introducing technology to the classroom, educators should use that. “We have to teach students how to take care of themselves if they’re going to use technology,” she says.

• Digital Content
• Online Learning
• Digital Workspace
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Transformation

Related Articles

CDW Education Events

Find out what's happening in your area.

Copyright © 2024 CDW LLC 200 N. Milwaukee Avenue , Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Publication

Global education monitoring report summary, 2023: technology in education: a tool on whose terms? (hin)

The new 2023 GEM Report on  Technology in education: A tool on whose terms?  addresses the use of technology in education around the world through the lenses of relevance, equity, scalability and sustainability.

It argues that education systems should always ensure that learners’ interests are placed at the center and that digital technologies are used to support an education based on human interaction rather than aiming at substituting it. The report looks at ways in which technology can help reach disadvantaged learners but also ensure more knowledge reaches more learners in more engaging and cheaper formats. It focuses on how quality can be improved, both in teaching and learning basic skills, and in developing the digital skills needed in daily life. It recognizes the role of technology in system management with special reference to assessment data and other education management information.

Related items

• Guidelines and tools
• Policy Advice
• Country page: India
• Topics: Flagship report
• Region: Asia and the Pacific
• UNESCO Office in New Delhi
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent publications

Technology in Education: An Overview

• Share article

Technology is everywhere in education: Public schools in the United States now provide at least one computer for every five students. They spend more than $3 billion per year on digital content. Led by the federal government, the country is in the midst of a massive effort to make affordable high-speed Internet and free online teaching resources available to even the most rural and remote schools. And in 2015-16, for the first time, more state standardized tests for the elementary and middle grades will be administered via technology than by paper and pencil.

To keep up with what’s changing (and what isn’t), observers must know where to look.

There’s the booming ed-tech industry, with corporate titans and small startups alike vying for a slice of an $8 billion-plus yearly market for hardware and software. Much attention is also paid to the “early adopters”—those districts, schools, and teachers who are making the most ingenious and effective uses of the new tools at their disposal.

But a significant body of research has also made clear that most teachers have been slow to transform the ways they teach, despite the influx of new technology into their classrooms. There remains limited evidence to show that technology and online learning are improving learning outcomes for most students. And academics and parents alike have expressed concerns about digital distractions, ways in which unequal access to and use of technology might widen achievement gaps, and more.

State and federal lawmakers, meanwhile, have wrestled in recent years with the reality that new technologies also present new challenges. The rise of “big data,” for example, has led to new concerns about how schools can keep sensitive student information private and secure.

What follows is an overview of the big trends, opportunities, and concerns associated with classroom technology. Links to additional resources are included in each section for those who would like to dig deeper.

What Is Personalized Learning?

Many in the ed-tech field see new technologies as powerful tools to help schools meet the needs of ever-more-diverse student populations. The idea is that digital devices, software, and learning platforms offer a once-unimaginable array of options for tailoring education to each individual student’s academic strengths and weaknesses, interests and motivations, personal preferences, and optimal pace of learning.

In recent years, a group of organizations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, and EDUCAUSE have crafted a definition of “personalized learning” that rests on four pillars:

• Each student should have a “learner profile” that documents his or her strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and goals;
• Each student should pursue an individualized learning path that encourages him or her to set and manage personal academic goals;
• Students should follow a “competency-based progression” that focuses on their ability to demonstrate mastery of a topic, rather than seat time; and,
• Students’ learning environments should be flexible and structured in ways that support their individual goals.

How does technology support that vision?

In many schools, students are given district-owned computing devices or allowed to bring their own devices from home. The idea is that this allows for “24-7” learning at the time and location of the student’s choosing.

Learning management systems, student information systems, and other software are also used to distribute assignments, manage schedules and communications, and track student progress.

And educational software and applications have grown more “adaptive,” relying on technology and algorithms to determine not only what a student knows, but what his or her learning process is, and even his or her emotional state.

For all the technological progress, though, implementation remains a major challenge. Schools and educators across the country continue to wrestle with the changing role of teachers, how to balance flexible and “personalized” models with the state and federal accountability requirements they still must meet, and the deeper cultural challenge of changing educators’ long-standing habits and routines.

Despite the massive investments that many school systems are making, the evidence that digital personalized learning can improve student outcomes or narrow achievement gaps at scale remains scattered, at best.

Additional resources:

• Taking Stock of Personalized Learning (Education Week special report)
• A Working Definition of Personalized Learning
• Why Ed Tech Is Not Transforming How Teachers Teach

What Is 1-to-1 Computing?

Increasingly, schools are moving to provide students with their own laptop computer, netbook, or digital tablet. Schools purchased more than 23 million devices for classroom use in 2013 and 2014 alone. In recent years, iPads and then Chromebooks (inexpensive Web-based laptops) have emerged as the devices of choice for many schools.

Video: Creating a Digital Culture

The two biggest factors spurring the rise in 1-to-1 student computing have been new mandates that state standardized tests be delivered online and the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards.

Generally, the hope is that putting devices in the hands of students will help with some or all of the following goals:

• Allowing teachers and software to deliver more personalized content and lessons to students, while allowing students to learn at their own pace and ability level;
• Helping students to become technologically skilled and literate and thus better prepared for modern workplaces;
• Empowering students to do more complex and creative work by allowing them to use digital and online applications and tools;
• Improving the administration and management of schools and classrooms by making it easier to gather information on what students know and have done;
• Improving communications among students, teachers, and parents.

Despite the potential benefits, however, many districts have run into trouble when attempting to implement 1-to-1 computing initiatives. Paying for the devices can be a challenge, especially as the strategy of issuing long-term bonds for short-term technology purchases has come into question. Many districts have also run into problems with infrastructure (not enough bandwidth to support all students accessing the Internet at the same time) and deployment (poor planning in distributing and managing thousands of devices.)

The most significant problem for schools trying to go 1-to-1, though, has been a lack of educational vision. Without a clear picture of how teaching and learning is expected to change, experts say, going 1-to-1 often amounts to a “spray and pray” approach of distributing many devices and hoping for the best.

Some critics of educational technology also point to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which found that countries where 15-year old students use computers most in the classroom scored the worst on international reading and math tests.

• Learn More About 1-to-1 Computing
• Hard Lessons Learned in Ambitious L.A. iPad Initiative
• Chromebooks Gaining Popularity in School Districts

What Is Blended Learning?

In its simplest terms, blended learning combines traditional, teacher-to-student lessons with technology-based instruction.

Many schools and districts use a “rotation” model, which is often viewed as an effective means of providing students with more personalized instruction and smaller group experiences. In some cases, saving money (through larger overall class sizes, for example) is also a goal. The basic premise involves students rotating between online and in-person stations for different parts of the day. There are many versions of this approach, however: Do students stay in the classroom or go to a computer lab?

Does online instruction cover core content, or is it primarily for remediation? Are all students doing the same thing online, or do different students have different software and learning experiences?

Video: At Blended Learning School, Students on Flexible Schedules

One big trend for schools involves trying to make sure that what happens online is connected with what happens during face-to-face interactions with teachers. That could involve giving teachers a say in selecting the software that students use, for example, or making a concerted effort to ensure online programs provide teachers with data that is useful in making timely instructional decisions.

Another trend involves boosting students’ access to the Internet outside of school. Robust blended learning programs involve “anytime, anywhere” access to learning content for students—a major challenge in many communities.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle confronting educators interested in blended learning, though, is the lack of a solid research base. As of now, there is still no definitive evidence that blended learning works (or doesn’t.) While some studies have found encouraging results with specific programs or under certain circumstances, the question of whether blended learning positively impacts student learning still has a mostly unsatisfactory answer: “It depends.”

• Blended Learning: Breaking Down Barriers (Education Week special report)
• Blended Learning Research: The 7 Studies You Need to Know
• Learn More About Blended Learning

What Is the Status of Tech Infrastructure and the E-Rate?

The promise of technology in the classroom is almost entirely dependent on reliable infrastructure. But in many parts of the country, schools still struggle to get affordable access to high-speed Internet and/or robust wireless connectivity.

A typical school district network involves multiple components. In 2014, the Federal Communications Commission established connectivity targets for some of the pieces:

• A connection to the broader Internet provided by an outside service provider to the district office (or another central district hub). Target: 100 megabits per second per 1,000 students in the short-term, and 1 Gigabit per second per 1,000 students in the long-term.
• A “Wide Area Network” that provides network connections between the district’s central hub and all of its campuses, office buildings, and other facilities. Target: Connections capable of delivering 10 Gigabits per second per 1,000 students.
• “Local Area Networks” that provide connections within a school, including the equipment necessary to provide Wi-Fi service inside classrooms. Target: The FCC recommended a survey to determine a suitable measure. Many school-technology advocates call for internal connections that support 1-to-1 computing.

To support schools (and libraries) in building and paying for these networks, the FCC in 1996 established a program known as the E-rate. Fees on consumers’ phone bills fund the program, which has paid out more than $30 billion since its inception.

In 2014, the commission overhauled the E-rate, raising the program’s annual spending cap from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion and prioritizing support for broadband service and wireless networks. The changes were already being felt as of Fall 2015; after steadily declining for years, the number of schools and libraries applying for E-rate funds for wireless network equipment skyrocketed, with nearly all of the applicants expected to receive a portion of the $1.6 billion in overall wireless-related requests.

As part of the E-rate overhaul, the FCC also approved a series of regulatory changes aimed at leveling the playing field for rural and remote schools, which often face two big struggles: accessing the fiber-optic cables that experts say are essential to meeting the FCC’s long-term goals, and finding affordable rates.

Infrastructure in some contexts can also be taken to include learning devices, digital content, and the policies and guidelines that govern how they are expected to be used in schools (such as “responsible use policies” and “digital citizenship” programs aimed to ensure that students and staff are using technology appropriately and in support of learning goals.)

Another big—and often overlooked—aspect of infrastructure is what’s known as interoperability. Essentially, the term refers to common standards and protocols for formatting and handling data so that information can be shared between software programs. A number of frameworks outline data interoperability standards for different purposes. Many hope to see the field settle on common standards in the coming years.

Additional Resources:

• The Typical School Network (EducationSuperHighway)
• The E-rate Overhaul in 4 Easy Charts
• Reversing a Raw Deal: Rural Schools Still Struggle to Access Affordable High Speed Internet (Education Week special series)

How Is Online Testing Evolving?

The biggest development on this front has been states’ adoption of online exams aligned with the Common Core State Standards. During the 2014-15 school year, 10 states (plus the District of Columbia) used exams from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and 18 states used exams from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, all of which were delivered primarily online. Many of the other states also used online assessments.

The 2015-16 school year will be the first in which more state-required summative assessments in U.S. middle and elementary schools will be delivered via technology rather than paper and pencil, according to a recent analysis by EdTech Strategies, an educational technology consulting firm.

Beyond meeting legislative mandates, perceived benefits include cost savings, ease of administration and analysis, and the potential to employ complex performance tasks.

But some states—including Florida, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin—have experienced big problems with online tests, ranging from cyber attacks to log-in problems to technical errors. And there is growing evidence that students who take the paper-and-pencil version of some important tests perform better than peers who take the same exams online, at least in the short term.

Nevertheless, it appears likely that online testing will continue to grow—and not just for state summative assessments. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, is among those pushing for a greater use of technologically enhanced formative assessments that can be used to diagnose students’ abilities in close to real time. In the department’s 2016 National Education Technology Plan, for example, it calls for states and districts to “design, develop, and implement learning dashboards, response systems, and communication pathways that give students, educators, families, and other stakeholders timely and actionable feedback about student learning to improve achievement and instructional practices.”

• PARCC Scores Lower for Students Who Took Exams on Computers
• Map: The National K-12 Testing Landscape
• Pencils Down: The Shift to Online and Computer-Based Testing (EdTech Strategies)
• Online Testing Glitches Causing Distrust in Technology
• U.S. Ed-Tech Plan Calls Attention to ‘Digital-Use Divide’

How Are Digital Materials Used in Classrooms?

Digital instructional content is the largest slice of the (non-hardware) K-12 educational technology market, with annual sales of more then $3 billion. That includes digital lessons in math, English/language arts, and science, as well as “specialty” subjects such as business and fine arts. The market is still dominated by giant publishers such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Pearson, who have been scrambling to transition from their print-centric legacy products to more digital offerings.

But newcomers with one-off products or specific areas of expertise have made inroads, and some apps and online services have also gained huge traction inside of schools.

As a result, many schools use a mix of digital resources, touting potential benefits such as greater ability to personalize, higher engagement among students, enhanced ability to keep content updated and current, and greater interactivity and adaptivity (or responsiveness to individual learners).

Still, though, the transition to digital instructional materials is happening slowly, for reasons that range from the financial (for districts that haven’t been able to purchase devices for all students, for example) to the technical (districts that lack the infrastructure to support every student being online together.) Print still accounts for about 70 percent of pre-K-12 instructional materials sales in the United States.

• Learn More About Digital Curriculum
• Digital Content Providers Ride Wave of Rising Revenues
• K-12 Print Needs Persist Despite Digital Growth

What Are Open Educational Resources?

Rather than buying digital instructional content, some states and districts prefer using “open” digital education resources that are licensed in such a way that they can be freely used, revised, and shared. The trend appears likely to accelerate: The U.S. Department of Education, for example, is now formally encouraging districts to move away from textbooks and towards greater adoption of OER.

New York and Utah have led the way in developing open educational resources and encouraging their use by schools. The K-12 OER Collaborative, which includes 12 states and several nonprofit organizations, is working to develop OER materials as well.

Proponents argue that OER offer greater bang for the buck, while also giving students better access to a wider array of digital materials and teachers more flexibility to customize instructional content for individual classrooms and students. Some also believe OER use encourages collaboration among teachers. Concerns from industry and others generally focus on the quality of open materials, as well as the challenges that educators face in sifting through voluminous one-off resources to find the right material for every lesson.

• What is OER? (Creative Commons)
• Districts Put Open Educational Resources to Work
• Calculating the Return on Open Educational Resources

How Are Virtual Education and Distance Learning Doing?

One technology trend that has come under increasing scrutiny involves full-time online schools, particularly cyber charters. About 200,000 students are enrolled in about 200 publicly funded, independently managed online charter schools across 26 states.

But such schools were found to have an “overwhelming negative impact” on student learning in a comprehensive set of studies released in 2015 by a group of research organizations, including Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University.

That research did not cover the more than two dozen full-time online schools that are state-run, however, nor did it cover the dozens more that are run by individual school districts. Thousands upon thousands of students who are enrolled in traditional brick-and-mortar schools also take individual courses online. Five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia—now require students to have some online learning to graduate. Other states, such as Utah, have passed laws encouraging such options for students.

For many students, especially those in rural and remote areas, online and distance learning can offer access to courses, subjects, and teachers they might otherwise never be able to find. Such opportunities can also benefit advanced and highly motivated students and those with unusual schedules and travel requirements, and be a useful tool to keep schools running during snow days.

But so far, achieving positive academic outcomes at scale via online learning has proven difficult, and many observers have expressed concerns about the lack of accountability in the sector, especially as relates to for-profit managers of online options.

• Learn More About Remote/Virtual Learning
• Cyber Charters Have ‘Overwhelming Negative Impact’

Education Issues, Explained

How to Cite This Article Herold, B. (2016, February 5). Technology in Education An Overview. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/technology/technology-in-education-an-overview/2016/02

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Online Experience

Integrating Technology in the Classroom: Best Practices

Technology has been reshaping society throughout time. Long before ChatGPT came on the scene, digital technologies started changing the world of work and the skills required for success. As one proof point, the World Economic Forum says that new technologies will remain a key driver of business transformation through 2027. 1 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides more proof in its projection of 23% job growth for computer and information research scientists from 2022-2032. 2 That's compared to 0.3% annual growth for jobs overall during the same time. 3

The Importance of Technology in Education

Because our society and economy are so dependent on technology, school leaders and teachers must prioritize creating technology literacy as part of making sure students are ready for life beyond high school. Getting the best results from technology integrations may require new operating methods and problem-solving techniques but still relies on proven principles and goals for education and enhancing student learning experiences. This blog explores best practices for effectively using technology to create engaging, interactive, and inclusive learning environments. Discover how embracing technological advancements can prepare students for a tech-savvy future while supporting their diverse learning needs.

Building Modern Skills for Success

Developing technical skills such as digital literacy, coding, and data analysis are essential to prepare students for tech-driven careers and beyond. Basic technical skills are important for navigating online platforms, understanding digital tools, and making data-informed decisions. 4

Soft skills like empathy and collaboration are equally vital because they help students communicate effectively, resolve conflicts, and work well in diverse, tech-rich environments. These skills ensure students can ethically and responsibly interact in digital spaces and contribute positively to online communities. 5

Enhancing Learning Experiences

Gamified learning tools like Zearn, Amira, and Duolingo provide personalized learning platforms that adapt to each student's pace and skill level. Interactive digital technology like this can make learning fun, keeping students actively engaged to achieve better outcomes. 4

While technology enhances learning, it's crucial to maintain balance. Over-reliance on tech can be counterproductive. Educators should integrate technology in moderation to ensure it complements traditional teaching methods, adding instructional value without overwhelming students. 6

Supporting Diverse Learners

Technology supports diverse learning needs by enabling differentiated instruction. Tools like interactive quizzes and multimedia resources cater to various learning styles, helping every student grasp complex concepts effectively. Technology tools can also foster collaboration among students. Features that support group work and peer interaction help students learn from each other, promoting a more inclusive and supportive learning environment.

Digital Literacy: Preparing Students for a Tech-Savvy Future

Digital literacy involves using technology to learn, create, and participate in the digital world. It is essential for students to develop these skills to navigate and leverage technology effectively both inside and outside the classroom. 7

Digital Citizenship

Teaching digital citizenship helps students understand the ethical use of technology and the responsibilities that come with interaction in virtual worlds.

Key areas to cover include: 5, 6, 7

• Misinformation and disinformation
• Balancing online and offline activities
• Mental health topics

A responsible use policy (RUP) is valuable for teaching digital citizenship. In addition to setting boundaries for acceptable behavior, it can help students focus on positive behaviors like giving credit to content creators, being kind online, and using technology to solve problems. An effective RUP includes clear purpose statements, desired behaviors, and plans for resolving issues. 8

Essential Digital Skills

Coding, data analysis, and online research are digital skills that will help students thrive. These foundational skills enable students to use technology effectively and prepare them for future academic and career opportunities.

Considerations for Implementing Educational Technology

While there are many technical aspects to choosing instructional technology, it’s important to begin with a clear understanding of your goals and to assess and plan for the human considerations surrounding technology use.

Start with Clear Objectives

To successfully integrate technology in the classroom, start by identifying specific instructional goals. Focus on the learning activity and explore how the chosen technology aligns with lesson objectives and enhances the learning experience. 9 Consider how class time will be spent and select learning technology tools that match the educational goals without requiring extensive time to learn. For young kindergarten and elementary school students, prioritize digital technologies that support fundamental skills without excessive screen time, ensuring that the time spent on devices is appropriate for their age and learning needs.

Foster a Growth Mindset

Teaching students to have a growth mindset, which holds that intelligence can be developed through effort and perseverance, is even more important than teaching students to use the tools. You can play a vital role as a teacher by emphasizing hard work and providing ample opportunities for practice and feedback. Supporting students through challenges and valuing learning over innate talent reinforces this mindset, creating a motivating classroom environment. 10

Because digital technology is always evolving, teachers must also embrace a growth mindset in their work. By learning alongside them, you can encourage students and model the habits of a lifelong learner. 11

Teacher Professional Development Is Essential

New educational technologies can provide a wealth of data about student progress, but teachers need to be trained to understand what the data is telling them. Being more data literate helps teachers understand student needs better and adapt their teaching methods accordingly, driving improved student outcomes. That is one of the reasons the University of Iowa’s Online Master of Arts in Teaching, Leadership, and Cultural Competency core curriculum includes a choice of courses on technology integration or participatory learning and media, along with several STEM electives.

However, only a fraction of teachers have learned to analyze data in their preparation programs, highlighting the need for ongoing professional development. School districts must support teachers in their efforts to become more adept at analyzing data, as well as helping them keep up with developments in educational technology. 7

Make the Technology Accessible

Ensuring accessibility in instructional technology involves both effective communication and thoughtful choice of technology. Teachers and school administrators should eliminate jargon and clearly explain the technology's use and data to make new technology non-threatening for students and their families. 7

Providing clear communication and resources to families helps them understand classroom technology and fosters trust and collaboration. Establishing a two-way communication channel with families through your school's learning management system or another digital platform can also extend the classroom, empowering caregivers to support and reinforce positive technology use at home. 6

Additionally, it's crucial to consider how students access lessons outside of school. Frequently, lower-income students have greater access to smartphones than high-speed internet, so being aware of which digital devices can support your educational content is essential. 7

Protect Student Privacy

Student privacy is an important and multifaceted issue. It includes protecting information about and from students, their families, and schools. Two major federal laws, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), outline protections for student data.

While there's a lot to understand, begin by consulting school and district policies for guidelines. Also, consider incorporating lessons into classwork that educate students on privacy risks and strategies to protect their own information. 6, 7

Choose the Right Tools

To effectively incorporate technology into the classroom, begin with how the tool(s) support achieving instructional goals and enhance learning experiences. Good reasons to use technology in education include encouraging engagement, differentiating and personalizing instruction, and increasing digital fluency. 4

Consider the following:

Purpose and Goals :

• Start by asking questions : Identify the specific learning activity and explore how assistive technology can help your students achieve the desired results
• Instructional alignment : Choose tools that match your instructional goals, such as screencasting software for making student presentations, or AI-assisted tutoring programs that allow students to progress at their own pace 12

Quality and Engagement :

• Interactive over passive : to increase student engagement, prioritize tools that offer interactive opportunities over passive consumption
• Task monitoring : Select platforms that allow you to track the students' learning process and provide timely feedback. Also consider whether there are integrations with other instructional technology such as your school's learning management system

Student Perspective :

• Ease of use : Evaluate the tool from a student's perspective to ensure it’s user-friendly
• Free vs. paid versions : Consider the impact of ads and age-appropriateness in free versions, and regularly check for updates 13  

Engagement Features :

• Motivational elements : Be mindful of features like streaks and rewards, which can encourage engagement but may also lead to compulsive behaviors

Monitor and Evaluate

Ensure the success of technology integrations by regularly monitoring the results and comparing them to desired learning outcomes. One approach is to use the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework. The PDSA model involves planning a change, implementing it, studying the results, and acting on what is learned. 14

Base the study phase on technology-generated data, combined with feedback from students and, if relevant, family members or other stakeholders. To borrow a phrase from the technology field, consider designing your program to "fail fast" to get to success. With this approach, you implement limited-scope pilot programs and short evaluation cycles, iterating quickly to refine your approach for the best results. 4, 5

Effective Use of Educational Technology

Research indicates you can achieve the best results by using digital technology in the classroom with a blended learning approach. A recent meta-study of higher education results published by the Brookings Institution also has implications for best practices in using technology in K-12 settings. Blended learning combines traditional in-class instruction with online and digital learning experiences. This approach allows students to engage with course material both inside and outside the classroom, enhancing their overall learning experience. In addition, using a blended learning approach can be easier for teachers, particularly those who are learning to use the technology, to implement. 15

What is a Flipped Classroom?

The flipped classroom is a popular method of implementing blended learning. In this model, students watch digitized or online classes as homework, freeing up face-to-face class time for active learning activities such as discussions, peer teaching, projects, and problem-solving. 15

Theoretical Benefits

According to constructivist theory, this active learning approach enables students to build upon their pre-existing knowledge, resulting in deeper understanding. It also reduces cognitive load during class, allowing students to form more complex ideas. 15

Effectiveness in Practice

Research has shown that students in flipped classrooms perform better academically compared to traditional lecture-based settings, particularly in language, technology, and health science courses. Smaller gains in student outcomes were found in math and engineering courses. The Brookings study also showed that "In addition to confirming that flipped learning has a positive impact on foundational knowledge (the most common outcome in prior reviews of the research), we found that flipped pedagogies had a modest positive effect on higher-order thinking. Flipped learning was particularly effective at helping students learn professional and academic skills." 15

Practical Considerations

Teachers can use various platforms, such as the school's learning management systems, class blogs, or shared documents, to help students access online courses, creating authentic learning experiences both at home and in school. 6

How Educational Technology Supports Student Engagement

Classroom technology and specific approaches to using assistive technology in lesson plans can support student engagement in several ways. Interactive learning through technologies ranging from interactive smartboards and online quizzes to educational apps can make the learning experience more dynamic and engaging. 16

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the flipped classroom can provide meaningful opportunities for student interactions, and well-designed lessons can provide valuable support for developing students' intra- and interpersonal skills. 15

Project-based learning can be a powerful approach to technology-aided education. ISTE.org, an association of K-12 and university educators "dedicated to making teaching and learning more meaningful for educators and learners around the globe," 17 has suggested using project-based, creative assessments to supplement traditional assessments at least once a semester.

In these assessments, "The teacher poses a question, tells students what the standards are and asks them to demonstrate their knowledge through a creative project." The project could take many different forms, depending on your subject, grade level, available technology, and educational goals. Students build problem-solving skills along with deepening their mastery of the subject while working through the assessments. 18

What Tech Do You Need in the Classroom?

Instructional technology can be divided into four categories: learning management systems, content creation and presentation, application software, and collaborative tools.

The potential benefits of a learning management system (LMS) begin with making it easier to store and update lesson plans, but go much further. Depending on the specific system and its integrations, your LMS can store lesson resources, accept student assignments and administer assessments, help students and teachers monitor progress, record grades, and report aggregate performance data.

Content creation and presentation tools include interactive whiteboards (smartboards), laptop computers and tablets. In addition to offering many ways to "write" on the board, a smartboard can typically display rich media, offer interactive activities for students to engage with, and connect to the internet. Some can even save lessons and send them to students who have missed a class session. 19 Education technology is dynamic, with new apps and software being developed regularly. Online resources, including ISTE, Edutopia, and Commonsense, frequently publish roundups of popular apps and software. Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom are popular tools for collaboration and online education.

Embracing AI's Potential in Modern Education

AI is poised to change work and society in ways we can hardly begin to anticipate. By embracing its potential, schools help prepare students for future careers and societal roles. Additionally, AI is already providing educational benefits, including personalized learning and intelligent tutoring, through its integration with popular tools like Amira and Duolingo.

Critical Thinking and Responsibility

Teach students to think critically and act responsibly when working with AI. This includes understanding AI's capabilities and limitations and recognizing ethical considerations. 20

Process-Focused Learning

Design lesson plans that focus on the learning process. Use AI as a launching pad for students' creativity or critical thought rather than as an end in itself. Emphasize the importance of developing ideas and continual improvement. 21

Specific Tips for Teachers

Teachers can incorporate the following tips, cleverly developed around the acronym “ChatGPT” by Jack Dougall, a secondary school humanities and business teacher in Spain, into their project instructions to help students effectively use AI tools: 22

• Converse : Engage in dialogue with AI; it's not a simple search engine
• Hypothesize : Predict possible responses to identify errors
• Adapt : Reframe questions or dive deeper if initial responses aren't sufficient
• Think : Reflect on AI responses for accuracy and bias
• Gather : Cross-verify AI-generated information with other sources
• Probe : Ask follow-up questions for deeper understanding
• Train : Continually refine interactions with AI for effective use 

A Technology Case Study with Real-World Inspiration

You don’t need a hefty technology budget to start integrating technology tools into your classroom as long as you approach it creatively. Mary Howard, a sixth-grade teacher in Grand Island, New York, capitalized on the popularity of escape rooms to create an interactive digital exercise with built-in engagement mechanisms. 23 In Howard's escape room lesson, student teams created their own escape room activities by developing narratives, designing puzzles, and embedding clues using digital tools like QR codes. They then presented their challenges to their classmates. This process encouraged students to engage deeply with the material, apply problem-solving skills, and collaborate effectively.

The attraction for students is based on four principles: narrative-based challenges, a time element, solution or reward focus, and the inclusion of clues, riddles, or puzzles. Exercises like these can be adapted with tools like Klikaklu or GooseChase for various subjects and grade levels. 23

Embrace the Technology Integration Journey with the University of Iowa

Integrating technology in the classroom can enhance learning experiences, support diverse learners, and prepare students for a tech-driven future. Educators can create engaging and effective learning environments by focusing on digital literacy, fostering a growth mindset, and using innovative tools and methods like AI and flipped classrooms. Being open to new ideas and cultivating a growth mindset are keys to your professional development and providing a model for students to follow.

If you're ready to deepen your understanding of how technology can support student success, consider the University of Iowa's affordable, part-time Online MA in Teaching, Leadership, and Cultural Competency (MATLCC) . The program equips you with conceptual frameworks, strategies, and tactics that can empower students for 21st-century success and fuel your growth as an educational professional. You can keep teaching while you learn and immediately apply your new skills. Contact an admissions outreach advisor to learn more.

• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/digest/
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from  commonsense.org/education/articles/3-essential-questions-for-edtech-use
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/edtech-for-good-experts-weigh-in
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from commonsense.org/education/articles/teachers-essential-guide-to-teaching-with-technology
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from newleaders.org/blog/how-the-best-k-12-education-leaders-build-data-literacy
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/5-tips-for-creating-a-district-responsible-use-policy 
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from https://iste.org/blog/stop-talking-tech-3-tips-for-pedagogy-based-coaching
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from apa.org/ed/precollege/psychology-teacher-network/introductory-psychology/growth-mindset-classroom-cultures
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/iste-certified-educator-shares-4-tips-for-teaching-with-tech
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/stop-talking-tech-3-tips-for-pedagogy-based-coaching
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from edutopia.org/article/evaluating-tech-tools-classroom
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from edutopia.org/article/data-literacy-skills-teachers/
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from brookings.edu/articles/flipped-learning-what-is-it-and-when-is-it-effective
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from edutopia.org/video/flipped-class-which-tech-tools-are-right-you/
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/our-story
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/with-imagination-and-the-right-apps-students-learn-and-can-prove-it
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from insights.samsung.com/2024/05/15/what-are-the-advantages-of-smart-boards-in-the-classroom-2/
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from https://iste.org/blog/what-educators-and-students-can-learn-from-chatgpt
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from https://iste.org/blog/chatgpt-ban-it-no-embrace-it-yes
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from https://iste.org/blog/help-students-think-more-deeply-with-chatgpt
• Retrieved on July 24, 2024, from iste.org/blog/use-escape-rooms-to-deepen-learning

Return to University of Iowa Education Blog

This will only take a moment.

Spring 2025 Term

The University of Iowa has engaged Everspring , a leading provider of education and technology services, to support select aspects of program delivery.

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

• News & Media Home
• Research Stories
• School’s In
• In the Media

You are here

New study explores what makes digital learning products more – or less – effective.

Educational technology has become a fixture in the U.S. classroom, but scholars continue to debate its effectiveness – some even arguing that the products might deter learning by taking students’ time and attention away from more powerful supports. 

What does research show about the effectiveness of edtech? Does the impact vary when it comes to teaching certain skills and student populations? How can schools determine which products are most useful for their own setting and purposes? 

A new Stanford-led study sheds light on the value of edtech interventions, with a focus on products aimed at helping elementary school students develop early reading skills. In a meta-analysis of studies conducted over the past two decades, the researchers found that the effectiveness of tech products varied considerably, depending on particular features of the interventions and the skills they targeted. 

“When we talk about digital learning products, they’re really not all the same – there’s a wide range,” said Rebecca Silverman , the Judy Koch Professor of Education at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning , and the study’s lead author. “There isn’t a single answer to whether digital technologies support literacy. The question is much more complex: Which products, with which characteristics, under which conditions?” 

The paper , published July 31 in the peer-reviewed journal Review of Educational Research , was co-authored by Elena Darling-Hammond, a doctoral student at the GSE; Kristin Keane, a postdoctoral scholar at the GSE; and Saurabh Khanna, PhD ’23, who is now an assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam. 

Stanford GSE Professor Rebecca Silverman

Accounting for variability

For the meta-analysis, the researchers drew on 119 studies published between 2010 and 2023 to examine the use of various digital interventions in kindergarten through fifth grade, including computer programs, e-books, online games, and videos. 

The study is unique, they said, in its focus on edtech at the elementary school level and its review of interventions across four skills: decoding (the ability to read words quickly and accurately), language comprehension (understanding the meaning of words), reading comprehension (processing the meaning of a passage), and writing proficiency (the ability to convey ideas in writing).

Their analysis found positive effects on elementary school students’ reading skills overall, indicating that generally, investing in educational technology to support literacy is warranted. But when the researchers isolated particular learning outcomes to measure effectiveness, they found wide variability, suggesting that the effectiveness of a particular edtech product can depend on different factors, including features of the tool and characteristics of the users.

The authors observed that most studies – and the majority of products in the marketplace – focused on basic decoding, where students use phonetic skills to understand the relationship between written letters and their sounds. Relatively few studies considered language and reading comprehension, and only a handful looked at writing proficiency. 

“Decoding is a fairly constrained construct involving a relatively circumscribed set of skills,” Silverman said. “There are only so many letters and sounds and letter-sound combinations that kids need to learn, so it’s generally easier to teach and see change over time.”

Language comprehension is a more complex construct, she said, involving a vast number of concepts, word meanings, and sentence constructions and the ability to make connections and build knowledge. “Its complexity makes it harder to teach and see progress. But it’s a crucial skill to be able to access texts and content, so we need more tools and research focused on that piece.” 

Product features that appeared to account for some of the variability in effectiveness included the type of technology, the duration of the intervention, and the instructional approach (that is, whether it emphasized repetition and facts, strategies to organize and process information, or open-ended tasks). 

The analysis found, for example, that certain personalization, gamification, and interactive feedback features, like pop-up questions and clickable definitions, were not effective for supporting more complex skills like reading comprehension.  

Where student characteristics were concerned, socioeconomic status surfaced as one factor moderating effectiveness: With decoding as an outcome, for example, studies with a substantial percentage of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds tended to have larger effects compared with other studies, which Silverman said could be due to the programs they used being more geared toward their needs. 

The researchers suspected that disability and language status would also emerge as a factor in the variability they uncovered, but few studies disaggregated findings based on these backgrounds. 

“A program might not benefit some kids as much as others, and if we don’t track that in a systematic way, we’re not going to know,” Silverman said. “Right now, it’s not being systematically captured in the research, and that’s a problem.” 

The researchers also noted that few studies addressed edtech’s impact on students’ motivation or engagement, and few included follow-up over time, to assess whether the effects lasted months or even years after the intervention. 

Considerations for school leaders

The findings point to several directions for educators and policymakers, the researchers concluded. For one thing, Silverman said, districts contemplating a particular product should carefully consider whether it’s appropriate for their population of students, and whether the content and approach aligns with the curriculum and classroom teaching. 

She advised that, rather than taking marketing claims at face value, districts conduct a critical analysis of any program before deciding whether to adopt it for their schools. “Is it following the principles of effective practice for the skills you’re targeting with that program?” she said. “What studies have been done on it? How strong is the company’s own research? Has anybody done any independent research?”

Districts can also generate their own data, for example, by running a pilot program in which some schools or classrooms implement an edtech intervention, comparing their outcomes against the schools that don’t. “You may not be able to isolate [the effects of the program] completely,” Silverman said, “but an analysis can suggest whether this product is helpful.”

If a product doesn't appear to produce positive effects, districts can partner with researchers to try to figure out why — or they can move on to trying other tools and evaluate those, she said. “We don’t want kids to keep using products that aren’t helpful.”  

More Stories

⟵ Go to all Research Stories

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Select your location

• North America English
• Brazil Português
• Latin America Español

Asia Pacific

• Australia English
• Germany Deutsch
• Spain Español
• United Kingdom English
• Benelux Dutch
• Italy Italiano

10 Benefits of Technology in the Classroom

Table of Contents

There are many benefits of technology in the classroom. From accessibility to increased personalization and rich digital resources, teachers are learning how to use technology best to meet the needs of their diverse student population. 

In Instructure’s State of Teaching & Learning in K-12 Education Research , 86% of teachers, parents, and educators believe using educational technology resources impacts students' success. Recently, classrooms have seen tremendous growth in technology use, which has come with growing pains, but the benefits of committing to long-term technology outweigh the risks.

“Now, more than ever, we recognize that digital tools are a great way to honor, respect, and provide equitable experiences for all students. It is a great way to give them what they need when they need it.”–Nancy Brightwell, Cheif Academic Officer at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Let’s dig into some of the many benefits of using technology in the classroom today.

#1 Increases Student Engagement

Students are engaging with technology outside of school. Educators can embrace this reality and use technology to cultivate interactive and creative learning experiences for their students in the classroom. Video , for instance, can inspire and spark conversation in today’s students.

#2 Establishes Consistency

A shared environment, like a learning management system, for every student, teacher, and guardian creates a place for connection and consistency. For most of history, this place has been the physical classroom. However, modern tools can recreate this familiarity in a digital environment.

“Canvas LMS can be the single landing place where you add all the digital curricula, content, and tools to support student learning, so students don't have to go to multiple places to find what they need.” –Trenton Goble, VP of K-12 Strategy at Instructure.

#3 Opens Communication Lines

Administrators face different challenges than their students, teachers, and families. For schools to operate smoothly, each of these parties needs to feel comfortable communicating about their challenges and confident they can reach out for support. Students know they can get help outside the physical classroom, and parents stay informed about their student’s learning (i.e., by using observer status to keep a pulse on what’s happening in the classroom). Administrators can offer support to teachers and families through the avenue that works best for their community, such as:

Office Hours

Phone & Email Support

Newsletters

“Creating synchronous support made us [administrators] available to them [teachers and families]." Dr. Lisa Gilbert, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction at Kern County Schools

#4 Streamlines Feedback

To grow, students need to hear feedback from their teachers; the sooner they receive it, the better. Teachers, on the other hand, have a lot on their plate. Technology features like SpeedGrader can help teachers quickly provide feedback when and where students need it most.

#5 Eases Student Anxiety

Technology can either amplify or alleviate anxiety. Answering the Fundamental Five , such as what students need to do when they need to do it and where they can reach out for support, helps educators accomplish the latter.

#6 Allows for Data-Informed Action

The right technology gives teachers the data they need when they need it most.

“For us, the focus is on real-time formative data. That is what is most meaningful. That is what we want to be able to work around. We can respond to needs more quickly than relying solely on end-of-the-year data. That is helpful, and we need to look at it, and we need to look for patterns and trends and address the issues we see there, but for us, it is more about real-time, what is happening now .” Nancy Brightwell, Chief Academic Officer at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

A practical assessment management system is one way to access real-time information so educators can intervene efficiently.

#7 Boosts College & Career Readiness

Technology is integral to our world. Connecting students with the right technology empowers them to take ownership of their learning in the present and prepares them for future success.

“We are thinking about our demographic and want to encourage as many students as possible to pursue post-secondary opportunities. It helps our teachers to embrace ‘the why’ when they learn that all our community colleges across our state are utilizing Canvas LMS.”–Dr. Lisa Gilbert, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction at Kern County Schools

#8 Facilitates Collaboration

Classrooms without technology are bound to the time in the physical classroom for collaboration. Using technology makes students, teachers, and their families accessible beyond the confines of the building, whether through Zoom or Team meetings virtually or using Google Docs to work together on a project. Both foster collaboration and comments, version history, and activity in these tools inform teachers about who is contributing and who needs to engage.

#9 Reduces Paper Waste

Paper is still a valuable resource for schools. Estimates report that a typical school will use over 2,000 sheets of paper daily. Using digital resources and tech tools can save:

Educators' time at the printer

Students the stress of scouring folders for the correct sheet of paper to turn in

Schools the cost of ink, toner, and reams of paper

Excess paper from being thrown into the recycling bin

#10 Personalizes Learning

Each student’s preferred learning path is unique. Technology provides opportunities to differentiate instruction and personalize learning by offering students multiple assignment submission types or a variety of mediums through which to learn new material. (i.e., Videos, podcasts, articles, etc.)  

“Some things we have leveraged extensively are understanding how important digital content is and truly personalizing learning for students.”–Nancy Brightwell, Chief Academic Officer at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

How to Prepare Students for the Digital World

Schools like Kern County continue to wonder how they can better prepare students for the increasingly digital world they'll grow into. Specific examples of how to get started with technology in the classroom can help outline the next steps for putting students on the path to lifelong success.

“We are graduating our students into a [digital] world. And these are the skillsets that we need to be helping them learn and apply…Do we not have a responsibility to ensure that our students are familiar with them? So that they can focus on the content they are learning, use the tools to dig deeper, collaborate online, and do all the wonderful things that Canvas LMS allows us to do.”–Dr. Lisa Gilbert, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction at Kern County Schools

Examples of Technology in the Classroom

Many effective technology tools are accessible and built with educators and students in mind. 

The modern classroom is no longer limited to blackboards and overhead projectors. Educators power their classrooms with a wide variety of tools and platforms that enrich the learning experience for students. Let's explore some common examples.

E-textbooks are now commonplace in many of today's classrooms and accessible from any device. They come with interactive features such as multimedia, hyperlinks, and search functions. The digital shift over the years has made learning more engaging and contributed to reducing the physical weight of backpacks and promote environmental sustainability.

Online Courses

The rise of platforms like Nearpod and Khan Academy signifies the growing importance of personalize online learning content in courses. These platforms offer courses on a variety of topics, allow students to learning at their own pace by rewinding lessons and accessing learning materials from anywhere. Online courses break geographical barriers, making high-quality education accessible to students everywhere.

Learning Management Systems

Canvas is a prime example of an LMS transforming education. It is the digital hub for teachers to organize courses, grade assignments, and communicate with students. Canvas streamlines the learning process with features such as quizzes, discussion boards, and integrations with other tools loved by teachers and students. It supports learning everywhere it happens, both in the hybrid or in the physical classroom.

Graphic Design Tools

Today's classrooms are full of tomorrow's creatives. Tools like Adobe Spark and Canva allow students (and teachers!) to tap into their creativity and showcase what they know in a variety of innovative ways such as videos, infographics, and posters. Educators can similarly use these tools to customize their online classrooms and create inspiring lessons.

Tablets are a staple in many classrooms that keep students connected to the digital content they need to succeed. iPads are one example that many schools use to take their blended learning strategies to the next level.

Video Conferencing Tools

Tools like Zoom and Google Meet bring everyone together easily no matter where they're located. Teachers can also use these tools to broaden the horizons of their classroom by creating virtual field trip experiences for their students and hosting guest speakers who may not otherwise be able to attend in person.

All in all, a massive benefit of technology in the classroom is student success. To learn more about tackling the challenges associated with technology in the classroom, download your free copy of Removing Roadblocks to Teaching with Technology .

Discover More Topics:

Ebooks & Buyer’s Guides

Removing Roadblocks to Teaching with Technology

Research Reports

The State of Teaching and Learning in K- 12 Education

On-Demand Webinars

Connecting Teaching with Tech

Stay in the know.

The Benefits Of Using Technology In Learning

While technology opens new horizons, adapting to this is more challenging. What are the benefits of technology in learning and education?

contributed by Yulia Gorenko , Unicheck

While technology opens new horizons for education at home, adapting to this is more challenging. What are the pros and cons of remote teaching technology?

Education is one of the sectors hardest hit by the COVID-19 lockdown with social distancing measures meaning schools could be closed for the foreseeable future. 

However, thanks to technology, teachers are still able to continue teaching and students don’t lag behind. And while this is good news, many educators face new challenges due to this switch to remote learning, and for some, it takes time to accustom.

Let’s take a look at the challenges and advantages of remote teaching and technology for teachers.

Challenges Of Using Technology In Learning

In remote education, students are more responsible for the outcome of their learning. And as increasing numbers of teachers and students adapt to this new reality, more challenges are coming their way.

So many distractions for students

Online students face a huge number of distractions from their learning. And it’s no wonder: technology offers learners so many opportunities for entertainment or communication, they often participate in them during lessons — whether it be scrolling TikTok, chatting, or browsing. Every teacher now has to explore new technical and pedagogical means to keep students focused.

Adapting to round-the-clock availability

Going to a traditional school formed a clear daily routine: with a fixed duration of lessons, breaks, and free time after that. Now, it’s down to students to plan their day and distribute the workloads on their own. Teachers may also struggle with the 24-hour online availability. It’s hard to ‘escape’ from a remote school. On top of this, since learning and resting now takes place at home, it feels like school is open the whole time. 

Time and labor-consuming course planning

Using lots of new tools and techniques turns teachers into students too. 

While they already had everything ready for in-school lessons, each remote lesson now requires teachers to convert these learning materials into forms more suitable for online education.

Including hardware, software, training, and more.

The Benefits Of Using Technology For Learning

Technology opens up a new space for learning where students are allowed more freedom, and teachers are guides in an exciting new world of almost infinite knowledge.

Collaborative learning environment regardless of location

Without effective collaboration between learners and teachers, students often lose motivation due to the perceived lack of community and a sense of shared learning. This is why it is critical to use various forms of online interaction, from text messages and video conferencing to collaborative interactive projects and the latest online platforms, to support students and keep them engaged. 

Encouraging active participation

Remote teaching gives learners flexibility you won’t find in the traditional classroom setting. Instead of having all students participate simultaneously, teachers can schedule separate group or individual lessons, give personalized content, and always stay in touch.

Jerry Blumengarten, a connected educator with more than 30 years of experience, suggests, “To make distant learning work, you should prepare tutorials on the use of the tech tools you will be using for your instructors and students. This should be done in a step-by-step simple way to avoid any confusion and mistakes. Provide a contact number where you can be reached to answer any questions and offer further help to your students.”

Engaging Students In New Ways

Online distance learning allows you to move from static learning materials to more dynamic interactive media content. Another benefit of technology in learning is that students often learn faster when they are not only listening to the teacher and reading textbooks but also participating in engaging academic activity. That’s why it’s a great idea to encourage learning using short quizzes, exercises with elements of gamification , interactive apps, and more.

Easier Plagiarism Detection

Technology is your friend when it comes to academic integrity, and is the bestway to effectively check works for plagiarism. Text similarity detection tools like Unicheck thoroughly scan students’ texts for plagiarism and help teachers see where students have relied too heavily on other sources. There are dozens of reasons why students cheat, but it’s the teacher’s role to teach them to realize that this won’t help  – either in school or in life.

Assessment And Grading Automation

You can use various interactive tests and multiple-choice quizzes to quickly and easily check student knowledge. Utilize online grading tools to organize your grade book, see overall marks for every student, and empower them to follow their success. 

Changing Roles For Student And Teacher

With information easily available online, the teacher’s role as a subject expert becomes less critical. It’s the ability to guide students through these volumes of information that really matters in modern education.

At the same time, finding the most effective ways of learning from different sources together with students makes teachers co-learners rather than the sole source of knowledge. And this is exactly the behavior that can inspire students and encourage them to study beyond the curriculum. It might look like teachers are losing control, but in fact, these new approaches build real trust and respect within the class.

Adopting Progressive Educational Technologies

Information technology in education provides a large variety of new methods for teachers. Mobile educational apps, collaborative platforms, learning analytics, and so many more innovative tools and approaches make the learning process much more appealing for both student and teacher.

Access To The Latest Information 

It takes a long time to update academic textbooks and other printed materials, so they often contain obsolete knowledge, especially when it comes to modern science or contemporary history. But online information is dynamic and always updated. On the internet, new information is spread instantly, and can be instantly integrated into the learning process making this one of the most powerful benefits of technology in learning.

From what we’ve seen so far, technology in education is more than just the latest trend. Instead, it’s a powerful tool capable of greatly enriching teachers’ work and being thoroughly engaging for students. However, like any tool, technology requires a sensible, balanced approach. 

The good news is there’s so much room for experiments, every teacher can find the best approach. In the words of Amy Hollier, the Head of Blended Learning at Heart of Worcestershire College, UK, and a remote learning enthusiast: “These circumstances have brought digital to the fore and really offered the opportunity to explore different methods of delivery and communication with students outside of the institution. I think we will all have a new, improved approach to teaching and learning digitally due to this period of time.”

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

More From Forbes

Technology-driven education: a new era of learning.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Denys Vorobyov, CEO at EltexSoft : Tailoring boutique software solutions for nimble business growth.

Education is undergoing a revolutionary transformation in an era marked by rapid technological advancements. The technology of education, once a mere facilitator, now shapes how we learn, teach and interact in schools. It's redefining traditional learning methods and making new paths for educational inclusivity and future readiness.

Our journey through this transformation explores the immense potential and multifaceted challenges technology brings to education, setting the stage for an endless expansion of learning boundaries. With the world swiftly moving toward all things digital, let's dive into the dynamic and transformative role of edtech in revolutionizing education.

EdTech: Transforming Education In A Digital Era

In modern classrooms, digital tools have become indispensable. Interactive technologies like smart whiteboards and digital textbooks have replaced traditional blackboards and books, creating an engaging and dynamic learning environment.

Using educational apps and online resources has further enhanced the teaching process, allowing educators to deliver lessons in more interactive and impactful ways. According to a report by the National Education Association, these innovations have significantly improved the quality and accessibility of education, making learning more aligned with the digital age.

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Clues And Answers For Friday, August 16

Harris will propose $25,000 in down payment aid for first-time homebuyers as part of economic agenda, kamala harris releases economic agenda—here’s what to know.

Today, where digital literacy is as critical as traditional literacy, preparing students for a digital future is a fundamental goal of education. Technology in education goes beyond teaching the standard curriculum; it involves equipping students with the necessary skills to navigate and succeed in a digitally driven world. This preparation encompasses technical skills as well as critical thinking, problem-solving and adaptability—skills essential for success in the 21st century.

While there are numerous benefits to integrating digital tools in education, there are also challenges. Here are some obstacles and the collaborative efforts needed to overcome them.

Integrating Technology In The Modern Classroom

Integrating technology in education requires a multifaceted approach to overcome significant challenges. Various stakeholder groups can take the following steps to improve collaboration:

• Educational institutions and governments should partner to provide technology access by initiating programs for affordable devices and reliable internet connectivity in underserved areas. This could involve school subsidies or grants for technology acquisition and infrastructure development. Policies and funding to ensure equitable access to digital tools are also crucial.

• Collaborating on cybersecurity is vital. Tech companies can offer educational institutions tailored cybersecurity solutions and conduct workshops for educators and administrators. Regular training sessions on data privacy and security protocols for educators and students can create a safer digital learning environment.

• Institutions should establish continuous training programs for educators, developed in partnership with tech companies. These programs should focus on the latest educational technologies and teaching methodologies. Offering certification and incentives can encourage educators to participate actively.

• Tech companies can work with educators to develop curricula that meaningfully integrate technology. This collaboration ensures that the tools provided are technologically advanced, pedagogically sound and relevant to current educational needs.

• Governments can play a critical role by creating policies that support technology integration and providing necessary funding. This could include tax incentives for tech companies in educational technology, grants for schools to purchase and maintain digital tools, and funding for research in edtech solutions.

These steps can allow stakeholders to work together more effectively and overcome the challenges of integrating technology into education, leading to a more inclusive and advanced learning environment. Effective collaboration stands as a key solution to these challenges.

Collaboration: The Key To Success

One example of an effective collaboration strategy is our work with HeyTutor, an online platform that connects students with tutors and makes personalized education more accessible. The platform employs sophisticated algorithms and user-friendly interfaces to ensure efficient tutor-student matchmaking and a seamless learning experience.

We combined our technical acumen with HeyTutor's understanding of educational needs, and the result was a platform that not only simplifies the process of finding tutors but also enhances the quality of tutoring provided. This highlights how technology companies and educational platforms can work together to produce effective educational solutions and shape a bright future for learners globally.

A Future Shaped By Technology

In the rapidly evolving world of education, technology has become a key driver of change—redefining how knowledge is shared and consumed. This shift toward digital learning isn't just about adopting new tools but fundamentally transforming the educational landscape. Technology is broadening access, engaging learners in new ways and enhancing the overall effectiveness of education.

As we move forward, the prospects for education are boundless, with technology opening up new possibilities for learning, teaching and growing. The future of education, infused with technological innovations, promises a more inclusive, interactive and imaginative learning experience for all.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Has Tech Changed Your School Experience? We Want to Hear About It.

Some states are banning phones in schools to reduce classroom distraction and cyberbullying. Tell us about your experience with tech in schools.

By Natasha Singer

Natasha Singer has interviewed hundreds of educators, students, parents, researchers and executives as part of her coverage of technology in schools.

Digital devices and apps can be great tools in schools. They can also be a classroom distraction or even a weapon.

Some students spend so much class time on their smartphones, commenting on social media or texting their friends, that it hampers their learning. Some school children and teenagers have used their phones to bully or sexually exploit their classmates, or post videos of student fights on social media. And classroom devices like Chromebooks and iPads, which can be helpful, can also sometimes enable distractions and facilitate problems like bullying.

I write about technology in schools for The New York Times including innovations, like artificial intelligence-powered chatbots and classroom tutoring bots . This year, I’ve also been reporting on school tech problems — including an article about a group of middle school students who impersonated their teachers on TikTok , and a podcast on high school boys who used A.I. “nudification” apps to make fake nude images of their female classmates .

To better understand tech use and misuse in schools and inform my reporting, I’d like to hear from teachers, students, parents and school administrators about your experiences. I’ll read each submission and may use your contact information to follow up with you. I will not publish any details you share without contacting you and verifying your information.

How Has Tech Changed Your School Experience?

Teachers, students, parents and school administrators, tell us in the form below about the technology benefits or tech-related school problems that you have observed. We’re interested in beneficial uses of school tech as well as classroom drawbacks like online learning distractions and cyberbullying.

Natasha Singer is a reporter for The Times who writes about how tech companies, digital devices and apps are reshaping childhood, education and job opportunities. More about Natasha Singer

• Become a Member
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computational Thinking
• Digital Citizenship
• Edtech Selection
• Global Collaborations
• STEAM in Education
• Teacher Preparation
• ISTE Certification
• School Partners
• Career Development
• ISTELive 24
• Solutions Summit
• Leadership Exchange
• 2024 ASCD Leadership Summit
• 2025 ASCD Annual Conference
• Edtech Product Database
• Solutions Network
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Learning Library

The Hottest Edtech Topics in 2024

• Professional Development & Well-Being

Each year, we examine the most popular topics at ISTELive to gauge the hottest trends in edtech. It’s interesting and instructive to see how the topics shift each year to reflect the changing times. If you enjoy comparing yearly trends, you can look at our previous lists:

Hottest Edtech Topics 2021

Hottest Edtech Topics 2022

Hottest Edtech Topics 2023

This year, we looked at the number of ISTELive24 sessions tagged with a particular topic, such as equity and inclusion or AR/VR/XR. Many sessions have multiple topics, so there is some overlap between the various categories. We narrowed the topic list down to those that had at least 50 associated sessions, but our hottest topic of the year had a whopping 258 sessions.

Based on this analysis, here are the 2024 hottest edtech trends, in order from least to most popular:

8. Project-based learning

It’s no surprise that PBL continues to be a hot topic for educators, especially those focused on edtech. Tech tools excel at creating immersive experiences for students and allowing them to express their learning outcomes in personal and innovative ways. And, as the technology continues to evolve, the possibilities for curriculum enhancements continue to grow.

With PBL, teachers are engaging students by challenging them to find solutions to real-world problems, encouraging them to work together to solve puzzles and virtual escape rooms , and offering makerspace-style experiences that provide tools for innovation and the chance to build marketable skills.

7. Computer science and computational thinking

The computer science and computational thinking category has made our trend list for the past few years, and we continue to see educators weaving computer science skills into their lessons across subject matter in increasingly creative ways. There’s still a lot of energy dedicated to coding, robotics, and circuits, but now computer science learning is blended with science, history, storytelling projects, and more.

6. Augmented, virtual and extended reality (AR/VR/XR)

Augmented, virtual, and extended realities topped our list last year, but dropped to sixth place at ISTELive24. It was bumped from the top five by a new topic: Innovative Learning Environments. While AR/VR/XR is a subset of this new realm, it’s not surprising that as we move further from the online classrooms of the COVID-19 pandemic, educators are looking for more creative in-person educational opportunities. Still, the use of AR/VR/XR can offer students opportunities to engage in virtual experiences, such as field trips , science experiments, and even historical reenactments that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to access.

5. Innovative learning environments

The ISTELive24 sessions focused on innovative learning environments encompassed both in-person and online learning. They explored neighborhood and community projects, nature walks and gardening, and visits to libraries and maker spaces. They also touched on using robots, deep-diving with open-world gaming like Minecraft, and virtual field trips. Whether in-person or virtual, the trend highlights an interest in engaging students beyond the four walls of classrooms, whether in real-world scenarios or via the use of virtual reality. When paired with the continued focus on project-based learning, the opportunities for creating immersive learning experiences are endless.

4. Equity and inclusion

While social-emotional learning didn’t make the trending list for 2024, equity and inclusion continue to be among the top focus areas in edtech. Engaging and nurturing students across cultures, abilities, learning styles, interests, and identities requires conscious and ongoing effort. In particular, artificial intelligence tools, which are becoming ubiquitous, offer both assistance (such as individualized lesson plans and assessments) and challenges (such as inherent biases in underlying models). With or without AI, educators are still prioritizing efforts to make learning accessible to all students, regardless of their ability or background. This includes girls in STEM initiatives , the use of technology for adaptive and accessible learning, and utilizing technology to support new ELL students.

3. Creativity and curation tools

As the focus continues on project-based learning, authentic assessments, and equity and inclusion, there is an ongoing demand for tools that help students express themselves and share what they’ve learned, which can be a key part of applying or transferring learning. For those educators who don’t have the time or desire to experiment, there are always other teachers who are happy to share their suggestions .

2. Online tools, apps, and resources

This topic is a broad one and has some significant overlap with our number three entry, but it demonstrates the interest educators continue to have in sharing resources and tools. Not only is the landscape of edtech changing at a rapid rate, but teachers and administrators are constantly finding creative ways to utilize available tech resources, whether or not they were intended for educational use. This never-ending stream of new tools may feel overwhelming, but there’s no need to go it alone. Educators can team up to divide and conquer whatever new technology pops up throughout the year.

1. Artificial intelligence

Perhaps not surprisingly, AI rose from second on the list last year to number one this year. The ISTELive24 sessions tagged as AI-related outpaced the next most popular topic by 3 to 1, solidifying its spot as the hottest edtech trend of 2024. But, as we know, AI considerations in education are broad, encompassing everything from ethics and DEI to authentic assessments and customized lesson plans. The addition of AI tools such as transcription, custom chatbots/interactive lessons, text summaries and automated feedback are  changing the face of education and, in some cases, the very nature of roles teachers play and how students learn. Understanding how AI can be used thoughtfully and safely to enhance learning and empower teachers and students alike will obviously be a key area of focus for schools in the year–and years–ahead. And it’s one where ISTE is dedicated to providing robust and nuanced support .

We’re excited to see what trends will develop over the next year. What interesting things are happening in your classroom, school, or community? We hope you’ll bring your expertise and enthusiasm to ISTELive25 .

Image: Shutterstock. 

• artificial intelligence

Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of How to Use Computer Programming in Science and Technology Education

• Open access
• Published: 16 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Niklas Karlsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-7957-4709 1 ,
• Ellen Karoline Henriksen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0187-4952 1 &
• Katarina Pajchel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2940-7555 1  

Programming and computational thinking have been introduced into the curricula of several countries, also in relation to science and technology education. Preparing pre-service teachers for using programming in science education is therefore an important and relevant task. The purpose of this article is to describe what knowledge may be relevant for teachers who are to use programming in science and technology education and to propose a questionnaire to aid in assessing this knowledge. The proposed questionnaire can be used for tracking development over time and for identifying areas where teachers need more knowledge.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

During the last years, many countries and regions have reformed their curricula to include digital skills related to computational thinking (CT) or programming (Bocconi et al., 2022 ; National Research Council, 2012 ). In this article, we are interested in programming and therefore choose to distinguish between CT, programming, and computer science (CS) in a manner similar to Zhang and Nouri ( 2019 ), who see programming as a subset of CS and CT as a subset of programming. Their definition of CT as “a thought process, through skills that are fundamental in programming (CT skills), to solve problems regardless of discipline” (ibid., p. 3) illustrates the close connection between CT and programming. This understanding of the relationship between CT, programming, and CS is also reflected in how different countries have implemented CT and programming skills into the curriculum using three different strategies: as a cross-curricular theme (cf. “regardless of discipline” in CT quote above), as part of a separate subject (e.g., as CS), or within subjects (Bocconi et al., 2022 , p. 6). Norway, which is the context of the present study, has implemented programming in the school science subject which also includes elements of technology (ST). Here, programming is described not mainly as a goal, but as a tool for learning central concepts and processes in ST (Vinnervik & Bungum, 2022 ). The primary curriculum of Canada is a related example, where coding is part of an integrated ST subject. Footnote 1 These reforms imply new expectations for teacher professional knowledge since teachers are key actors in implementing curricular reforms.

The present paper examines the knowledge needed by teachers to use programming purposefully to support students’ learning in school science and technology. When programming is part of the school curriculum, it should also be part of pre-service teacher education (Yadav et al., 2017 ). Integrating programming into pre-service teacher training is, however, a relatively new field where much work still needs to be done (e.g., Butler & Leahy, 2021 ; Suters, 2021 ; Vasconcelos & Kim, 2020 ). Some questions that we believe to be important are: What knowledge do teachers need to work purposefully with programming towards the curriculum goals in the ST classroom? How can teachers’ competence and confidence for using programming in ST be characterized and measured? To address these questions, a model of teacher knowledge is useful. Shulman ( 1986 , 1987 ) developed the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as an expression of how knowledge of content, pedagogy, and other relevant areas are combined when teaching subject content. Research into how to teach when using technologies extended PCK by adding technology as a knowledge domain and led to the model known as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ).

There exist several instruments for measuring TPACK (see reviews of TPACK instruments in, e.g., Scott, 2021 ; Valtonen et al., 2017 ; Chai et al., 2016 ), several of which are related to ST education (e.g., Graham et al., 2009 ; Kadıoğlu-Akbulut et al., 2020 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ), but none of these focuses explicitly on programming. Giannakos et al. ( 2015 ) is one example of a TPACK measure related to CS; however, this is not specifically connected to ST, and moreover, it is too encompassing for the present context since programming is only a subset of CS, as explained above. Since TPACK is believed to be highly context sensitive (Saubern et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2018 ), we therefore chose to develop our own TPACK instrument that more directly addresses programming in ST education.

Our work is situated in the context of the Norwegian pre-service teacher education, preparing candidates to teach at primary or lower secondary school levels. One of the subjects in the pre-service teacher education is an integrated science and science methods course that also encompasses some technology and programming; however, the programming component is still new and under development. Since 2020, the national school science curriculum encompasses programming and has technology as one of its five “core elements” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019 ). Students in grades 5–7 are to “explore, make and program technological systems that consist of parts that work together.” In grades 8–10, students are to “use programming to explore natural-science phenomena.” Thus, in the present article, we treat programming as a tool that is used to support students’ learning of natural science or general technological principles.

Our purpose in this paper is therefore to address this emerging research field of computer programming in ST teacher education by first developing a framework for conceptualizing and measuring teacher competence in integrating Programming (P) in Science (S) and Technology (T) education, which we call TPACK-PiSTe. Then, we present the development of a questionnaire based on the presented framework that can be used to measure teachers’ self-reported knowledge. The questionnaire is specifically tied to the Norwegian curricular context described above, but should be adaptable to other integrated ST subjects.

The research questions are as follows:

What are the components of technological pedagogical content knowledge specific for using programming in science and technology education (TPACK-PiSTe)?

Can the suggested questionnaire be used to provide valid and reliable evidence regarding pre-service teachers’ knowledge of using programming in science and technology education?

Theoretical Framework

An often-used approach to connect teaching with technology is the TPACK model (Yadav et al., 2017 ). TPACK is a framework for analyzing how teachers navigate the technology, pedagogy, and content to create their understanding of how to use technology in a pedagogical way to help students learn the subject matter (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ); see Fig.  1 .

The TPACK model illustrates how knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology intersect to create TPACK. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

In the TPACK model, knowledge of the use of technology is interwoven with knowledge of the content matter and knowledge of teaching and learning (pedagogy). Thus, to gain TPACK, it is not enough to know technology, content, and pedagogy separately, but the knowledge of how to teach content in pedagogical ways with the help of technology “requires a thoughtful interweaving of all three key sources of knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ).

A common approach to assessing TPACK is self-report questionnaires (Wang et al., 2018 ). Challenges with measuring TPACK have been discussed in the literature, for instance, pertaining to vague definitions and fuzzy borders (Graham, 2011 ). Some of the measures developed, for example, by Lin et al. ( 2013 ) and Scherer et al. ( 2017 ), show strong correlations between some or all the factors, leading some to question the discriminant validity of the TPACK model (e.g., Archambault & Barnett, 2010 ). It has also proven difficult to validate the 7-factor structure of TPACK (Scott, 2021 ).

Theoretical Discussion: Describing TPACK-PiSTe

In this section, we answer RQ1 through a theoretical discussion of the different TPACK components in the context of programming in an integrated science and technology (ST) subject. The conceptualization is from a Norwegian context as described above, but should be easily adaptable to other integrated ST subjects.

Technological Knowledge (TK) for Using Programming in School Science and Technology

Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ) describe TK as “knowledge about standard technologies (and) more advanced technologies (…) This involves the skills required to operate particular technologies (including) knowledge of operating systems and computer hardware, and the ability to use standard sets of software tools (…).”

When TK has been defined in the context of programming in the TPACK literature, the conceptualizations have focused on either knowledge of different programming technologies (Vivian & Falkner, 2019 ) or knowledge of how to use this technology (e.g., Aalbergsjø, 2022 ; Mouza et al., 2017 ). TK has thus been conceptualized as both knowledge about and skills in using programming technologies. We therefore conceive of TK for programming as the knowledge and skills involved in both creating algorithms and implementing the algorithms in concrete programming languages such as Python or programming environments such as Scratch or Makecode for Micro:bit.

Content Knowledge (CK) for School Science and Technology

Although Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ) simply state that CK “is knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught,” CK represents not just the curriculum to be taught, but a comprehensive knowledge of the teaching subject as a scientific field, its methodology and its broader context.

There is an extensive literature exploring the meaning of teachers’ content knowledge (CK) in the context of science. Some examples are Maeng et al. ( 2013 ) who merely state that science as CK means biology, chemistry, earth sciences, and physics and Kaplon-Schilis and Lyublinskaya ( 2020 ) who define CK for science as conceptual understanding (i.e., identifying and using science principles), scientific inquiry, and using technological design.

Programming has become a crucial practice in modern natural science research (Weintrop et al., 2016 ) and is likewise fundamental to most modern digital technology. Since understanding the nature of science and scientific practices is a central component of most science curricula (Lederman & Lederman, 2014 ), we argue that content knowledge in science (and technology) involves learning about the role of computational approaches since these represent an important practice used by scientists and technologists (Weintrop et al., 2016 ). Thus, we argue that knowledge of the role of programming in modern ST should be considered a part of science CK.

The above discussion shows that programming can be considered a part of both TK and CK. Our view is that it is possible to distinguish between programming in these two domains, by considering whether programming is used as a supportive tool (TK) for exploring natural science phenomena or as part of the content (CK) relating to understanding scientific and technological practices. In some situations, programming may be both, for example, when students are programming robots, as is shown in the discussion of TCK below.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

PK can be summarized as “knowledge of how to teach, including professional beliefs and visions, theory, teaching and learning strategies, knowledge about how learners learn best, reflection on practice and the advantages and disadvantages of pedagogical approaches” (Vivian & Falkner, 2019 ). In our context, PK can be described as the general pedagogical considerations that are relevant across subjects and content independent of programming.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) for School Science and Technology

PCK may be understood as the common “tools of the trade” or the agreed-on knowledge shared by teachers about how to teach subject matter to a particular student group in a particular context (Carlson et al., 2019 ). This knowledge will include components such as knowledge of teaching strategies related to the big ideas in science (Harlen, 2010 ) and of using digital representations in the form of computer simulations or programs that may aid understanding.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) for Using Programming in School Science and Technology

According to Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ), TCK entails knowledge of “not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology.” Accordingly, TCK in the present case becomes teacher knowledge about how the content is changed when programming is involved, for example, when using computer simulations to explore natural-science phenomena (Aalbergsjø, 2022 ) or using programming to control microcontrollers with sensors (Sarı et al., 2022 ). In this manner, programming as TCK is used to support exploration of science phenomena and technology, as well as to exemplify the role of programming in ST. Examples of how TCK supports CK are using Scratch to program a simulation of the solar system (Killen et al., 2023 ) or using programmable floor-robots to demonstrate how robots can be controlled (Casey et al., 2021 ).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) for Using Programming in School

Koehler et al. ( 2014 ) define TPK as “an understanding of [how] technology can constrain and afford specific pedagogical practices.” Thus, TPK is knowledge of how the use of programming is experienced by students in educational contexts and how to accommodate for learning when using programming, independently of the content being taught . As such, it may include approaches like “pair programming” (Hawlitschek et al., 2022 ) or use-modify-create (Lee et al., 2011 ) or constructionism (Papert, 1980 ). In our conceptualization, the TPK category also covers teachers’ reflections on how programming supports differentiated learning, motivation, and student self-efficacy. Such understanding of the pedagogical potential of programming is relevant also for other subjects than ST.

As programming is present in both TCK and TPK, the distinction between these two domains relates to whether programming contributes to altering the content or the pedagogy or vice versa whether the content or the pedagogy alters how programming is used. We find a similar distinction in the CTintegration framework (Grover, 2021 , pp. 30–31), where the combination of disciplinary content and computing concepts and practices (i.e., similar to our TCK) is distinguished from the combination of computing concepts and pedagogy (i.e., similar to our TPK). TPACK-PiSTe is however specific to ST, whereas the CTintegration framework is more content generic.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Using Programming in School Science and Technology

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) refers to knowledge about the complex relations among technology, pedagogy, and content that enable teachers to develop appropriate and context-specific teaching strategies (Koehler et al., 2014 ).

TPACK in our context means knowledge of how programming can be used to teach science and technology content in a pedagogically meaningful way. This entails how programming is explicitly used in ST, for example, learning about robotics through programming (e.g., Chambers & Carbonaro, 2003 ), or how the use of programming can support understanding, for example, letting the students develop computer simulations to explore planetary motion (e.g., Adler & Kim, 2018 ).

Above, we have discussed how the components of technological pedagogical content knowledge specific for using programming in ST education (TPACK-PiSTe) can be described. In the next section, we turn our attention to developing a questionnaire instrument based on the above conceptualization.

Instrument Development

We initially searched for existing instruments using TPACK and found several measures related to TPACK in ST education (e.g., Giannakos et al., 2015 ; Graham et al., 2009 ; Kadıoğlu-Akbulut et al., 2020 ), but none focusing explicitly on programming in the context of ST. We therefore chose to develop our own items using TPACK-PiSTe as a conceptual framework, basing our design on the survey by Schmidt et al. ( 2009 ) and the shorter TPACK.xs-version by Schmid et al. ( 2020 ).

We created a pilot questionnaire with items for each of the knowledge domains in the TPACK-PiSTe model. We attempted to make the items as concrete as possible in relation to science, technology, and programming. For example, the TK items are a concretization of the skills needed for programming (e.g., “I know how to make code which contains for example variables, conditions and loops”). Five of the items were moderate modifications of the items from Schmidt et al. ( 2009 ) to make them more directly related to the Norwegian ST curriculum (e.g., “I can use a scientific way of thinking” became “I have knowledge about scientific practices” and “I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science” became “I can use programming to develop simple technological systems that consist of parts that work together”). We also chose a PCK item from the revised TPACK.xs by Schmid et al. ( 2020 ) (“I know how to evaluate students’ performance in my teaching subject” became “I know how to assess students’ learning in science in different ways”) as well as four TPK items which we kept largely unchanged (e.g., “I am thinking critically about how to use programming in my classroom”). Three of the modified items from Schmidt et al. ( 2009 ) and one item from Schmid et al. ( 2020 ) remain in the final version of the questionnaire as part of the PCK and TPACK construct. In addition, we created our own TPACK items (e.g., “I know how to use programming in science to help students understand how technological systems work”), since there did not exist any previous items for this category specific to our topic.

The initial item pool was then checked for face validity, where the first author suggested items, while the other authors contributed revisions to ensure use of relevant terms and topics. In addition, we discussed the items with colleagues. We also interviewed three final-year pre-service teachers working with master’s theses related to programming in school about their understanding of the items and some adjustments were made based on their feedback. This resulted in an initial pilot questionnaire with 38 items on a 5-pt Likert scale.

The pilot version of the questionnaire was administered to about 150 pre-service teachers (PSTs) in their early twenties studying science education in five different teacher institutions in Norway Footnote 2 who had encountered some programming in their integrated science and methods course, which includes some technology. We received 37 answers (25%). About half of the received answers were collected during a teaching sequence on the use of computer simulations in science education in one of the institutions.

The pilot questionnaire was then revised based on a preliminary exploratory factor analysis. We halved the number of items to construct the questionnaire used in our main data collection, which was part of a larger survey administered by the research project which this study is part of. We received answers from 109 PSTs from five different teacher education institutions.

All the PSTs answered the questionnaire through an online survey tool and the answers were anonymous.

Seventy-three percent of respondents in both datasets came from the same two teacher education institutions, with the remaining 27% coming from three or four other institutions. About two-thirds of the respondents were in their fourth or fifth year of study to become elementary or lower secondary teachers, while the rest were either in their second or third year. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents identified as female and 33% as male.

Even though our sample sizes are small, we argue that small samples may give useful results in factor analytic studies. Ding et al. ( 1995 ) and de Winter et al. ( 2009 ) indicate that good factor recovery can be attained also with small sample sizes, and recommendations for factor analysis often relate to high loadings (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988 ) and items per factor (Ding et al., 1995 ; MacCallum et al., 1999 ), rather than sample size (Christopher Westland, 2010 ; Mundfrom et al., 2005 ; Velicer & Fava, 1998 ). It is also not uncommon with small sample sizes in educational research (McNeish, 2017a ), for example, because of practical restraints such as access to respondents and ethical considerations.

Data Analysis

The aim of our factor analysis is to examine if the proposed questionnaire can provide support for valid and reliable inferences regarding pre-service teachers’ knowledge of how to use programming in ST education. We therefore used two separate samples to cross-validate the factor structure doing first an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and then a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The analysis was done in R version 4.2.3 with the packages psych 2.3.3 (Revelle, 2023 ) for EFA and lavaan 0.6–15 (Rosseel, 2012 ) for CFA.

Prior to the factor analyses, the data was pre-screened according to the methods suggested in Flora et al. ( 2012 ) and Weston and Gore ( 2006 ), checking for issues with, for example, linearity, non-normally distributed residuals, and missing data. Any non-normally distributed residuals were corrected using robust standard errors. In case of collinearity or multicollinearity, the items were removed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Factor analysis was based upon the correlation matrix of the items for the pilot data ( n  = 37). To assess the factorability of the correlation matrix, we calculated the Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) (which should be above 0.5) (Watkins, 2018 ). To determine the initial number of factors, we looked at how much variance was explained by the eigenvalues (which should be above 50%) and where the scree plot flattens, as well as parallel analysis (Watkins, 2018 ). We also compared with the theoretical interpretability.

We used maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with the oblique “oblimin” rotation method based on the recommendation by McNeish ( 2017a ) for small samples using the pattern matrix to identify the factor structure to be analyzed later in the CFA.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA was thereafter done on the second dataset ( n  = 109). We specified the model by constraining the factor variances to 1 and thereafter used ML estimation. The test statistics were calculated using Yuan-Bentler scaling and robust SE to correct for small samples and non-normality (McNeish, 2017b ). Model fit was assessed by examining the fit indices. Common fit criteria are that the results of the chi-square test should be non-significant, CFI should be larger than 0.95, and RMSEA should be below 0.06 and SRMR below 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ).

Reliability and Validity

While reliability is commonly assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, or more recently McDonald’s omega (Revelle & Condon, 2019 ), there are several approaches to assessing validity, the most common being content and construct validity (Hoyt et al., 2006 ). Content validity of a questionnaire is often assessed by consulting experts and the intended target group, while construct validity can be assessed through the convergent and discriminant validity of the internal structure of the questionnaire. Validity is never settled once and for all and needs to be reexamined for each separate occasion where inferences about constructs are made.

We report Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of the reliability of the factors obtained in the EFA. To assess the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the CFA model, we follow the recommendations by Cheung et al. ( 2024 ) using the provided measureQ script for R. Reliability is assessed by examining the latent factor structure with McDonald’s omega (which should be above 0.8), convergent validity is assessed by looking at both factor loadings (above 0.7) and average variance extracted (AVE) (above 0.5), and discriminant validity requires that there are no cross-loadings, that the AVE of each factor is larger than their shared variance, and that the correlation between factors is below 0.7. These criteria are examined by comparing the lower bounds of the confidence intervals with the given cutoffs.

Pre-screening

Twenty-two items were removed during pre-screening (see Fig.  2 ). Sixteen of the initial 38 items remained after the pre-screening. After screening, there were no missing data points in the pilot dataset. There were however 12 (< 1%) missing data points in the second dataset, which we imputed with FIML. We also deleted six of the respondents, as they had several answers that we considered not missing at random, reducing n in the second dataset to 103.

The reduction of questionnaire items during the analysis

The values of Bartlett’s test of sphericity and KMO were calculated, respectively, to 7.5 × 10 −18 and 0.70, which indicate that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis on the pilot dataset ( n  = 37). Based on the eigenvalues, the number of factors to extract was determined to be three. The EFA was then done in two iterations, during which one item was removed due to cross-loadings. We were left with 15 items for the final EFA.

We show the factor loadings for the 3-factor solution based on the pattern matrix in Table  1 . Two of the factor correlations were negligible (below 0.20), while the correlation between TK and TPACK was 0.35, which could be considered of mediate strength.

When examining the correlation matrix for the second dataset ( n  = 103), we saw strong correlations ( r  > 0.8) between the “TK-programming” items and the “TPACK-science and technology” items. This created some challenges when confirming the 3-factor structure from the EFA, as this indicated that the TK and TPACK factors could be identical. We therefore chose to test both a 2-factor model where the TK and TPACK factors were merged and a 3-factor model where they were separate.

The fit indices of the CFA for the 2-factor and the 3-factor EFA models are presented in Table  2 . The chi-square test for both models indicates somewhat poor model fit with data, which is not uncommon, and the RMSEA values are somewhat larger than the recommended threshold. However, SRMR for both models and CFI for the 3-factor model are within the recommended cutoffs. Considering that both the CFI and the chi-square value are better for the 3-factor model, we suggest that the 3-factor model is the most interesting model to examine further.

The CFA version of the 3-factor model is presented in Fig.  3 . All items load strongly onto their corresponding factors. The correlation between TK and TPACK is strong, while the correlations with PCK are moderate.

The final instrument based on a completely standardized 3-factor solution. The variance of the factors was set to 1. Some item texts are shortened. The full item texts can be seen in Table  3

The factor structure and the 13 items that constitute our final version of the questionnaire instrument are presented in Table  3 . We note that respondents’ self-reported knowledge is considerably higher in the PCK domain than in the TK and in particular the TPACK domain. Thus, our instrument seems to have captured an uncertainty among the pre-service teachers about how to program as well as how to use programming purposefully in science teaching. We see that PCK contributes very little to the common variance in the data (cf. ω h ).

Reliability, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

The results of the analysis of the reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the questionnaire are shown in Table  4 . The construct reliability is given in brackets on the diagonal and indicate no concern with the reliability of any of the factors. No factor loadings are significantly less than 0.7 (cf. Figure  3 ), and no AVEs are significantly lower than 0.5, indicating no concern with convergent validity for any factors. No indicators cross-load, and the AVE for all factors are larger than their shared variance (which can be obtained by squaring the factor correlations), but the correlation between TK and TPACK is significantly larger than 0.8 (indicated with a b in the table), which raises a minor concern with the discriminatory validity between TK and TPACK. As shown in Table  4 , however, the 3-factor model shows better model fit than the 2-factor model, supporting the choice of keeping TK and TPACK separate.

In this paper, we have discussed the TPACK construct for using programming to teach an integrated ST subject. We have also presented a cross-validated 13-item questionnaire instrument showing reliable measures of three domains of knowledge in this area, namely programming (TK), PCK in science, and programming related to ST (TPACK). Below we first discuss our interpretation of TPACK-PiSTe and then the properties of our proposed questionnaire instrument.

Conceptualizing Teachers’ Knowledge for Using Programming in ST Education

To our knowledge, no one has thus far discussed what TPACK entails in the case of using programming in a school ST subject. We present such a discussion of teachers’ knowledge, anchored in the literature on computational thinking (CT) and TPACK. As more countries include programming and CT skills in their compulsory schooling in various ways (Bocconi et al., 2022 ), and given the pivotal role of teachers in carrying out the reforms (Yadav et al., 2017 ), there is a need for a knowledge base for research and development. A characterization of the knowledge and skills that teachers need is also crucial for informing teacher education. An example from Norway is the ongoing research and development of a progression of programming in ST teacher education (e.g., Aalbergsjø, 2022 ).

In many countries, programming is taught as a separate CS course or as part of a technology course. We argue, however, that programming can function as a tool to support learning within science and/or an ST subject. Drawing on the notion of “Big ideas of Science Education” by Harlen ( 2010 ), we suggest that programming can support understanding of ideas about science and in science, that is understanding computation as part of how science is done (i.e., programming as a scientific practice) and, on the other hand, using programming to support learning and understanding of the subject content in science (e.g., through computational modeling or visualizations of natural science phenomena). Thus, programming relates to both content knowledge, CK, and technological knowledge, TK.

Whether it is possible to distinguish between the different components of the TPACK model has been contested in the literature (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2013 ; Graham, 2011 ). We have, however, argued that it is qualitatively meaningful to distinguish between the TCK and TPK components as it provides nuances to teachers’ understanding of how programming can support ST education. Taking inquiry-based science education as an example, TPACK could be seen to consist of knowledge of which content matter is suitable for programming-based inquiry (TCK), combined with planning skills which enable the teacher to adapt the teaching to use programming as a means for supporting and motivating a diverse student group (TPK). This example shows how the various components of TPACK may be developed simultaneously to strengthen teachers’ understanding of appropriate integration of programming in ST teaching and learning. It is also in line with the recommendations for preparing teachers through courses which offer direct experience of programming and CT within the context of subject matter (Yadav et al., 2017 ).

Aspects of Measuring TPACK-PiSTe Through a Questionnaire

In our discussion of TPACK-PiSTe, we described all the seven components of the TPACK framework. In our factor analysis, however, we extracted only three factors. Even though we did not extract the full 7-factor structure, we believe that the three factors we extracted, based on our content validation and theoretical discussion, represent the most essential knowledge components related specifically to using programming in ST education. We do not, for example, consider PK to be of primary concern in our context, as we are primarily interested in the introduction of programming in a science education context and PK does not include any technology topics. The questionnaire may also be used as a self-reflection tool for pre-service teachers regarding their knowledge about programming in ST education. The questionnaire instrument presented here (or future versions of it) may also be of use for ST teacher education where programming is involved. Our instrument measures aspects related to both self-efficacy (“I can”) and knowledge (“I know”), which reflects the TPACK framework’s emphasis on both conceptual (know-what) and practical (know-how) knowledge (cf. Phillips et al., 2017 ).

Limitations

The results of this study are not fully generalizable for several reasons. The discussion of TPACK-PiSTe and the questionnaire are made in a Norwegian context where ST are taught as an integrated subject both in school and in teacher education. The samples used in the factor analyses are somewhat small, but the strong factor loadings and the cross-validation between the two samples provide encouraging support for the results. The questionnaire measures self-reported knowledge, which is not necessarily representative of performance in class settings (Willermark, 2018 ).

The questionnaire measures only three of the seven theoretically described TPACK-PiSTe factors. This could be related to either the reduced number of items available when doing the cross-validation, homogeneity due to our small sample size, or the students’ low knowledge about the use of programming in science education affecting how well they distinguish between the different nuances of TPACK-PiSTe. We also saw when doing the EFA that the technology-explicit items tended to group with the TK items, while the science-explicit items tended to group with the PCK items. This could be related to the low sample size and seemed to also be dependent on which items were included or excluded after the pre-screening.

In this article, we have offered a theoretical discussion of the knowledge components needed by teachers who will use programming to support student learning in an integrated science and technology subject (the TPACK-PiSTe model). Furthermore, we have argued that our proposed questionnaire can support making reliable and valid inferences regarding pre-service teachers’ self-reported knowledge in using programming to support learning in ST education. The questionnaire is developed based on the TPACK literature and does not include all seven components of the TPACK-PiSTe model, but emphasizes the factors we consider most relevant to programming in an integrated ST subject. We propose that the questionnaire can be used to survey teachers’ self-reported knowledge and self-efficacy, to track development over time, and to identify areas where teachers express need for more knowledge. It can also be a useful tool for mapping where efforts should be concentrated in pre-service teacher training and teacher professional development. The questionnaire can also be of use in research, and we encourage researchers to test and develop the questionnaire further in their local contexts. Results from the use of similar questionnaires (e.g., related to CT) in different countries and contexts may also contribute to developing the theoretical TPACK-PiSTe model, thus improving our understanding of what knowledge teachers need to use programming purposefully in ST education.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/science-technology

Teacher education in Norway is a 5-year, integrated master’s degree programme; see Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research ( 2018 ).

References  

Aalbergsjø, S. G. (2022). Learning to make and use computer simulations in science education. Acta Didactica Norden , 16 (4), 22. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9174

Adler, R. F., & Kim, H. (2018). Enhancing future K-8 teachers’ computational thinking skills through modeling and simulations. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (4), 1501–1514.

Article   Google Scholar  

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1656–1662.

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education . JRC Publications Repository.

Google Scholar  

Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46 (2), 103–128.

Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (3), 1060–1077.

Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J., Kam Ho Chan, K., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume, A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., … Wilson, C. D. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77–94). Springer.

Casey, J. E., Pennington, L. K., & Mireles, S. V. (2021). Technology acceptance model: Assessing preservice teachers’ acceptance of floor-robots as a useful pedagogical tool. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26 (3), 499–514.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 87–106). Routledge.

Chambers, J. M., & Carbonaro, M. (2003). Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11 (2), 209–241.

Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41 , 754–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

Christopher Westland, J. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9 (6), 476–487.

de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44 (2), 147–181.

Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2 (2), 119–143.

Flora, D., LaBrish, C., & Chalmers, R. (2012). Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 , 55.

Giannakos, M. N., Doukakis, S., Pappas, I. O., Adamopoulos, N., & Giannopoulou, P. (2015). Investigating teachers’ confidence on technological pedagogical and content knowledge: An initial validation of TPACK scales in K-12 computing education context. Journal of Computers in Education, 2 (1), 43–59.

Grover, S. (2021). Computational thinking today. In A. Yadav & U. Berthelsen (Eds.), Computational thinking in education: A pedagogical perspective (1st ed., pp. 18–40). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 265–275.

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1953–1960.

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53 (5), 70–79.

Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education . Association for Science Education. https://www.ase.org.uk/bigideas .

Hawlitschek, A., Berndt, S., & Schulz, S. (2022). Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 33 (3), 400–428.

Hoyt, W. T., Warbasse, R. E., & Chu, E. Y. (2006). Construct validation in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6), 769–805.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.

Kadıoğlu-Akbulut, C., Çetin-Dindar, A., Küçük, S., & Acar-Şeşen, B. (2020). Development and validation of the ICT-TPACK-Science Scale. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (3), 355–368.

Kaplon-Schilis, A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2020). Analysis of relationship between five domains of TPACK framework: TK, PK, CK Math, CK Science, and TPACK of pre-service special education teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25 (1), 25–43.

Killen, H., Coenraad, M., Byrne, V., Cabrera, L., Mills, K., Ketelhut, D. J., & Plane, J. D. (2023). Teacher education to integrate computational thinking into elementary science: A design-based research study. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 23 (4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618115

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrol, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 101–111). Springer.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). Routledge.

Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2 (1), 32–37.

Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22 (3), 325–336.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4 (1), 84–99.

Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: Using technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22 (6), 838–857.

McNeish, D. (2017). Exploratory factor analysis with small samples and missing data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99 (6), 637–652.

McNeish, D. (2017). Challenging conventional wisdom for multivariate statistical models with small samples. Review of Educational Research, 87 (6), 1117–1151.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.

Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y.-C., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3521

Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5 (2), 159–168.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . The National Academies Press.

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Curriculum for Natural science (NAT01‑04). Established as a Regulation. The National Curriculum for “Kunnskapsløftet 2020”. Retrieved August 12, 2024 from https://www.udir.no/lk20/nat01-04?lang=eng

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2018). Teacher Education 2025—National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education . Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nasjonal-strategi-for-larerutdanningene/id2555622/ .

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. children, computers and powerful ideas . The Harvester Press Ltd.

Phillips, M., Koehler, M. J., Rosenberg, J., & Zunica, B. (2017). Unpacking TPACK: Reconsidering knowledge and context in teacher practice . In P. Resta, & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 2422–2429). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/177538/

Revelle, W. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.3.3) . Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych .

Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from alpha to omega: A tutorial. Psychological Assessment, 31 (12), 1395–1411.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36.

Sarı, U., Pektaş, H. M., Şen, O. F., & Çelik, H. (2022). Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (5), 6669–6689.

Saubern, R., Henderson, M., Heinrich, E., & Redmond, P. (2020). TPACK – Time to reboot? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3), 1–9.

Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Education, 112 , 1–17.

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2020). Developing a short assessment instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACKxs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Computers & Education, 157 , 103967.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149.

Scott, K. C. (2021). A review of faculty self-assessment TPACK instruments (January 2006 – March 2020). International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 17 (2), 118–137.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1–23.

Suters, L. (2021). Elementary preservice teacher coursework design for developing science and mathematics computational thinking practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21 (2), 360–440.

Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3518

Vasconcelos, L., & Kim, C. (2020). Preparing preservice teachers to use block-based coding in scientific modeling lessons. Instructional Science, 48 (6), 765–797.

Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3 (2), 231–251.

Vinnervik, P., & Bungum, B. (2022). Computational thinking as part of compulsory education: How is it represented in Swedish and Norwegian curricula? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18 (3), 384–400.

Vivian, R., & Falkner, K. (2019). Identifying teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge for computer science in the primary years. In ICER '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 147–155). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339410

Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (4), 234–258.

Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44 (3), 219–246.

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (1), 127–147.

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (5), 719–751.

Willermark, S. (2018). Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56 (3), 315–343.

Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60 (4), 55–62.

Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141 , 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the TRELIS work package group 5 for fruitful discussions of the TPACK framework related to programming in science and technology, as well as the teacher education institutions that contributed with the data.

Open access funding provided by OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway under Grant (number 300672).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Primary and Secondary Teacher Education, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, St. Olavs Plass, P.O. Box 4, N-0130, Oslo, Norway

Niklas Karlsen, Ellen Karoline Henriksen & Katarina Pajchel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Niklas Karlsen: conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing — original draft, writing — review and editing, visualization, project administration. Ellen Karoline Henriksen: conceptualization, validation, investigation, writing — original draft, writing — review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. Katarina Pajchel: conceptualization, validation, investigation, writing — original draft, writing — review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Karlsen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The questionnaire and methodology for this study were assessed by Sikt — Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (assessment reference number: 336552).

All data were collected anonymously and with informed consent.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Karlsen, N., Henriksen, E.K. & Pajchel, K. Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of How to Use Computer Programming in Science and Technology Education. J Sci Educ Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10145-5

Download citation

Accepted : 07 August 2024

Published : 16 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10145-5

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

• Scale development
• Pre-service teacher
• Science education
• Programming
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research