EdTech in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence

Abstract

The emergence of educational technology (“EdTech”) in developing countries has been received as a promising avenue to address some of the most challenging policy questions within educational systems. In this paper, I review and synthesize all existing studies with credible causal identification frameworks of EdTech interventions in developing countries. While other studies review the evidence for EdTech interventions in developed countries, there is currently no equivalent study for developing contexts, in spite of the rising number of studies being produced. I classify studies into four thematic categories based on the type of EdTech intervention analyzed: Access to technology; technology-enabled behavioral interventions; improvements to instruction; and self-led learning. I find that EdTech interventions centered around self-led learning and improvements to instruction are the most effective forms of EdTech at raising learning outcomes. Similarly, technology-enabled behavioral interventions are less promising for generating large effects but highly cost-effective given their typically low marginal costs. Although expanding access to technology alone is not sufficient to improve learning, it is a necessary first step for some other types of interventions. More broadly, the overall success of interventions rests on the thoughtful customization of the EdTech solution to the policy constraints at hand. Finally, EdTech interventions across all thematic areas can and should act as complements by leveraging their respective comparative advantages to address deficiencies within educational systems in developing countries.

Well Played! Promoting Phonemic Awareness Training Using EdTech—GraphoGame Brazil—During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Word reading accuracy seemingly improved for controls and experimental group children; however, supplementary analyses indicated that such improvement was significant only for children who played GraphoGame. This corroborates existing studies that suggest that GG helps leverage word-level decoding skills [ 39 , 40 , 41 ] and improving associations between letters and sounds [ 40 , 43 ]. The differences between group means were not statistically significant, however.…”

Investigating the Impact on Learning Outcomes Through the Use of EdTech During Covid-19: Evidence from an RCT in the Punjab province of Pakistan

“…This is supported by ⇡Zubairi et al ( 2021) who conclude that studies focusing specifically on personalised learning and technology integration in Pakistan are limited, and where they exist they are of poor quality. Furthermore, the findings from the studies that do exist must be treated with caution given their unreliable research designs (⇡Rodriguez-Segura, 2021). This dearth in research is part of the motivation for our study, the detail of which is presented in the following section.…”

Exploring the Negative and Gap-Widening Effects of EdTech on Young Children’s Learning Achievement: Evidence from a Longitudinal Dataset of Children in American K–3 Classrooms

“…Since 1998, the United States has steadily implemented the "E-Rate" program that annually invests $1-2 billion with the aim of bringing EdTech into schools across the nation and through this process has become the center of the EdTech movement [1,32]. Additionally, now, many developing countries are engaged in policy efforts to catch up with the United States and other leaders in the EdTech movement under the banner of reforming public education in the 21st century [33]. Therefore, although some may point out that the dataset does not encompass the new trend in the United States in the late 2010s or the early 2020s, it has not yet lost timeliness as a dataset that appropriately reflects the latest development of EdTech.…”

“…However, in addition to those grounds, there has been a supplementary one that has helped the optimistic consensus to make a stronger appeal and thus to take root deeper in the education community: the expectation that EdTech will make schooling a more equal, fair, and democratic process [49] (pp. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. There are two detailed reasons behind this claim:…”