technology in education how to

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.”

• Our Mission

Using a Personalized Instructional Playbook to Revitalize Your Teaching

This type of guide helps teachers choose appropriate technology to go along with a particular instructional strategy.

In today’s educational landscape, where technology plays such a pivotal role, integrating instructional strategies with technology is increasingly important. As an instructional technology resource teacher, I have a primary role of supporting teachers in effectively integrating technology into their classroom instruction. The shift to remote learning in 2020 necessitated a rapid and often uncomfortable adaptation to technology use in teaching.

Creating an instructional playbook emerged as a pathway to support teachers with leveraging technology, not just as a supplementary tool but as a crucial component in enhancing impactful teaching strategies, ensuring that technology’s role in education is purposeful and powerful.

A Collaborative Beginning

Inspired by researcher Jim Knight’s The Instructional Playbook , I sought an existing playbook that would resonate with my role as an instructional technology coach. However, I realized that most resources did not fully encapsulate the nuanced relationship between technology and instructional strategy, particularly in the post-pandemic era of heightened technology usage in education.

This gap led to a collaborative effort with educators and coaches across North America to create a playbook that purposefully integrates technology with instructional strategies, enhancing my approach to teaching.

Creating the Playbook

The essence of a well-crafted instructional playbook lies in its ability to be both concise and comprehensive, outlining evidence-based teaching strategies crucial in assisting teachers and students. These strategies should form the foundation of a district’s professional development program, emphasizing the playbook’s role as a pivotal tool.

For me, crafting the playbook was as much about exploration and discovery as it was about creation. Initially, our team grappled with fundamental questions: What instructional strategies should be central to our playbook? How do we distinguish between strategies and activities? These early discussions were crucial, as they helped us sift through a myriad of educational practices to identify what truly mattered.

During these formative stages, we learned to focus on our overarching purpose and the specific needs that the playbook was meant to address, rather than getting bogged down in details. This perspective allowed us to develop a playbook adaptable to diverse educational settings.

For the broader educational community, we endeavored to create a playbook that was comprehensive in scope, including various instructional strategies carefully aligned with International Society for Technology in Education standards and Universal Design for Learning principles . We aimed to ensure that technology integration was intentional and meaningful, enhancing rather than overshadowing the instructional strategies.

As the playbook evolved, it became a living document, shaped by continuous contributions and enriched by diverse perspectives. Educators from different backgrounds brought templates and ideas, each adding unique value to the playbook. This collaborative approach meant that the playbook could be adapted and modified to fit unique contexts, making it a versatile tool for educators.

In contrast to this broad resource, the playbook I tailored for my professional learning community (PLC) had a much narrower focus. Recognizing the specific needs and goals of my PLC, I crafted a version of the playbook with a more concentrated scope. This personalized playbook addresses the particular challenges and objectives we face in our learning environment , proving that the playbook’s format and content could be as flexible and varied as the educators and students it serves.

Overall, crafting the playbook highlighted the importance of purpose-driven design in educational resources. By understanding our goals, we created a comprehensive, adaptable playbook that resonates with educators’ and students’ diverse needs.

Refocusing on Instructional Strategies

With more than two decades of teaching experience, this project allowed me to refocus on the core of teaching—instructional strategies. The playbook became a common language among teachers, coaches, and administrators, facilitating more focused discussions on teaching practices. It encouraged a shift from merely engaging students in fun activities to employing strategies that significantly impact learning.

Back in the classroom, the playbook transformed my approach to lesson planning. I started with the learning objectives and anticipated barriers, which allowed me to select the most appropriate instructional strategies. This backward-design approach ensured that technology was used not as a substitute but as a meaningful enhancer of the lesson objectives. Since developing the playbook, I have noticed a marked increase in collaboration, classroom discussion, and flexible grouping in my lesson plans. Technology was no longer just a tool for substitution but a means for collaboration, creation, and learning opportunities that students would not have with paper and pencil.

The Impact of the Playbook

Creating a playbook is not a one-off task. It demands continuous engagement, reflection, and refinement. We continue to update our activity hub, ensuring that it remains a relevant and dynamic resource for educators. Creating and using the Comprehensive Instructional Playbook reinvigorates my teaching practice. It makes me more mindful of the instructional strategies I choose and their alignment with my lesson objectives. It fosters a deeper understanding of when and why to use specific methods and how to effectively integrate technology into my teaching.

The playbook also proves valuable for new teachers and career switchers who need more exposure to diverse instructional practices. It serves as a guide, helping them navigate the complexities of effective teaching strategies and technology integration.

The playbook is more than a collection of strategies; it’s a testament to the power of collaboration and continuous learning in education. It reminds us that the teaching process, like learning, is ever-evolving and enriched by shared experiences and knowledge. As educators, we must remain adaptable, always seeking to enhance our practices for the ultimate benefit of our students.

Check out “ Collaborate to Create Your Own Instructional Playbook ,“ which has a variety of resources and templates.

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

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

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

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.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• 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

Implantable microphone could lead to fully internal cochlear implants

Read full story →

The tenured engineers of 2024

Detachable cardiac pacing lead may improve safety for cardiac patients

A prosthesis driven by the nervous system helps people with amputation walk naturally

“Rollerama” roller rink opens in Kendall Square

Scientists observe record-setting electron mobility in a new crystal film

• 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

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

Learn from Your Peers

What can you glean about security from other IT pros? Check out new CDW research and insight from our experts.

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

• 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
• 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.

• IIEP at the Pan-African Conference on Girls’ and Women’s Education in Africa 01 July 2024
• Apply now! KIX Learning Cycle on secondary teacher workforce management 28 June 2024
• Civil society’s role in educational planning: Insights from Zimbabwe 25 June 2024
• Enhancing digital technology to transform education

Download the 2023 GEM Report: Technology in education

• Privacy Notice

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

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

You are here

How technology is reinventing education.

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.”

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 .

The Yale Wave

In absentia lucis, tenebrae vincunt..

How Technology is Changing the Education Landscape

As technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous in our lives, it is also making its way into the classroom. There are many benefits to using technology in the classroom, and as a teacher or professor, you must know how to use it effectively. There are many benefits to using technology in the classroom, and knowledge sharing software is one of the most effective tools at a teacher’s disposal. With the help of accessible and easy-to-train technological applications, your classroom education can be made more interactive and collaborative.

The Increasing Use Of Technology In Education

There are many reasons why the use of technology in education is increasing.

• First, technology can help to level the playing field for all students. No matter their background or economic situation, all students have access to the same resources and tools when using technology in the classroom.
• Technology can help to engage students in learning. When used correctly, technology can capture students’ attention and hold it for more extended periods than a traditional lecture or textbook.
• Different tools and tech can help teachers to individualize instruction for each student. With the help of educational apps and software data, teachers can tailor their teaching methods to fit each student’s needs better.

How To Ensure That Technology Is Used Effectively In The Classroom

While there are many benefits to using technology in the classroom, it is essential to ensure it is used effectively. Here are a few tips:

• You must ensure that you are using technology to supplement your instruction, not replace it. There is no substitute for a well-taught lesson delivered by a passionate and knowledgeable teacher. If only online information was what students were chasing, they wouldn’t bother showing up or being interested in personal classes.
• You can also use technology to engage students in active learning, not passive consumption. Students should be doing things like writing, creating, and problem-solving when using technology in the classroom. So, avoid using technology for things like quizzes and lectures that could quickly be done without it.
• It’s also good to ensure that students are using technology in a way that is appropriate for the task at hand. For example, they should use tools like search engines and databases if they are researching a topic. If they are writing an essay, they should be using word processing software.
• Finally, monitor student usage to ensure that they are on task and not abusing the privilege of having technology in the classroom. One way to do this is to have them use apps or software that track their activity and time spent on tasks.

The Importance Of Teacher/Professor Training When It Comes To Using Technology In The Classroom

While there are many benefits to using technology in the classroom, teachers, and professors must receive training on how to use it effectively. Many different tools and applications are available, and it can be challenging to keep up with the latest trends. Teacher/professor training can help ensure that technology is used effectively in the classroom and that students get the most out of it. Moreover, teacher/professor training can also help address some of the challenges teachers face when integrating technology into their teaching practices.

One of the challenges that teachers face when using technology in the classroom is keeping up with the latest trends. Technology is constantly changing, and new applications and tools are continually being developed. It can be challenging for teachers to keep up with all of the recent developments, making it difficult to use technology effectively in the classroom. Teacher/professor training can help teachers stay up-to-date on the latest trends and developments in educational technology to integrate it more effectively into their teaching practices.

Another challenge teachers face when using technology in the classroom is ensuring that students are using the technology to learn. A student’s laptop or tablet does not mean they are using it for learning. Many distractions are around, making it difficult for students to focus on their work. Teacher/professor training can help teachers learn how to effectively use technology in the classroom so students can remain engaged and focused on their work.

How Technology Is Changing The Way Students Learn

Technology is changing the way students learn in several ways. 

Technology makes it easier for students to communicate with each other and their teachers. In the past, students had to rely on face-to-face or written communication (e.g., via email). Now, many different tools allow students to communicate with each other and their teachers online. It includes video conferencing, instant messaging, and online forums. This makes it easier for students to get help with their work and to collaborate with each other.

It also makes it possible for students to get more out of their education. In the past, students had to rely on lectures and textbooks to learn about a topic. Now, there are many different resources that students can use to learn about a topic.

Finally, technology is making it easier for teachers to personalize instruction for each student. In the past, teachers had to teach the same material to all of their students in the same way. Now, teachers can use many different tools to personalize instruction for each student. This includes online quizzes, adaptive learning software, and digital portfolios. This makes it easier for teachers to tailor their education to meet the needs of each individual student.

Higher Education News , Tips for Online Students

Discovering the Importance of Technology in Education 

Updated: June 19, 2024

Published: May 24, 2019

Technology has taken over our world and has dramatically changed the way we live, work, and learn. In the education sector, technology has been a game-changer and has transformed the traditional methods of teaching and learning.  In a classroom setting, students are often given a lot of information to process quickly. This can be overwhelming and cause confusion. Technology provides access to numerous online resources that support independent learning and research. It also helps simplify the learning process by making concepts easier to understand, for example through instructional videos.   

Gone are the days of rote memorization and blackboard lectures. Today’s students are digital natives, who have grown up surrounded by technology and are accustomed to a more interactive, dynamic learning experience. Let’s take a closer look at the importance of technology in education.  

How Important is Technology in Education?  

Technology enhances the learning experience for students by providing them with the tools and resources necessary to succeed. From online resources that help simplify complex concepts to interactive learning experiences that keep students engaged, technology provides students with the support they need to thrive in the classroom and beyond. 

Here are reasons why technology is important in education. They include more engaged students, support for multiple learning styles, better collaboration, more instant feedback for teachers, and preparation for the future.   Let’s take a closer look at the importance of technology in education:  

Enhances Creativity and Innovation  

Technology has opened up a world of opportunities for students to be creative and innovative. With access to a wealth of information and resources at their fingertips, students can experiment, explore and bring their ideas to life.   

This type of hands-on learning is much more engaging and enjoyable for students and helps to foster critical thinking skills. For example, students can use graphic design software to create posters, animations, or videos to present their ideas.   

They can use 3D printing to design and create prototypes of their inventions. They can even use virtual and augmented reality to bring their ideas to life and make them more interactive.  

Supports Personalized Learning  

One of the biggest benefits of technology in education is personalized learning. With online resources and educational software, students can find information that is tailored to their needs, interests, and learning style.   

They can work at their own pace, repeat lessons if they need to, and access information that is relevant to their studies. This type of individualized learning can help students to stay motivated and achieve better results.  

Improves Communication and Collaboration  

Technology has revolutionized the way students, teachers, and administrators communicate and collaborate. With online platforms and social media, students can share ideas, work on projects, and stay connected no matter where they are. They can even work on projects with classmates from other schools or countries, breaking down geographical barriers and building a sense of community in the classroom.   

Furthermore, teachers can use technology to create interactive lessons, online quizzes and tests, and provide instant feedback to students, helping them to stay on track and improve their performance.  

Teaches Students How to be Responsible Online  

With so many social media options out there, it’s no surprise that students are already digital natives. But by bringing technology into the classroom, teachers get to help these students learn how to be responsible and make positive impacts in the digital world. The classroom becomes a mini version of the online world where students get to practice communicating, searching, and interacting with others just like they would in the real digital world.   

Makes Learning More Fun  

Students today are heavily reliant on technology in their daily lives outside the classroom. But incorporating technology in the classroom can not only make learning more interesting, but also help to reinforce the material taught. One innovative teaching method, game-based learning (GBL), involves using interactive games and leaderboards to deliver lessons, making the learning process much more engaging for students.  

With technology, students can also create multimedia projects and share their work with classmates, adding a creative element to the learning experience. Thanks to virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), students can take virtual field trips and simulations that can offer hands-on experiences that bring subjects to life.   

Prepares Students for the Future  

Technology is a critical tool for preparing students for the future. The workforce is rapidly evolving and technology is playing a significant role. Students need to be equipped with the skills they need to succeed in the digital age.   

Technology provides students with the tools and resources they need to develop a range of essential skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. It also provides them with exposure to a variety of digital tools and platforms, helping them to become confident and proficient users.  

What Is the Role of Technology in Education?: The Future  

Wondering what is the role of technology in education ? The 3 important roles technology plays in education are increased collaboration and communication, personalized learning opportunities, and engaging content.  

The future of technology in education is bright and full of possibilities. From virtual and augmented reality to artificial intelligence and machine learning, technology is constantly evolving, and there is so much more to come. Virtual and augmented reality will soon become an integral part of the education experience, allowing students to immerse themselves in interactive, 3D simulations of real-life scenarios. Some benefits of technology in education include improved adaptability, more enriched collaboration, more enjoyable learning experiences, enhanced feedback, better connections, improved tech skills, and reduced costs.  

Artificial intelligence will also play a big role, with chatbots and AI-powered tutors providing instant feedback and support to students. Machine learning will also help to personalize the learning experience, making it more effective and efficient.  

In conclusion, technology has transformed the way we learn, and its impact on education has been profound. It has opened up new avenues for creativity and innovation, supported personalized learning, improved communication and collaboration, and prepared students for the future. As technology continues to evolve, it will be exciting to see how it will continue to shape and improve the education sector.  

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone.

Related Articles

The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom

Technology has always been at the forefront of human education. From the days of carving figures on rock walls to today, when most students are equipped with several portable technological devices at any given time, technology continues to push educational capabilities to new levels. In looking at where educational methods and tools have come from to where they are going in the future, technology’s importance in the classroom is evident now more than ever.

A History of Classroom Technology: The Primitive Classroom

In the Colonial years, wooden paddles with printed lessons, called Horn-Books, were used to assist students in learning verses. Over 200 years later, in 1870, technology advanced to include the Magic Lantern, a primitive version of a slide projector that projected images printed on glass plates. By the time World War I ended, around 8,000 lantern slides were circulating through the Chicago public school system. By the time the Chalkboard came around in 1890, followed by the pencil in 1900, it was clear that students were hungry for more advanced educational tools.

• Radio in the 1920s sparked an entirely new wave of learning; on-air classes began popping up for any student within listening range.
• Next came the overhead projector in 1930, followed by the ballpoint pen in 1940 and headphones in 1950.
• Videotapes arrived on the scene in 1951, creating a new and exciting method of instruction.
• The Skinner Teaching Machine produced a combined system of teaching and testing, providing reinforcement for correct answers so that the student can move on to the next lesson.
• The photocopier (1959) and handheld calculator (1972) entered the classrooms next, allowing for mass production of material on the fly and quick mathematical calculations.
• The Scantron system of testing, introduced by Michael Sokolski n 1972, allowed educators to grade tests more quickly and efficiently.

The pre-computer years were formative in the choices made for computers in the years following. Immediate response-type systems (video, calculator, Scantron) had become necessary, and quick production of teaching materials, using the photocopier, had become a standard. The U.S. Department of Education reports that high school enrollment was only 10% in 1900, but by 1992 had expanded to 95%. The number of students in college in 1930 was around 1 million, but by 2012 had grown to a record 21.6 million. Teachers needed new methods of instruction and testing, and students were looking for new ways to communicate, study, and learn.

The Entrance and Significance of Personal Computers

Although the first computers were developed in the ‘30s, everyday-use computers were introduced in the ‘80s. The first portable computer, in 1981, weighed 24 pounds and cost $1,795. When IBM introduced its first personal computer in 1981, the educational world knew that it was on the verge of greatness. Time magazine named The Computer its “ Man of the Year ” in 1982, and aptly so: the foundation of immediate learning capabilities had been laid. Time declared, “it is the end result of a technological revolution that has been in the making for four decades and is now, quite literally, hitting home.”

• Toshiba released its first mass-market consumer laptop in 1985 (the T1100), and Apple’s infamous Mac (which later evolved into the Powerbook) was available starting in 1984.
• In 1990, The World Wide Web was given life when a British researcher developed Hyper Text Markup Language, or HTML, and when the National Science Foundation (NSF) removed restrictions on the commercial use of the Internet in 1993, the world exploded into a frenzy of newfound research and communication methods.
• The first Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) were released by Apple Computer Inc. in 1993, and with that, computers were a part of every day, if not every moment. By 2009, 97% of classrooms had one or more computers , and 93% of classroom computers had Internet access. For every 5 students, there was one computer. Instructors stated that 40% of students used computers often in their educational methods, in addition to interactive whiteboards and digital cameras. College students nowadays are rarely without some form of computer technology: 83% own a laptop, and over 50% have a Smartphone.

The Future of Technology in the Classroom

It seems like years since MySpace, first introduced in 2003, Facebook (2004) and Twitter (2007) have changed both the communication and business worlds. Instant connectivity has branched out from merely a tool of personal communication, to a platform for educational instruction and outreach. Social media is now being recognized as an accepted form of instruction in some instances, and groups such as Scholastic Teachers provide excellent support and tips for instructors. Many instructors use social media to communicate directly with their students, or to form forum-style groups for students to communicate with each other, and the method seems to be proving valuable in providing one-on-one attention to student’s questions and concerns.

With the classroom having already evolved into a hotbed of technological advances, what can the future possibly hold that could further educational proficiencies even more?

• Biometrics, a technology that recognizes people based on certain physical or behavioral traits, is on the technological horizon. The science will be used to recognize the physical and emotional disposition of students in the classroom, altering course material to tailor to each individual’s needs based on biometric signals.
• A second up-and-coming technology is Augmented Reality (AR) glasses , rumored to be on Google’s release list, and this technology could be a whole new world for education. AR Glasses (or even contact lenses) will layer data on top of what we naturally see, to allow for a real-world learning experience. For example, a student wearing AR Glasses could potentially sit at his desk and have a conversation with Thomas Edison about invention. It was Edison, after all, who said that “Books will soon be obsolete in schools. Scholars will soon be instructed through the eye.”
• Multi-touch surfaces are commonly used through equipment such as the iPhone, but the technology could become more relevant to education through entirely multi-touch surfaces, such as desks or workstations. This could allow students to collaborate with other students, even those around the world, and videos and other virtual tools could be streamed directly to the surface.

Educators and the Evolution of Technology in the Classroom

With the evolution of technology, educational capabilities are growing and changing every day. The Internet is a vast electronic library of information, and both research and instruction can be achieved through a click of the mouse. With these advances come new responsibilities to the instructor and therefore increase the value of a Master of Science in Education in Learning Design and Technology. As technology advances, an educator’s abilities will grow by leaps and bounds, and without the knowledge of these changes and capabilities, an instructor has a good chance of being left behind.

A career in education requires hard work and dedication, but, for the diligent educator, can prove very rewarding. For those who are serious about success in the education field, staying well-informed of current and changing technologies is imperative. As the world of technology evolves, the learning environment, both on-campus and online, will equally progress, and the need for teachers who are educated in technology and design will continue to grow.

Learn more about the online MSEd in Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University today and help redefine the way in which individuals learn. Call (877) 497-5851 to speak with an admissions advisor or to request more information.

How Technology Enhances Education: A New Perspective

We live in a technology-driven world. From smartphones to tablets, technology is everywhere and has impacted many aspects of our lives—including education. Because of technology, education has been enhanced for students and professionals alike.

With technology, we can learn more than ever before. There are so many new technology tools that can help enhance how students learn in the classroom or at home. As a result, more people enjoy an improved learning experience that helps them learn more about the world. People can watch lessons online, get educated from a distance, and learn more about the importance of technology.

Exploring the Benefits of Technology for Education

In education, technology is used for many purposes , including research, communication between students and teachers , sharing resources across the curriculum in different disciplines, and providing opportunities for individualized learning through technology-enhanced products such as apps that can be personalized for each student.

The technology used in education has allowed students to learn more about the world and how technology can enhance learning. Students can watch lessons online, take courses from a distance, and learn more about technology through technology-enhanced products such as apps that personalize content for each student’s needs and interests.

For example, students can use technology to learn more about what is meant by Catholic social teaching . All topics can be explored these days because of technology. Therefore, students today have more opportunities for education than any other generation.

One of the best things about technology in education is that it can be used to help students with different learning styles. For example, a student who learns visually can watch a video on YouTube about a topic and then take a quiz on the material afterward.

Another student who prefers hands-on learning can create an account on a website like Code Academy and start learning how to code. There are so many ways that technology can be used in education, and it is constantly evolving. For this reason, students today have come to value technology more.

Below are more examples of how technology enhances students’ methods of learning:

Education has become more accessible, especially for people on the go

With technology, education has become more portable. For example, a student interested in learning more about history can download an app on their phone and start learning wherever they are. There are also websites that allow students to take classes from anywhere in the world.

As a result, technology has allowed students to become more educated no matter where they are. This means that most barriers that hindered students from accessing quality education in the past have been removed by technology.

Technology has also allowed for more collaboration among students

Social media platforms enable students from all over the world to come together and collaborate on projects. This type of collaboration would not have been possible in the past without technology.

Thus, technology has enhanced education by making it more accessible and collaborative. As a result, technology is something that everyone should embrace to improve education.

Technology can help improve education so that it better fits the needs of each student

There is technology out there that helps teachers understand their students’ learning styles and how best to teach them so that they will retain information. This technology also allows for different teaching methods, such as games or technology, to be used.

This technology can even help students understand the material better because they have more hands-on experience with it. Not everyone learns in the same way. Technology is being created to allow every student to learn how they best process information. Therefore, their education can improve significantly because of technology.

Technology allows students to engage in research more effectively

Technology has also paved the way for students to engage in research more effectively. Through technology, they can access information much faster and from a wider variety of sources. They are also able to communicate with other students and researchers all over the world easily and collaborate on projects in ways that were not possible before technology became such a big part of our lives.

Technology and the Future of Education

The use of technology in education is constantly evolving and improving. As a result, technology will continue to play an essential part in education in the future. In this age, technology has become a necessity for living a successful life and can be seen everywhere, from homes to classrooms. Therefore, technology has become an essential part of education for students and professionals around the world.

About The Author

Start typing and press enter to search

Here’s What Tech-Savvy Educators Think About Cellphone Bans in Schools

• Share article

School districts have been debating whether to completely ban student cellphones, encourage teachers to integrate them into their instruction, or something in between for about a decade.

Outright bans seem to be gathering momentum, especially at the state level . And just this month, Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest school district, announced that it will ban the use of student cellphones, beginning in January. In explaining the decision, LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho argued that the devices distract students from their academics and that social media platforms hurt kids’ mental health.

Plenty of educators agree with him. In fact, nearly 1 of every 4 teachers support completely banning phones , according to a nationally representative survey conducted last fall by the EdWeek Research Center.

But what do educators at the International Society for Technology in Education’s annual conference here in Denver think? ISTE is one of the largest ed-tech conferences in the world. It’s hard to imagine a bigger concentration of ed-tech directors, coaches, and teachers who embrace digital tools.

Surely, the educators in this ed-tech epicenter wouldn’t favor banning a ubiquitous technology like cellphones. Right?

Not exactly. In fact, when two EdWeek reporters approached ISTE attendees to talk about school cellphone policies, we got a range of responses.

Here’s a sample of what we heard.

Why these educators support a cellphone ban

Take: Ban them. They’re a big distraction.

“I am for [bans]. I’m a parent, too, and I understand the safety concerns [of not having direct access to our kids at school], but we need to be able to trust the school. Cellphones are a distraction, and it’s too much to ask a child to pay attention when there’s a phone buzzing in their pocket or a smartwatch vibrating on their wrist .

“They can’t help themselves. It’s human nature. Even as an adult, it’s hard for us to put our phones away and pay attention to a staff meeting.”

—Rachel Lemansky, elementary library coordinator, Dudley-Charlton district, Mass.

Take: Ban them to keep students safe.

“I’m in middle school and it affects everything I do. There are so many layers to [banning cellphones]. It’s a safety issue. As a school, there’s not much we can do to monitor what students do on their personal devices, but we need to be able to know what they’re doing because it’s part of our responsibility.

“It’s also an engagement issue. I need [students] to put the phones away so I can hopefully engage them in the lesson. We’re also a 1-to-1 district now so they don’t need their phones to access learning materials.”

—Gerilyn Williams, middle school math teacher, Pinelands schools, N.J.

Take: Consider a ban, but don’t make teachers the enforcers.

“I am pro exploring [a ban]. We have enough data about social media and mental health issues. We’re stewards of kids’ well-being. If we’re not thinking about doing something [to help], it’s like, what are we doing?

“I’m convinced that you can’t just put it on the teacher. Teachers are already burned out. We already have a shortage. And we’re asking them to have these great relationships with students. But if we maintain the status quo of, ‘it’s the teachers’ decision,’ then we’re inserting a barrier [to relationship building] that doesn’t have to be there.”

—A district technology administrator from Texas who preferred not to be named because the administrator’s views run counter to the district’s policy, which leaves decisions about cellphones up to individual teachers

Why these educators oppose cellphone bans

Take: Don’t ban them because students need to learn to use them.

“As educators in high school, we need to teach students how to use cellphones and when to use them responsibly. If you just ban them, what are we really accomplishing when they go out into the workforce? How do they know when it’s appropriate, where it’s appropriate, how it’s appropriate to use them? The teenage years are the years we figure things out.”

—Candice Breaux, the career and technical education supervisor, West Baton Rouge Parish Schools, La.

Take: Don’t ban them because teachers will devote too much time to enforcing that policy.

“Teachers could spend a lot of energy and effort fighting [cellphones], but I don’t know how far they really would get. The kids, they have cellphones. They’re going to be using them. I personally feel like as educators, especially now, we need to be figuring out how do you help kids use them productively and to get the task done at hand?”

—Lauren Tavarez, director of digital learning, Ector County Independent School District, Texas

Take: They’re problematic, but don’t take them away.

“Since the pandemic, I’ve talked to a lot of teachers across the country. They’re seeing kids having issues trying to talk face-to-face or work in groups. They’re hiding behind their cellphones. It’s become a crutch. And for some of my kids, because they’ve experienced a lot of trauma, they feel safe [with their phones].

“You have to work quite a bit with them to realize, ‘oh, they’re not doing it to be rude.’ You really have to change your mindset that they’re doing it because they don’t feel safe. If I yelled at these kids [to put their phones away], they’re just going to get up and walk out.”

—Kristin Conley, teacher, Arapahoe Ridge High School, an alternative school in Colorado

The argument against all or nothing cellphone policies

Take: Limit them and teach mindfulness practices to keep kids off their phones.

“I do see how it can seem like all or nothing. But we really do need to have a blend. [Students need to understand] if you feel like you’re getting addicted to it, you’re maybe looking at your cellphone at inappropriate times, you can use mindful strategies and give [yourself] permission to put it down to the side.

"[Teachers can help by having] ‘cellphone away time,’ and then maybe the last 10 minutes of class, have it accessible. I’m never good with all or nothing. I always feel like there has to be a balance.”

—Kara Fahy, STEAM and project-based learning coach, Fort Belvoir Upper Elementary, Va.

And the official ISTE take…

Take: Don’t ban them. Teach students to use them.

“In general, banning tools that students are going to need to use in their future life is not a good idea. I do understand that if you have a school or district that has not been able to get ahead of creating a healthy culture for device use, you may need to just take a pause and reset some things to help reinforce some good, healthy habits. And so that may be a choice that some schools are taking.

“I do want to make sure it’s clear that in some way, shape, or form, we have to help young people learn how to use these tools in effective ways, if you want them to be successful in the future.”

—Richard Culatta, ISTE’s CEO

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

More From Forbes

The use of ai in education: understanding the student’s perspective.

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

Tao Zhang, Head of Engineering at Caktus AI .

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to make its inevitable way into education, there is a need to understand beyond the educators' perspectives in order to sufficiently capture how students interact and behave around this innovative technology.

Today, 60% of teachers use AI in their classrooms. As the founder of Caktus AI, an AI platform for students, I believe there is a relevant and consistent student perspective that educators should consider.

Students And High Trust In AI

Ever since the AI explosion in popularity back in 2022, it's been known and documented that AI can suffer from hallucinations—the generation of factually incorrect AI outputs. Inaccurate outputs may appear as false testimonials of historical events or just out-of-context responses.

However, during an internal user research effort from our 2.6 million users, we found that, on average, students rated AI's accuracy for school-related work at 7.2 out of 10. The score places high regard on the AI outputs students use for their work, at least from their perspective. Given how much students already trust and rely on AI, there is an opportunity to provide further support in their writing journey to ensure access to factual information.

Biden Says Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Sets ‘Dangerous Precedent,’ In Brief Remarks

Monday, july 1 . russia’s war on ukraine: news and information from ukraine, hurricane beryl strengthens to category 5 and moves towards jamaica after pummeling other caribbean islands—photos.

Adverse skepticism toward AI information also comes from the models' data sources. Although generative AI players work hard on optimizations and infrastructural improvements, many still rely on generic data to train the models. Training with low-quality data can lead to inherited biases that every student should be aware of, according to MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies .

Many students also reported editing the output content from AI tools. Forty-one percent of students said they always edit AI-generated content, while only 3% stated they never do. Even though students are using these AI tools to help with their writing, editing the output remains an integral part of their writing process.

The inherent learning from these actions can still positively support their overall educational experience. With the educators' encouragement to double-check sources and data, I believe AI can positively influence students' writing journey.

Common AI Use Cases

Most use cases that students take advantage of are related to writing. However, other use cases to consider for students are as follows.

• General homework questions.

• Direct support in their research, explicitly finding academic sources.

• Inspiration and advice.

• Assistance with math problems.

• Clerical work (such as emails or scheduling).

• Coding help.

Another use case that can help students is language learning assistance. International students trying to learn English, or even English-speaking students trying to learn another language, use AI tools to a great extent to practice their vocabulary and chatting capabilities.

The feedback loop an AI tool can offer greatly supports language learners and can be considered for educators to incorporate into their classrooms.

Looking Ahead As AI Tools Mature

AI tools are not going anywhere anytime soon. As technology advances, educators' input on how students can use AI effectively can improve the overall learning experience. Both the AI industry and educators need to collaborate to ensure progress, considering the real-world impact of AI technology.

While many students already rely on AI for daily tasks, not all educators are enthusiastic about this technology. Many teachers believe AI is hindering students from learning fundamental skills in math, reading and writing. Indeed, the lack of safeguards to prevent misuse allows students to use AI to complete tasks effortlessly. To protect the learning experience, it is essential for educational AI applications to implement barriers that discourage plagiarism.

For instance, the research process should be simplified by retrieving relevant reference materials from extensive databases. This integration of factual information into students' essays can save time while ensuring their writing remains original and their understanding of the topic deepens. It can also help mitigate misinformation, ensuring students receive accurate and reliable information.

Giving educators the transparency to monitor how students interact with AI can help create an additional layer of protection against potential misuse. As education evolves with AI, there will be many similar opportunities to enhance the way students acquire and digest knowledge.

As this innovation will likely only grow, I believe it's important for educators to support their students' experience by minimizing research and ideation efficiency. When addressed strategically, AI can become another tool designed to make learning easier.

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

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Global navigation
• Site navigation

IU South Bend Bulletin 2024-2025

• About IU South Bend
• Degrees Offered
• General Education
• Academic Schools
• Online Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Course Descriptions
• IU South Bend Home
• Collaborative Online Degree Programs

IU Resources

• Indiana University Web Site
• Administration
• Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Policies

Previous IU South Bend Campus Bulletins

Students are ordinarily subject to the curricular requirements outlined in the Bulletin in effect at the start of their current degree. See below for links to previous Bulletins (bulletins prior to 2013-2014 are in PDF format only).

Online Only

If you are seeking further information regarding specific programs, please contact individual departments .

For problems accessing information on this website, please contact Teresa Sheppard .

Master of Science in Educational Technology for Learning

Collaborative online degree.

This 100 percent online, consortial program is taught by  IU South Bend , IU Bloomington, IU East, IUPUI, IU Kokomo, and IU Southeast. This consortial model allows you to take coursework from several campuses and learn from a wide range of faculty.

Technology is rapidly revolutionizing society, making it imperative that educators learn to use digital tools to strengthen their teaching and improve student learning.

The IU Online Master of Science in Education (MSEd) in Educational Technology for Learning will engage you in a technology-infused curriculum that requires you to use and evaluate a wide variety of digital tools used in educational environments. As a student in the program, you will consider how you can teach differently in today's technology-enhanced environments. You will develop new technology skill sets and be able to determine which technologies to apply in order to achieve your pedagogical goals.

As the United States strives to develop a globally competitive workforce, demand is high for educators who can engage learners in 21st Century skills and mindsets. The MSEd in Educational Technology for Learning curriculum connects theory to practice, preparing you to design learning experiences that promote creativity and active learning through the integration of digital tools.

Admissions requirements vary by campus.

Degree Requirements (36 cr.)

Requirements are broken down as follows:

Foundations Coursework (9 cr.)

Inquiry and research (9 cr.), technology in education core (12 cr.), education technology electives (6 cr.).

• All courses are 3 credit hours, unless otherwise noted.

Instruction in the Curriculum (3 cr.)

• EDUC-J 500 Instruction in the Context of Curriculum

Assessment (3 cr.)

• Assessment in Schools

Diversity and Inclusive Teaching (3 cr.)

Select one from the following:

• EDUC-H 520 Education and Social Issues
• EDUC-J 511 Methods of Individualizing Instruction
• EDUC-T 531 Organizational Change in Cultural and Linguistical Diverse Schools
• EDUC-W 590 Individual Research in Computer Education
• EDUC-Y 510 Action Research I
• EDUC-Y 520 Strategies for Educational Inquiry
• EDUC-W 515 Technology Leadership and Professional Development
• EDUC-W 520 Planning for Technology Infrastructure
• EDUC-W 531 Technology or Teaching and Learning
• EDUC-W 540 Technology-Infused Curriculum

Select two from the following:

• EDUC-K 510 Assistive Technology in Special Education
• EDUC-R 505 Workshop in Instructional Systems Technology; VT: Computer-Based Teaching Methods
• EDUC-R 547 Computer Mediated Learning
• EDUC-W 505 Profesional Development Conference: Specific Title
• EDUC-W 550 Current Technology Trends

Academic Bulletins

• Indiana University
• IU Bloomington

PDF Version

Copyright © 2024 The Trustees of Indiana University , Copyright Complaints

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Bring photo ID to vote Check what photo ID you'll need to vote in person in the General Election on 4 July.

• Education, training and skills
• Running and managing a school

Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges

Digital leadership and governance standards.

Find out what standards your school or college should meet on digital leadership and governance.

Good digital technology governance:

• identifies roles and responsibilities
• establishes critical processes to manage digital technology
• ensures that up-to-date information on the school or college’s digital technology is available to support decision making

We refer to hardware, software and digital services as digital technology throughout the following standards.

The job titles in these standards may not fit in your educational setting, but the responsibilities described should be applied to the most relevant person.

You should complete the first 3 standards before moving to the last standard on creating your digital technology strategy. This is so you can successfully build your strategy in line with your school or college’s development plan.

Visit our standards page for more details on how to use the standards to help your school or college meet their digital technology needs.

Assign a senior leadership team (SLT) member to be responsible for digital technology 

Why this standard is important  .

Schools and colleges need a member of their SLT to: 

• have strategic oversight of all digital technology and how it fits with their development plan 
• create and manage the digital technology strategy led by the needs of staff and students, not the technology itself 
• help all staff to embed digital technology that meets staff and student needs 

Having clearly defined roles and responsibilities will help schools and colleges focus the digital technology strategy around their development plan. Without this focus, there’s a risk that: 

• the use of technology will only meet short-term needs that could potentially lead to additional unplanned costs 
• schools and colleges will be exposed to safeguarding and security issues 
• new digital technology will not be compatible with existing technology used by the school or college 

Who needs to be involved 

The headteacher or principal will have responsibility for making sure this standard is met by assigning a SLT digital lead.  

The SLT digital lead is usually someone with teaching experience. They will act as a link between: 

• technical staff 
• curriculum leads 
• the data protection officer
• the designated safeguarding lead
• school, college and trust business professionals or the finance team 
• the trust IT director or equivalent (if applicable) to align with the digital technology strategy 

How to meet this standard 

To meet this standard, the headteacher or principal should appoint someone who is responsible for digital technology. They do not need to be an expert, but some technical knowledge or interest could be advantageous for this role. 

They will be accountable for: 

• the delivery of the digital technology strategy based on teaching and learning outcomes and organisational needs 
• encouraging and supporting the use of digital technology across the school or college 
• reviewing the effectiveness of IT support to inform decision making and taking action, when necessary 
• identifying and acting on digital technology training needs for staff and students 

Governors or trustees should also consider assigning a digital link role within the governing body or board of trustees.  

When to meet this standard 

You will need to assign the role of the SLT digital lead within your school or college before you can create your digital technology strategy.

• Keep registers relating to hardware and systems up to date 

Why this standard is important 

A contracts register, asset register and information asset register will help your school or college to: 

• understand what digital data, equipment and systems you have
• manage digital data, equipment and systems effectively 
• keep track of buying and licensing so that schools or colleges can get better value for money when renewing software and hardware 

Not having these registers in place for digital technology could lead to: 

• budget pressures due to accidental renewal of subscriptions, software and hardware that might not be needed, or are not the best value for money 
• safeguarding and cyber security issues as software might not be up to date 
• lost learning and workload burdens if software or hardware is not budgeted for or supported 

To meet this standard, the senior leadership team ( SLT ) digital lead will need to work with the following people: 

• school, college or trust business professionals or the finance team

To meet this standard, schools and colleges should include digital technology within their: 

• contracts register 
• asset register 
• information asset register 

By including digital technology in these documents, schools and colleges will know what contracts, digital technology and data they have, and when they need to be reviewed. 

Contracts register 

The contracts register includes, but is not limited to: 

• subscriptions 
• contracts related to your broadband, IT support and technology provider 
• a list of your school or college’s approved apps 

It can also capture the value of the contracts which helps to monitor spend and make savings where possible. 

Commercial and procurement information should be updated by the business or finance team, and IT support should update technical information. This contract register must be kept up to date. 

Asset register 

An asset register is a log of all the physical digital technology and tools that are within the school or college and should detail: 

• what equipment you have 
• asset numbers 
• serial numbers 
• who it is assigned to 
• where it is within the school or college 
• when it was purchased
• how old it is – this may be different to how long you have owned it, as it may be second-hand equipment 
• when it is due for review so that you can consider a replacement or upgrade 
• date it was securely disposed of 

The SLT digital lead owns this register and is responsible for making sure processes are in place for IT support to keep the register up to date.  

Information asset register ( IAR ) 

An IAR is a log of the digital data that is held on staff and students and is owned by the data protection officer. The SLT digital lead is responsible for making sure there is a process in place for: 

• IT support to update the data protection officer on any digital technology data that needs to be included in the register 
• the data protection officer to use the existing IAR to identify and report any potential changes that may need to be made to your digital technology strategy to the SLT digital lead – for example, if your IAR identified the need for security improvements with your servers 
• reviewing the digital technology aspects of the IAR  

You should already be updating your registers every time something changes.  

However, the SLT digital lead should review these registers ahead of your next financial planning cycle, and before you move on to the next standard to create your digital technology strategy.  

 Related standards 

The following standards should also be considered when documenting and monitoring your data, equipment, and systems. 

Servers and storage standards 

• Servers and related storage platforms must be secure and follow data protection legislation  
• All server and related storage platforms should be kept and used in an appropriate physical environment  

Cyber security standards 

• Network devices should be known and recorded with their security features enabled, correctly configured and kept up-to-date  

Laptops, desktops and tablets standards 

• Devices should meet educational needs and support the digital technology strategy   
• Make sure devices are energy efficient, and they are bought and disposed of sustainably

Include digital technology within disaster recovery and business continuity plans 

You should have a process in place to review and update the disaster recovery and business continuity plans, including those related to digital technology.  

Not doing so will risk: 

• significant disruption to a school or college in the event of a disaster, such as a cyber attack 
• unplanned spend from a disaster that was not expected 
• potential loss of data or a data breach 

This process will help your school or college to continue to operate and provide teaching and learning even during emergencies. This will help prevent lost learning and will also mean that: 

• staff, students and parents or carers will know what to do and what to expect in an emergency 
• there will be a clear definition of what a ‘disaster’ looks like for your school or college 
• you can test your disaster recovery plan to identify gaps within it 

The senior leadership team ( SLT ) digital lead will be responsible for this standard, but will need input from:  

• the operational team (such as finance, IT support and estate management), teaching and other admin staff to understand risks and any actions that can be taken to avoid them 
• the designated safeguarding lead, who can advise on safeguarding needs and concerns in the event of a disaster 
• the data protection officer to provide advice for mitigating data risks and emergency responses 
• governors or trust leadership who will review, support and challenge these plans and provide sign-off, if required 
• any outsourced services or suppliers (for example, management information systems, broadband or cloud services) to understand their protocols and include them in plans 

Digital technology should work with your existing business continuity and disaster recovery plans. To do this you should either include digital technology in your existing plans or have a separate plan for digital technology. Both plans need to be reviewed and updated annually or when a significant change occurs.  

Once your plans have been completed, you should create a summary document with top-level details (such as key contacts for when a disaster occurs) to be shared securely with all staff. 

The business continuity and disaster recovery plans, including the summary documents, should be: 

• printed out to retain hard copies in case of an emergency, such as a cyber incident 
• kept online in a secure, shared folder location in the cloud, with remote access granted to those in your disaster recovery team 

Disaster recovery plan 

Your disaster recovery plan is a living document to use when a disaster takes place. It should be tested annually (at a minimum) to identify any gaps in knowledge or work needed within your digital technology estate.  

It is a set of rules to follow depending on the disaster and should include details such as: 

• a definition of what a disaster for digital technology means to your school or college, defined by how long you can function when the disaster takes place 
• who they are
• what they are responsible for
• their contact details 
• how you will test your disaster recovery plan – for example, simulating data loss or hardware failure 

Business continuity plan 

Your business continuity plan should look at: 

• assessing risks of digital technology 
• steps that can be taken to reduce risk 
• actions that need to be taken if risk occurs and there is a need for recovery 

Insurance companies may ask all schools and colleges for these documents as part of risk management. So, you should already be meeting this standard or be working towards meeting it. 

Related standards 

The following links will also help you to meet this standard. 

Broadband internet standards 

• Schools and colleges should have a backup broadband connection to ensure resilience and maintain continuity of service  
• Your business continuity and disaster recovery plan should include a regularly tested contingency plan in response to a cyber attack  

Cloud solution standards 

• Make sure that appropriate data backup provision is in place  
• Cloud solutions must follow data protection legislation  
• Cloud solutions should use ID and access management tools  

Filtering and monitoring standards 

Your filtering system should block harmful and inappropriate content, without unreasonably impacting teaching and learning  

You should have effective monitoring strategies that meet the safeguarding needs of your school or college  

• Servers and related storage platforms must be secure and follow data protection legislation

Have a digital technology strategy that is reviewed every year

Before you review this standard, please make sure you complete the first 3 standards in this topic called: 

• Assign a senior leadership team ( SLT ) member to be responsible for digital technology 
• Include digital technology within disaster recovery and business continuity plans

Creating a digital technology strategy that is aligned with your development plan will help to make sure: 

• the digital technology used meets the needs of staff and students 
• your budget, buying decisions and any risks are managed 
• staff and students receive the training they need to use digital technology safely and effectively 
• you can assess the impact of digital technology against your strategy 

Not having a strategy in place could lead to: 

• disrupted learning if the digital technology does not support curriculum delivery 
• potential compromises to safeguarding  
• an increased risk of a cyber attack 
• budget pressures if digital technology systems fail and need to be replaced 
• buying digital technology that is not suitable for the school or college’s educational vision 
• a lack of resources (such as the right roles, budget and funding) to support the use and replacement of digital technology  

The SLT digital lead is accountable for this standard and will coordinate and manage the digital technology strategy with input from: 

• subject leaders, teaching and learning leads, heads of year, and exam officers to understand their teaching and learning needs for both staff and students  
• IT support, who will assess the existing hardware and software for whether they are fit for purpose and help identify any potential risks and gaps in resources 
• the operational team (for example the school, college or trust business professional, finance team or IT support) to help support and inform budget planning 
• designated safeguarding lead and data protection officer to give advice and identify risks and issues related to their roles  
• the person responsible for special education needs and disabilities to identify accessibility, diversity and inclusion needs 

Your governing body, school board or board of trustees will support and challenge any plans and decisions made on the digital technology strategy.  

To create a strategy, you could: 

• get input from your own school or college community 
• speak to other schools and colleges who have been through a similar process 

The SLT digital lead will need to understand the school or college’s development plan to make sure the digital technology strategy supports this. They will also need to know your current digital technology estate. This should include gathering information on: 

• contracts and assets, including physical and data assets 
• current and committed digital technology spend 
• risks, including disaster recovery plan (contingency planning) and business continuity plan 
• what technology students have access to outside of their school or college 
• training and development needs for staff and students to be able to meet the vision of the digital technology strategy 

Developing a vision 

The SLT digital lead should develop a longer-term vision for digital technology to support all educational and organisational needs. The vision: 

• should support the school or college’s development plan and educational vision 
• should be sustainable and minimise the impact on the environment 
• could be informed by stakeholders and by visiting other schools and colleges with similar needs to yours 

Creating and managing the strategy 

Once the vision has been finalised, the SLT digital lead should create a minimum 2-year strategy. This will take into consideration the changes in digital technology and the longer-term plans for what might need to be refreshed or replaced.  

The SLT digital lead will also need to: 

• revisit and review the strategy annually (at a minimum) and amend it in line with any changes 
• share a top-level summary of the strategy to key stakeholders 

To meet this standard, you will need to have met the previous 3 standards above. Once you have completed those, this standard can then be completed before your next budget cycle. 

The following standards should also be considered when creating your digital technology strategy:  

• cyber security  
• filtering and monitoring  
• laptop, desktop and tablet
• servers and storage  

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

• Our Purpose
• Our Science and Technology
• Join Our Team
• Partner with Us
• Community and Education

• Educating the Community and Future Generations

NIF's Guide to How Lasers Work

“laser” is an acronym for l ight a mplification by s timulated e mission of r adiation.

A laser is created when electrons in the atoms in optical materials like glass, crystal, or gas absorb the energy from an electrical current or a light. That extra energy “excites” the electrons enough to move from a lower-energy orbit to a higher-energy orbit around the atom’s nucleus.

A laser takes advantage of the quantum properties of atoms that absorb and radiate particles of light called photons. When electrons in atoms return to their normal orbit—or “ground” state—either spontaneously or when “stimulated” with a light or other energy source, even another laser in some cases, they emit more photons.

Light moves in waves. Ordinary visible light, say from a household light bulb or a flashlight, comprises multiple wavelengths, or colors, and are incoherent, meaning the crests and troughs of the light waves are moving at different wavelengths and in different directions.

In a laser beam, the light waves are “coherent,” meaning the beam of photons is moving in the same direction at the same wavelength. This is accomplished by sending the energized electrons through an optical “gain medium” such as a solid material like glass, or a gas.

The particular wavelength of light is determined by the amount of energy released when the excited electron drops to a lower orbit. The levels of energy introduced can be tailored to the material in the gain medium to produce the desired beam color.

A mirror on one side of the laser’s optical material bounces the photon back toward the electrons. The space between mirrors, or the “cavity,” is designed so the photon desired for the particular type of optical gain medium are fed back into the medium to stimulate the emission of an almost exact clone of that photon. They both move in the same direction and speed, to bounce off another mirror on the other side to repeat the cloning process.

Two become four, four become eight and so on until the photons are amplified enough for them to all move past the mirrors and the optical material in perfect unison. Think of them as synchronized members of a marching band in the Rose Parade. And that unison gives the laser its power. Laser beams can stay sharply focused over vast distances, even to the moon and back.

Lasers Are Everywhere

Lasers have been around since 1960, although the idea goes back to 1900 (see “A Legacy of Lasers and Laser Fusion Pioneers”) .

Today, lasers come in many sizes, shapes, colors, and levels of power, and are used for everything from surgery in hospitals, to bar code scanners at the grocery store, and even playing music, movies, and video games at home. You might have undergone LASIK surgery, which corrects your vision by using a tiny laser to reshape the cornea of your eye.

Some lasers, such as ruby lasers, emit short pulses of light. Others, like helium–neon gas lasers or liquid dye lasers, emit light that is continuous. NIF, like the ruby laser, emits pulses of light lasting only billionths of a second. Laser light does not need to be visible. NIF beams start out as invisible infrared light and then pass through special optics that convert them to visible green light and then to invisible, high-energy ultraviolet light for optimum interaction with the target.

Lasers can be tiny constituents of microchips or as immense as NIF, the world’s largest and most energetic laser housed in a building 10 stories high and as wide as three football fields.

  More Information:

How NIF Works

• 50 Years of Laser Leadership

Video: Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Laser

• What Is NIF?
• Laser Glass
• Optical Switch
• Preamplifier Modules
• Deformable Mirror
• Rapid-Growth Crystals
• Computer Control System
• Target Fabrication
• Anatomy of a NIF Shot
• Power Conditioning System
• Injection Laser System
• Beam Transport
• Final Optics
• Target Chamber
• Facility Operations
• Power and Energy
• Control Systems
• Diagnostics
• Efficiency Improvements
• Key Steps on the Path to NIF
• Building NIF
• People Profiles
• Developing the Workforce
• Enduring Partnerships
• Technology Transfer
• LLNL Expands Outreach to HBCUs in Weeklong Event
• NIF and Stockpile Stewardship
• High Energy Density Science
• Advancing Weapon Physics
• Achieving Fusion Ignition
• National Security Applications
• Developing New Capabilities
• Lab Astrophysics
• Nuclear Astrophysics
• Planetary Physics
• Plasma Physics
• DoD Technologies
• Advanced Optical Technologies
• Advanced Photon Technologies
• Advanced Laser Systems
• Fiber Lasers
• Materials for Laser Systems
• Exploring Energy Security
• NIF Calendar
• NIF User Portal
• Experimental Capabilities
• Shot RI Resources
• Call for Proposals
• 2022 Awarded Campaigns
• 2021 Awarded Campaigns
• 2020 Awarded Campaigns
• 2019 Awarded Campaigns
• 2018 Awarded Campaigns
• 2017 Awarded Campaigns
• 2016 Awarded Campaigns
• 2015 Awarded Campaigns
• 2014 Awarded Campaigns
• Executive Board
• Target Shot Metrics
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Jupiter Laser Facility
• Photo Gallery
• Poster Gallery
• Video Gallery
• How Lasers Work
• How to Make a Star
• Laser Roadshow
• Student Spotlight
• Scholar Tours
• External Resources
• The Age of Ignition
• In the News
• NIF in the News: Video