In this blog we summarise the final two takeaways from a reflection workshop held in December 2020. Teams from 10 countries collaborated with the EdTech Hub to document the education response to COVID-19, and the use of edtech. Here are their case studies
CREDIT: This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on EdTech Hub
Low-cost data ‘bundles’ and smart-phone technology facilitated better access to technology for distance education
In all 10 countries marginalised learners suffered disproportionately, and the COVID-19 response also exacerbated the gender divide. Girls were often diverted towards helping with household tasks whereas boys were often prioritised when it came to accessing technology. Similarly, during the lockdowns, many of the poorest households were grappling with the choice of spending on essentials such as food, or spending on technology to enable their children to have access to distance education. This was, in some cases, exacerbated by the further loss of household income.
More often than not, the challenge in multi-children households was that it was not always possible for all school-aged children to access devices for schooling because content was delivered in real-time; lessons not delivered in real-time facilitated better access for households with multiple school-aged children who needed to access technology in their own time. If there was only one device in the home it was also the case that the head of the household would need to use it for non-educational purposes. Finally, language created barriers in accessing technology; learners, parents and teachers who did not speak English, or the dominant national language, were unable to use platforms and online resources designed in these languages.
The low cost of data ‘bundles’ and smart-phone technology in some countries facilitated better access to technology during the lockdown period. The type of technology also made a big difference to whether the most marginalised could access education. Mobile ‘phones often seemed well-equipped to reach the most disadvantaged and, in some countries, development partners working in-country assisted in scaling up mobile coverage to the most marginalised areas of the country.
Government agencies have relied mainly on just-in-time data when managing school closures and distance learning
In all countries the decision to close the schools, and move to distance learning, was taken very rapidly. Initially, the priority for educational agencies was to reach as many students as possible because the length of school closures was uncertain. The main source of evidence to inform government decisions at this initial stage were national household surveys and censuses.
These datasets provide sufficient information about household access to the internet, TV, radio and mobile connectivity and helped to identify different channels and methods for delivering teaching material, assisting teachers in communicating with their students. In some countries, educational agencies complemented these data sets with ‘phone surveys with households and/or teachers; though the data collected was incomplete it helped to better understand how many students were excluded from distance schooling.
Evidence from EMIS systems, particularly regarding internet coverage, has been a central factor in informing education agencies’ decisions on edtech during COVID-19. EMIS systems, however, did not provide the type of information that many government agencies needed at the start of the lockdown of schools; officials needed quantitative data about the number of learners who could access classes through technology, and those excluded from it. This data was also considered the easier form of evidence to communicate during the emergency.
Evidence about global education responses to COVID-19 and edtech has been produced mainly through and by development partners; however, the use of this evidence has been mixed.
Large countries such as China, Indonesia, Nigeria and India have relied on quantitative data, evidence, and guidance from national and/or sub-national levels, and not so much on international experience or evidence.
Smaller countries, where the influence of development partners is stronger, established a close co-ordination with donors working with groups to support the decision-making processes of ministries of education. In these countries, international evidence was more of a factor in policy decision-making.
Conclusions
Will increased access to distance learning last? The case studies have shown that, in some countries, education through mass media such as TV and radio may cease (such as in Ghana and Rwanda) while, in others, it may continue, but in a more specialised form (such as on dedicated TV channels in India). Potentially, countries may keep using technology for teacher professional development (Indonesia, Ghana, India) and to reach out-of-school children (Pakistan). Edtech, in some form, is here to stay.
The 10 case studies have confirmed that, although there are common features in responses around the world, context matters. Each country has been influenced by a number of specific factors which, together, determine the extent to which the education system has been able to respond to the crisis and reach students forced to learn from their homes.
Be the first to comment