For decades, there has been enthusiasm about the tremendous potential of digital technology to transform educational outcomes. Since those conversations began, there have also been demands for evidence of these professed benefits, and voices of concern about the potential harm that could be caused by centering technology in our approaches to teaching and learning. These differing perspectives have led to contentions debates and informed the direction of research in the field of education technology.
Scholars have debated a range of topics including the impact of technology on children’s learning and development, technology’s amplification of good and bad educational practices, and the impact of—and approaches to addressing—teacher technophobia (Lissak, 2018; Cordes & Miller, 2000; Toyama, 2011; Cuban, 2009). In a broad evidence-based literature review across primary and secondary education initiatives, Escueta, Quan, Nickow, and Oreopoulos (2017) took stock of rigorous quantitative studies which looked at the impact of four categories of education technology (access, CAL (computer-assisted technology), TEL (technology-enhanced learning), behavioral interventions, and online learning). The literature revealed mixed results across all four categories, including evidence of interventions which had positive effects on cognitive outcomes and improved math outcomes in China and the US, and negative effects of other interventions on achievement outcomes in Romania (Escueta, Quan, Nickow and Oreopoulos, 2017). A number of studies have documented the benefits of technology for education, particularly across the domains of literacy, numeracy, social and emotional development, and its overall ability to boost children’s desire and motivation to learn (Haugland, 1999; Couse and Chen, 2010; Chung & Walsh, 2006; Schmid, Miodrag, & DiFrancesco, 2008). Early studies have shown that technology can help stimulate social interaction in early childhood education settings (Clements, 1999).
At the same time, education technologies and the service models that accompany them (when designed poorly) can replicate traditional rote models of learning. Many learning technologies or apps have been designed as games, digital worksheets, or puzzles in an e-format without the application of learning sciences research or learning design principles (Zosh, 2015). Moreover, little has surfaced on how education technologies and the services around them are designed to be effective, equitable, and meet the needs of diverse learners. In spite of the uncertainty of efficacy and impact among scholars, practitioners, and institutions, the application and proliferation of education technologies is growing exponentially (Holon HQ, 2021). This raises important questions:
The first step in drafting this lit(e) review was to identify relevant articles, reports, and papers in the domain of technology for education. The research method primarily involved locating scholarly articles through search engine Google Scholar and more general internet searches. Keywords included “technology”, “design”, “equity”, “technology-enhanced learning” with “education” and “k12.” The literature review included notable and credible education technology journals and websites which highlight the use of technology for education such as Edutopia, Journal for Computers in Education, and the International Journal of Education Technology, in addition to reports and articles produced by EdWeek and EdSurge. The search was limited to resources published in the English language between 1980 and 2021. Studies and resources selected and reviewed were primarily from the United States, although a small subset of compelling cases were reviewed from emerging economies.
Limitations and exclusions from the review included resources which focused on:
Resources of particular interest included existing reviews of the design of education technologies and equity frameworks designed for or applied to education technologies. These resources were scarce. This was preliminary scan and further review of existing literature will be conducted over the next few months.
Overall, the review and analysis included 15 English-written and scholarly resources and publications. Reference lists of the identified sources were also checked for relevant studies. After selecting and reviewing the resources, they were synthesized to support the findings.