Develop Education Technology for Refugees

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Saalim Koomar	--	3058	2024-01-22 14:43:56	\|
2	format correct	Wendy Huang	-1 word(s)	3057	2024-01-24 14:01:38	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/educsci14010077

There are growing bodies of literature that explore strategies for decolonising education technology (EdTech) and the role of EdTech in emergencies. Yet, scholars have noted the paucity of literature that considers the use of EdTech in refugee contexts, let alone from a decolonial lens. Indeed, the varied and unstable nature of displacement scenarios may give rise to questions around whether EdTech is appropriate at all in some displacement scenarios, and if it is, whether alternative access routes to it may need to be considered to ensure equitable benefit.

refugee education education technology (EdTech) politics emergency designing

1. Historic Trends in Education for Refugees

Article 26 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies education as a basic need. Studies have shown that schools play a “vital role in the resettlement of refugee children and their families”, highlighting that education can play a critical role in addressing the socio-emotional needs of refugee learners ^[1] (p. 1). Guidelines for EiE are shaped around the interdependency between psychosocial well-being and education. For example, the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies’ (INEE’s) Minimum Standards for Education ^[2] highlights the need to address psychosocial well-being to support learning continuity. The guidelines also acknowledge that, as an emergency continues, it is important to address the “evolving learning needs of the affected population”. In the case of refugees, however, “once the attention of the international community strays and funds begin to dry up”, the pursuit of education is often left unaddressed ^[3] (p. 211).

In addition, refugee camps are often designed to serve a temporary function. Historically, international development organisations have partnered with host governments to cater to refugees’ survival needs with the end goal of repatriation ^[4]^[5]. In reality, many refugees spend years in “protracted refugee encampment”, requiring pathways for learning continuity ^[6]. In contexts where education is available to refugee communities, there is less funding to meet the needs of learners the further along they are in their learning journey. Primary education receives the most amount of funding and tertiary education the least, if at all ^[7]. As a result, only 6% of refugees worldwide are enrolled in any form of a tertiary education programme, compared to 40% of non-refugee people worldwide ^[8].

Yanay and Battle ^[9] provide a detailed account of various barriers that prevent inclusion in a host country’s education system. On a structural level, refugees may lack the required documentation to participate in education. This is particularly challenging for refugees who have to flee suddenly, leaving behind school certificates. But even when these documents are available, their existing qualifications might not be perceived as equivalent, or the language requirements in their host country might prevent them from enrolling in educational institutes. On an individual level, refugees might lack the resources to participate in education. This is particularly salient for those who are reliant on humanitarian aid. Further, lack of financial resources can also lead to the need for refugees to provide for their families as they grow older, disincentivising individuals from pursuing education.

Refugee situations are primarily political situations, whether they result from war, displacement, discrimination, prolonged market exploitation and extraction of natural resources for production in the Global North or any other forms of violence ^[10]. Furthermore, critical pedagogy, represented within the dimensions of human injustices framework adopted in this research, asserts that “every educational act is political and that every political act is pedagogical” ^[11] (p. 176), as cited in Mackinlay and Barney ^[12].

Zembylas ^[13] offers an in-depth analysis of the refugee situation, applying Agamben’s theory of biopolitics, while critiquing the liberal/humanitarian response and language of refugee “inclusivity”. In his analysis, Zembylas describes three essential components of the refugee experience, these being (a) “abandonment” as the logic and process by which refugees are left behind as abject figures of fear and precarity in opposition to society, thereby legitimising their lack of access to rights and protections; (b) “bare life” which refers to reducing human beings to only basic survival needs and stripping them of any political and social significance, serving to reduce refugees’ agency; and (c) “the camp” which denotes spaces of confinement and control, that exist beyond particular physical sites and extend into society, thereby normalising dealing with refugees through abandonment and exclusion. For Zembylas ^[13], the liberal/humanitarian response which calls for “inclusive education” of refugees, aiming to promote recognition and empathy while disregarding the previously outlined power dynamics and structures at play, may inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of refugee problems by “failing to challenge the separation of humanitarian concerns from politics and by perpetuating exclusionary categories and invisibility”.

Dovigo ^[10] reminds us of the risks of shying away from talking about the politics of refugee education, including the importance of addressing how much is spent on border management to prevent refugees incoming as well as resources allocated to media narratives to “other” refugees versus actual spending on refugee education. Without such conversations, and focusing only on pedagogy and design, Dovigo posits we are shying away from the decolonial process altogether.

Within the politics of refugee education, Dovigo ^[10] and Mustafa ^[14], highlight what they call a “differential humanity”, that is a full hierarchy of statuses between a refugee, an asylum seeker, and a forcibly displaced person. Additionally, differential humanity is represented by refugees being displayed by the media differently according to their country of origin as either a “good deserving victim” or an “undeserving bogus survivor” coming to snatch away resources from the host country. Such conditions result in differential, unequal legitimacies of access to services and public support.

The previous are all real, material conditions that shape the experiences of refugees. They need to be holistically considered when intervening in education. It cannot be pretended that using EdTech alone can solve such deep injustices, or indeed that EdTech itself could not contribute to inequality or injustice ^[15]. These issues are discussed in the following section.

2. Use of Education Technology in Emergency Responses

Over the past decade, the affordances of technology have offered potential avenues to altering the way learners can continue their pursuit of education during disruptions. Since 2015, technology has been widely advocated for as a “solution to humanitarian crises” ^[16] (p. 313). Cross-sectoral partnerships have emerged to drive EdTech responses in the pursuit of learning continuity. It has been celebrated that private sector actors including Avanti, CISCO, Ericsson, Google.org, HP, Microsoft, and Vodafone Foundation have invested in digital learning. This has led to the development of educational platforms, including Learning Equality’s Kolibri platform, and the Learning Passport developed by UNICEF and Microsoft ^[17].

Pallitt and Kramm (forthcoming) outline various intellectual positions adopted by different stakeholders when using EdTech, namely the instrumentalist, interdisciplinary and the post-digital. In their differentiations, they outline the instrumentalist positionality as a view that privileges the functional use of a neutral technological tool to achieve an educational goal. The interdisciplinary position views the social interactions between technology and humans “in ways that reflect the values, interests and power dynamics of the societies in which it is created and used”, including broader phenomena such as neoliberalism. Moreover, the post-digital position encourages the investigation of the role of the non-human and more-than-human as non-neutral actors. As such, it cannot just focus on technical skills when using EdTech, or view refugee education as simply a “bureaucratic activity” ^[10].

It is important to question the fundamental assumption prevalent in the literature that EdTech is the most effective tool for (re)connecting refugees with learning during and following displacement. Al Habsi and Rude ^[18] note that “the potential of EdTech for refugee education is large but marked by several pitfalls” (p. 43). Among these are the material injustices identified by Adam ^[19], with many refugee communities lacking the infrastructure, device access, and digital literacy needed to take full advantage of EdTech offerings ^[18].

In addition, EdTech may not only be inaccessible to some refugee groups, but the introduction of EdTech may serve to exacerbate pre-existing societal inequalities and digital divides. As Ashlee et al. ^[20] noted, girls experience reduced access to technology in many contexts due to cultural gender bias. Investing in EdTech for refugees therefore runs the risk of leaving some members of refugee communities even further behind.

Tauson and Stannard’s ^[21] systematic review expands upon the ethical implementation of EdTech in emergencies. They compile several questions that should inform decisions regarding EdTech implementation. Their review emphasises a need to understand the length of disruption, and whether displaced people are restricted from accessing technology. Asking these questions may help to establish whether a response involving EdTech is appropriate for a given emergency, and doing so may help to challenge the neocolonial assumption that technology is universally desirable and applicable. Importantly, EdTech is not a neutral tool and if we decide to use it, it need to think largely about how it can be leveraged to address systemic colonial problems within the field of refugee education and humanitarian aid at large ^[22]. Regarding the length of disruption, it is important to note that experiences with technology differ greatly between refugees and displaced persons in protracted crises when compared with more acute crises ^[23]. Those in protracted crises may use technology for their education more often given the relative stability of their circumstances. However, increased technology use—and expectations of this increased use—can create different emotional stresses. For example, access to power and connectivity may be limited or unreliable, or refugees and displaced persons may carry possible feelings of shame if they are not visibly thriving in their new environment and reporting this on social media or messaging apps ^[24].

3. Designing EdTech for Refugees

Different approaches for designing equitable EdTech in general (i.e., not aimed specifically at refugee communities) have been proposed over the years ^[25]^[26]. More recently, in 2017, the principles for digital development (PDD) were developed by the Digital Impact Alliance for use in the development sector. Building on frameworks from UNICEF (2009) and the UK government (2012), the PDD consists of nine principles (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Principles for Digital Development, 2017.

The principle, ‘Understand the existing ecosystem’, is echoed in the literature on EdTech for refugees. Menashy and Zakharia ^[16] advocate for the importance of contextualised and evidence-based interventions that recognise “the knowledge, experiences, and needs of refugees” (p. 325). Ashlee et al.’s ^[20] rapid evidence review on refugee education similarly signifies the need for “EdTech to be adapted and contextualised to each refugee setting” (p. 6).

There is now wide consensus in the literature that, in line with the principle ‘Design with the user’ (Digital Impact Alliance, 2017), EdTech products should be designed in collaboration with the refugee communities that the EdTech aims to serve ^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]. However, positions vary regarding the extent of this collaboration. For some, this may mean consulting with the community about their needs and contextual realities ^[16]^[31]^[32]. Such consultation may help to avoid assumptions being made, such as levels of digital literacy, which may result in adverse effects such as increased “marginalisation, loneliness, and difficulty communicating and learning the social norms of the host country” ^[18] (p. 46). Furthermore, community participation is viewed as a trust-building exercise that represents a crucial step in ensuring buy-in to, and eventual ownership of, EdTech products ^[20].

Other scholars suggest that a more active and central role for refugees in EdTech design processes may be key to ensuring usefulness and relevance, namely through participatory approaches. Kennedy and Laurillard ^[29] propose employing co-design methodologies, in which refugees are not only asked about their context, but actively contribute to the design of the products themselves. Alain et al. ^[30] describe their approach to co-designing EdTech with refugee children as follows:

“Design work starts with children envisaging solutions and producing requirements. Children are then asked to create both the pedagogical and technological aspects of the design, including contextual elements. The children’s designs are then brought to adult design workshops where they are matched with the available resources such as locations, time, human resources, equipment, and funding to insure applicability and sustainability” ^[18]^[21]^[30]^[33]^[34] (p. 4).

In alignment with the “Design for scale” principle, Butcher ^[35] cites other scholars (e.g., Bozkurt et al. ^[36], Rapanta et al. ^[37]) who posit that the use of technology provides the most efficient, cost-effective, and perhaps the only method to continue learning at scale during emergency situations where face-to-face interactions are not possible. Butcher ^[35] also acknowledges limitations, including internet access or applicability of language and other contextual needs for students in LMICs.

In alignment with the “Be collaborative” principle, Crompton et al. ^[34] systematically review the literature related to EiE in light of COVID-19. They highlight the significance of partnerships to ensure effective remote learning in emergencies. They add that the importance of exploring multiple partnerships with organisations, companies, local groups and individuals not only expands the support base (particularly in terms of resources) but can also facilitate a shared responsibility and investment in the outcome.

Finally, and in alignment with the ‘Use Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Innovation’ principle, El-Serafy et al. ^[27] call on EdTech developers to embrace openness as a key focus of their work. This could involve making systems interoperable, using open-source applications and technologies, and openly licensing their work. The Digital Impact Alliance notes that such practices “can help to increase collaboration in the digital development community and avoid duplicating work that has already been done. Programs can maximise their resources—and ultimately their impact” ^[38].

Despite the previously noted alignment of the PDDs with the broader literature on EdTech for emergency, including refugee, contexts, we do note the absence of historic and present power dynamics. It invites adopters to “design with the user”, “be collaborative”, “be data driven”, or “use open standards”, without giving the end user—refugees in this case—any decision-making power. Such collaborations, and flow of information, are full of hierarchical power dynamics between designers and users, and moreover, humanitarian donors in refugee contexts.

On the “Design with the user” principle, it is important to critically question universalising the “refugee community” experience. The literature reiterated the need for EdTech to “be contextualised and respond to learners’ needs” ^[20] (p. 23), but how can EdTech designers realistically achieve that given the general imperative to design for ‘universal’ reach?

Adam ^[39] suggests that “MOOC designers create MOOCs that strongly link to who they are, what they value, and how they understand the world, highlighting the crucial need to have epistemically diverse MOOC designers from different cultures, value systems, and epistemologies” (p. 171). Following this logic, EdTech products can never truly reflect the needs and values of refugee communities unless refugees take a leading role in the design process. Whether consciously or not, designers from other contexts will assert their own identities and beliefs over the products that they create. Selwyn ^[40] reminds us that “it is crucial that well-intentioned education technologists in the Global North see their primary role as listening and learning from others, rather than attempting to lead and innovate ‘solutions’”.

Reflecting on the principle of ‘Build for sustainability’, it posits that genuine strides to make EdTech development sustainable will require analysis of the ecosystem—codified as people, provision, product, practice, policy and place—to determine the interdependencies, levers and barriers to sustainability across the system ^[41]. For example, in relation to EdTech as a product, this could mean listening to and being led by post-colonised viewpoints—“If we can no longer buy a new replacement laptop every 12 months, then what might be learnt from repair and reuse cultures in Kenya? If there is no longer the guarantee of ‘always on’ connectivity due to energy blackouts, what might be learnt from off-grid digital infrastructures run on solar, wind turbine or wind-up power?” ^[42] (p. 1797). Selwyn ^[40] continues, “perspectives from the Global South might enhance the understanding of ‘technological development’ from a degrowth perspective and provide paths forward to sustainability”.

In thinking about the Design for Scale principle, it is important to question the contradictions between designing for specific contexts—as recommended by the literature on effective refugee education—versus designing for scale, which is described in the principles as “thinking beyond the pilot and making choices that will enable widespread adoption later”. Yet, this limits the notion of scale to simply expanding numbers. Alternatively, Coburn ^[43] offers a reconceptualisation of scale as four interrelated dimensions of depth, sustainability, spread and ownership. She argues that depth, that is, the nature and quality of change, should form the central premise of scale. This alternative notion of what scaling means could resolve the clear tension here between context-specificity and scale.

Yet, even if adopting the standard approach to scaling; while cross-sectoral partnerships as recommended by the PDD are important in helping bring interventions to scale, it is critical to consider whether solutions are catering to the needs of the communities they intend to benefit. Drawing on McLean and Gargani ^[44], Mazari et al. ^[45] argue that, in addition to being justified by implementers or even by technical evidence alone, EdTech in emergencies also should be justified by the experience and needs of impacted communities, rather than being seen as yet another market of expansion for global EdTech companies.

Menashy and Zakharia ^[16] examined Syrian refugee education in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, critiquing “digital humanitarianism”. They found that a “pervasive optimism” around using EdTech has fuelled a problematic, disproportionate focus on technology. In this context, a “surge” in private-sector engagement has led to interventions being designed “free of coordination; driven by profit motivations; and developed in a manner decontextualized from the learning context” ^[16] (p. 4). Their study aims to counter the “overwhelming optimism” which, they argue, fails to consider the problematic implications of exporting interventions “developed in the Global North into the ‘distant other’ in the Global South”. In interviews conducted by Mazari et al. ^[45], key informants described the new EdTech for emergencies landscape as “an arms race”. One stakeholder in particular feared “the commercialisation of education provision in humanitarian responses” in which “EdTech resources are dumped” on communities without any localisation, leading to responses that are “colonial at best” (EiE Expert interview notes, in ^[45]).

Finally, on the “Be data driven” principle, two issues are noted. First, is the importance of questioning what kind of data are collected and the extent to which refugees are accounted for in the host country’s education sector planning. Second, is the ethical and political role that data collection plays in refugee contexts. Krishnan ^[46] explains the harm inflicted on refugees through the unethical interplay between aid conditions, government persecution of individuals and data collected by digital systems. Interlinked to this, and cross-referencing the “Use open standards” principle, is the harm publicly available refugee datasets could play in terms of racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.

References

Horswood, D.; Baker, J.; Fazel, M.; Rees, S.; Heslop, L.; Silove, D. School factors related to the emotional wellbeing and resettlement outcomes of students from refugee backgrounds: Protocol for a systematic review. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 4–9.
INEE. Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery; Right to Education Initiative: London, UK, 2010; Available online: https://www.right-to-education.org/node/301 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
Reinhardt, S. Exploring the Emerging Field of Online Tertiary Education for Refugees in Protracted Situations. Open Prax. 2018, 10, 211.
Hakami, A. “Education Is Our Weapon for the Future”: Access and Non-Access to Higher Education for Refugees in Nakivale Refugee Settlement, Uganda. Master’s Thesis, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, 2016. Available online: https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-xmlui/handle/11250/2415482 (accessed on 2 November 2023).
MacLaren, D. Tertiary Education for Refugees: A Case Study from the Thai-Burma Border. Refug. Can. J. Refug. 2012, 27, 103–110.
Zeus, B. Exploring Barriers to Higher Education in Protracted Refugee Situations: The Case of Burmese Refugees in Thailand. J. Refug. Stud. 2011, 24, 256–276.
Wright, L.-A.; Plasterer, R. Beyond Basic Education: Exploring Opportunities for Higher Learning in Kenyan Refugee Camps. Refug. Can. J. Refug. 2012, 27, 42–56.
UNHCR. Tertiary Education. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures/education/tertiary-education (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Yanay, H.; Battle, J. Refugee Higher Education & Participatory Action Research Methods: Lessons Learned From the Field. Radic. Teach. 2021, 120, 50–60.
The Border within: Decolonising Refugee Students’ Education. 28 February 2023. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTaAxpaYbM (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Giroux, H.A. On Critical Pedagogy; Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
Mackinlay, E.; Barney, K. Unknown and Unknowing Possibilities: Transformative Learning, Social Justice, and Decolonising Pedagogy in Indigenous Australian Studies. J. Transform. Educ. 2014, 12, 54–73.
Zembylas, M. Agamben’s Theory of Biopower and Immigrants/Refugees/Asylum Seekers: Discourses of Citizenship and the Implications for Curriculum Theorizing. J. Curric. Theor. 2010, 26, 31–45. Available online: https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/195 (accessed on 29 June 2023).
From Intentions to Impact: Decolonizing Refugee Response. 27 April 2022. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLPNF-SbV_M (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Macgilchrist, F. What is “critical” in critical studies of edtech? Three responses. Learn. Media Technol. 2021, 46, 243–249.
Menashy, F.; Zakharia, Z. Private engagement in refugee education and the promise of digital humanitarianism. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2020, 46, 313–330.
UNHCR. Connected Education for Refugees: Addressing the Digital Divide—World|ReliefWeb. December 2021. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/connected-education-refugees-addressing-digital-divide (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Al Habsi, S.; Rude, B. Refugee Education 4.0: The Potential and Pitfalls of EdTech for Refugee Education. CESifo Forum 2021, 22, 43–49.
Adam, T. Between Social Justice and Decolonisation: Exploring South African MOOC Designers’ Conceptualisations and Approaches to Addressing Injustices. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2020, 2020, 7.
Ashlee, A.; Clericetti, G.; Mitchell, J. Rapid Evidence Review: Refugee Education; EdTech Hub: London, UK, 2020.
Tauson, M.; Stannard, L. Edtech for Learning in Emergencies and Displaced Settings—A Rigorous Review and Narrative Synthesis; Save the Children: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/content/dam/global/reports/education-and-child-protection/edtech-learning.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Burde, D. Humanitarian Action and the Neglect of Education. In Humanitarian Action and the Neglect of Education; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 25–54.
Casswell, J. The Digital Lives of Refugees: How Displaced Populations Use Mobile Phones and What Gets in the Way; GSMA: London, UK, 2019; Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-Digital-Lives-of-Refugees.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Migration Policy Institute. Technology Can Be Transformative for Refugees, but It Can Also Hold Them Back—World|ReliefWeb. 27 July 2023. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/technology-can-be-transformative-refugees-it-can-also-hold-them-back (accessed on 22 December 2023).
Scaife, M.; Rogers, Y.; Aldrich, F.; Davies, M. Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–27 March 1997; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 343–350.
Newell, A.F.; Gregor, P. “User sensitive inclusive design”—In search of a new paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, VA, USA, 16–17 November 2000; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 39–44.
El-Serafy, Y.; Ozegovic, M.; Wagner, E.; Benchiba, S. High, Low, or No Tech? A Roundtable Discussion on the Role of Technology in Refugee Education. Abdulla Al Ghurair Foundation for Education; Save the Children; EdTech Hub: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/high-low-or-no-tech-a-roundtable-discussion-on-the-role-of-technology-in-refugee-education/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Taftaf, R.; Williams, C. Supporting Refugee Distance Education: A Review of the Literature. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2020, 34, 5–18.
Kennedy, E.; Laurillard, D. The Potential of MOOCs for Large-Scale Teacher Professional Development in Contexts of Mass Displacement. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2019, 17, 141–158. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1222894.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2020).
Alain, G.; Coughlan, T.; Adams, A.; Yanacopulos, H. A Process for Co-Designing Educational Technology Systems for Refugee Children. In Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI) 2018, Belfast, UK, 4–6 July 2018.
Adam, T. Addressing Injustices through MOOCs: A Study among Peri-Urban, Marginalised, South African Youth. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2020.
Maldonado-Torres, N. Césaire’s Gift and the Decolonial Turn. In Critical Ethnic Studies; Elia, N., Hernández, D.M., Kim, J., Redmond, S.L., Rodríguez, D., See, S.E., Eds.; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2016; pp. 435–462.
Timmis, S.; Muhuro, P. De-coding or de-colonising the technocratic university? Rural students’ digital transitions to South African higher education. Learn. Media Technol. 2019, 44, 252–266.
Crompton, H.; Burke, D.; Jordan, K.; Wilson, S. Support provided for K-12 teachers teaching remotely with technology during emergencies: A systematic review. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2021, 54, 473–489.
Butcher, J. Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19, Goldwater Institute, Special Edition Policy Brief. 2020. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3564504 (accessed on 1 September 2023).
Bozkurt, A.; Jung, I.; Xiao, J.; Vladimirschi, V.; Schuwer, R.; Egorov, G.; Lambert, S.; Al-Freih, M.; Pete, J.; Olcott, D., Jr.; et al. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, 1. Available online: http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462 (accessed on 7 June 2020).
Rapanta, C.; Botturi, L.; Goodyear, P.; Guàrdia, L.; Koole, M. Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 Crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2020, 2, 923–945.
Digital Impact Alliance. Principles for Digital Development. Principles for Digital Development. Available online: https://digitalprinciples.org/privacy-policy/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Adam, T. Digital neocolonialism and massive open online courses (MOOCs): Colonial pasts and neoliberal futures. Learn. Media Technol. 2019, 44, 365–380.
Selwyn, N. EdTech and Climate Colonialism. Critical Studies of Education & Technology. Available online: https://criticaledtech.com/2022/10/02/edtech-and-climate-colonialism/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Simpson, L.; Carter, A.; Rahman, A.; Plaut, D. Eight Reasons Why EdTech Doesn’t Scale: How Sandboxes Are Designed to Counter the Issue; EdTech Hub: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/8HKCSIRC (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Zoellick, J.C.; Bisht, A. It’s not (all) about efficiency: Powering and organizing technology from a degrowth perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1787–1799.
Coburn, C.E. Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change. Educ. Res. 2003, 32, 3–12.
McLean, R.; Gargani, J. Scaling Impact: Innovation for the Public Good|IDRC—International Development Research Centre. Available online: https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/scaling-impact-innovation-public-good (accessed on 8 February 2022).
Mazari, H.; Baloch, I.; Thinley, S.; Kaye, T.; Perry, F. Learning Continuity in Response to Climate Emergencies: Supporting Learning Continuing Following the 2022 Pakistan Floods; EdTech Hub: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/42XI4RCK/download/4GVHJG2L/Mazari%20et%20al.%20-%202023%20-%20Learning%20continuity%20in%20response%20to%20climate%20emergen.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
Krishnan, A. Humanitarian Digital Ethics: A Foresight and Decolonial Governance Approach; Carr Center Discussion Paper Series; Carr Center for Human Rights Policy: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; Available online: https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/publications/humanitarian-digital-ethics (accessed on 1 September 2023).

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Development Studies

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Katrina Barnes

Aime Parfait Emerusenge

Asma Rabi

Noor Ullah

Haani Mazari

Nariman Moustafa

Jayshree Thakrar

Annette Zhao

Saalim Koomar

View Times: 218

Update Date: 24 Jan 2024

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm

1. Historic Trends in Education for Refugees

2. Use of Education Technology in Emergency Responses

3. Designing EdTech for Refugees

References