Filip writes*
In the past two decades, there has been a dispute over the most effective ways to educate children in low-income countries and remote areas.
One side of the barricade argues for traditional methods of educational quality, such as hiring more external teachers, buying more textbooks, and providing flexible grants (Kremer et. al. 2013).
On the other side, research using randomized trials finds that schooling is cost sensitive, which recommends hiring local teachers on short term contracts and using technology such as iPads or laptops to improve in-person and remote schooling outcomes. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can deliver effective at-home learning (Kamer et. al.2013).
ICT can make learning in developing countries more efficient, for two main reasons. First, due to the limited resources, children of different ages and levels of education must share one classroom, making it impossible for each child’s needs to be accommodated. Second, schools in remote areas and low-income countries often have too few teachers. ICT can replace less effective, one-size-fits-all teaching with more intense personalized learning. ICT can also deliver learning in remote areas, saving the cost of building schools and improving delivery of quality teaching (Sife et. al. 2007).
Many schools in developing countries tried hiring additional teachers, but this costly approach did not bring proportional benefits (Glewwe et al. 2010). In Kenya, on the other hand, the government hired local teachers on short-term, seasonal contracts that were cheaper but also effective, in terms of learning outcomes (Krueger and Whitmore 2001; Banerjee 2007).
Bottom Line: The two most cost-effective strategies for improving learning outcomes in schools in low-income countries and remote areas is to hire local teachers on short term contracts and use more technology.
* Please help my Real Donut Economics** students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂
** Why “Real”? In short, because (a) Raworth’s claims to being a “21st century economist” denies that all of her ideas were presented by others in the 20th century and (b) she presents no viable mechanisms (besides “be nice”) for achieving equality and sustainability. My students are more realistic. In long? Read this.
Nice blogpost on a really interesting topic! When I was in primary school, we rarely used individual devices to enhance our learning in the classroom. I’m not sure whether this is good or bad, because I never experienced the alternative. That being said, when we think about technology, we often think about distractions. Do you think that technology as a means to provide _effective_ education is efficient, or is it simply a means to allow children to have _an_ education.
Hey Filip, Nice blog post. It’s definitely an interesting topic but as mentioned by Max in the comments, I think technology can have its own disadvantages. Do you think stricter screen times would help? What about the gap in technology between the local teachers and students? Would they need additional training? Additionally, how do you think this affects the long-term planning of educational programs?
This is such an important topic Filip, so glad you’re engaging with it! After reading Bold et al. (2017), I think we need to go back to the basics: teaching quality. Without this essential quality, I don’t think education can function. Teachers have to be trained to use your proposed ICT, as well as be incentivised to remain in the classrooms. I have no doubt that ICT can be a great complimentary tool but I fear it may add more maintenance and training costs, without great outcomes.
Best of luck with your project, I’m sure it will go great!