Tidbits | Educational Technology in Conflict-Affected Contexts
Apologies for the delay in catching up on my blog posts here. Our Week 9 discussions reminded me of my focus in IU’s Emerging Tech class's Tidbits assignment, prompting me to reflect on the role of educational technology in crisis, particularly in conflict-affected settings. As such, I am sharing what I wrote for that assignment.
To be honest, this piece is not my favorite writing. I found myself struggling to balance current life stress with vivid and sometimes challenging memories, all while trying to meet the assignment requirements. There was so much I wanted to say, and at the same time, so much I left unsaid. I also leaned on Copilot at times to help me rewrite parts because I could not quite settle on a tone that matched both the parameters of the assignment and what I was genuinely trying to express.
Nonetheless, I hope that sharing this piece sparks some thoughtful reflections on how educational technology can support learning in crisis contexts both its potential and its limitations.
Technology has the potential to support learning in crisis and conflict-affected settings, but its effectiveness depends on accessibility, local adaptation, and sustainability. As a K-12 educator, I have worked with students impacted by conflict and displacement and met teachers who have lived and worked in such environments. While not all the articles I reviewed focus exclusively on conflict zones, many explore how technology helps sustain education in times of crisis, whether due to war, displacement, or broader instability. Most of these pieces are brief reports, policy discussions, or opinion articles rather than formal research studies, offering accessible insights into key challenges and innovations in the field.
A recurring theme, however, is the dual role of technology as a vital tool for educational continuity, yet it is often inaccessible or unreliable in uncertain contexts. Reflecting on my own experiences as an educator, I have seen both the promise and the limitations of technology in supporting students facing adversity. UK Aid’s Using EdTech in Settings of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (Koomar et al., 2020) and EdTech for Learning in Emergencies and Displaced Settings (Tauson & Stannard, 2018) highlight how mobile learning, digital platforms, and offline resources help sustain education when traditional schooling is disrupted. While these innovations offer promise, I am also struck by how equity and accessibility remain persistent barriers.
This contrast is something I have witnessed firsthand. Some of my former Ukrainian students, despite being displaced by conflict, come from upper-middle-class backgrounds and have access to reliable technology, allowing them to continue learning with minimal disruption. In stark contrast, when I visited rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, I saw classrooms with little to no electricity, where even basic digital tools were out of reach. These experiences have reminded me that while educational technology can be a powerful equalizer, its effectiveness is entirely dependent on the infrastructure, resources, and policies in place to support it.
Research, these articles, and lived experiences have also reinforced my understanding of how deepening digital divides disproportionately impacts girls, children with disabilities, and those in low-connectivity areas (BOLD Science, 2023). Similarly, Education in Conflict Zones: Advancing Technology for Learning in Chad (Media Outreach, 2023) highlights infrastructure and affordability challenges, particularly in rural areas where power shortages and weak connectivity make digital learning inaccessible. While mobile learning and solar-powered devices offer potential solutions, they often fall short without adequate infrastructure, teacher training, and long-term investment (Media Outreach, 2023).
Upon reflection, these disparities are not exclusive to crisis-affected regions. I have also witnessed similar challenges in rural South Carolina, where students despite living in a high-income country struggle with access to reliable internet and digital resources. The lack of broadband infrastructure and funding for technology in some school districts mirrors the barriers seen in low-resource settings globally. This reinforces the concept that barriers to digital access are not solely an issue of conflict or poverty but also of structural inequities that shape who has access to technology that enhances education and those who do not.
Nevertheless, limited digital access in terms of gender disparities also persists even in high-income environments, whereas strict religious tenets often shape opportunities for girls. Multiple articles highlighted how cultural restrictions reinforce traditional gender roles and limit access to technology and education (BOLD Science, 2023). These patterns resonate with my own experiences, as I have spoken with students who have experienced this at home while also expressing a variety of sentiments regarding their prospects, such as arranged marriages and limited career opportunities after school. Considering gender inequalities in education requires more than just technological access; it suggests highly complex societal dynamics. While infrastructure-related challenges like teacher training and funding can be resolved through policy and investment, cultural norms are an altogether different issue. Nevertheless, without careful planning, even well-intentioned solutions risk reinforcing existing digital disparities rather than reducing them (BOLD Science, 2023).
In this regard and reflecting on another trip as I traveled through the border region between Lebanon and Syria, I encountered a region of deep contrasts. In Beirut, despite the scars of past conflict, infrastructure remained mostly functional, and gender segregation was less pronounced. Yet, just beyond the city, in rural and refugee settlements, the disparities were striking. Broken infrastructure, limited access to education, and rigid gender norms dictated daily life. In urban areas, I only could imagine students engaging with digital tools, while only miles away, classrooms relied on chalkboards and oral instruction due to a complete lack of resources. These experiences therefore underscored the complexity of educational barriers, where technology alone cannot solve systemic problems.
The article Challenges of Implementing EdTech Solutions for Conflict-Affected Children (BOLD Science, 2023) underlines this issue, emphasizing that while technology can enhance learning opportunities, it often fails to reach the most vulnerable students without sufficient local adaptation and long-term investment. As I consider this article and again my own experiences, I am reminded of how often well-intentioned educational technology projects falter when they do not align with local needs or realities (I vaguely recall the $100 laptop project from years ago). Meanwhile, I keep thinking of schools in rural or impoverished areas of South Carolina and Indiana (and elsewhere in the US), that these challenges are not confined to conflict zones; they also affect under-resourced schools worldwide, wherever systemic barriers to digital access persist.
As discussions around educational technology evolve, artificial intelligence and adaptive learning have emerged as transformative tools, particularly in crisis settings. AI Will Transform Teaching and Learning (Stanford HAI, 2023) highlights AI’s potential to reshape education but warns that without careful implementation, it could exacerbate existing inequities. Considering, Qahman et al. (2025) explore AI-enabled adaptive e-learning in conflict-affected Palestinian schools, emphasizing how perceived usefulness, ease of use, and system quality shape student engagement. This study also purports that while AI does offer learning opportunities, concerns about digital literacy, infrastructure, and data privacy persist. Nevertheless, as I read this article, much of the indicated concerns extend well beyond crisis zones but are likely exacerbated when relating to vulnerable and volatile situations.
Although I have not personally witnessed AI-driven learning in such contexts, my growing interest in the subject has prompted me to consider its broader implications. Having worked in both well-resourced and low-resourced educational settings, I find myself increasingly curious about how AI can be harnessed to promote equitable learning in diverse environments.
Several of the articles I have read delve into the inequalities discussed earlier, presenting diverse perspectives on how to bridge the gap between technology and meaningful educational outcomes. For instance, “Delivering Education in Crisis Zones” (Bett Show, 2023) and “Bridges to Impact Through Innovative EdTech” (GPE KIX, 2023) emphasize that relying solely on technology is insufficient. Effective implementation thus requires localized strategies, inclusive of cultural considerations, collaboration, and teacher training in order to seamlessly integrate digital tools into existing contextualized learning models.
Reflecting on these readings, I have noticed striking parallels between the role of educational technology in crisis zones and the broader concerns about digital equity. Whether in conflict-ridden regions or economically disadvantaged communities, the same persistent barriers persist in regard to limited connectivity, resource shortages, and the need for context-sensitive approaches. These unfortunate challenges seem inherent to many portions of the globe, underscoring the universal struggle to ensure meaningful and inclusive access to learning.
In reflecting on these articles, it became evident that defining what constitutes a ‘conflict zone’ or a ‘crisis zone’ is equally difficult. The boundaries between political instability, economic hardship, and systemic neglect often overlap, making it challenging to categorize the nature or causes of educational crises. Regardless of the underlying cause, disruption to learning remains profound for so many thus necessitating comprehensive and adaptable interventions that address both immediate and long-term educational requirements.
I struggled to rank the articles I reviewed for this assignment because I considered them multiple perspectives on common themes. Categorizing them was also challenging because many overlapped, some could stand alone, and they varied in formality, ranging from journalistic accounts to informal reports to academic journals. However, through my work with students and educators affected by crisis or uncertainty, I have witnessed firsthand how education provides stability, academic continuity, and psychosocial support. While technology holds promise as a tool to bridge educational gaps, its effectiveness depends on thoughtful implementation, ethical considerations, and equitable access. These readings emphasize that technology alone is not a solution; it must be intentionally designed, accessible, and sustainably integrated into the realities of the communities it aims to serve.
Sorting through these articles was not easy. Many overlapped, some stood alone, and they ranged from journalistic accounts to policy reports to academic studies. I also found myself moving between them unpredictably. At times, I was drawn to articles like the one on artificial intelligence in Palestinian schools simply because it stood out. Other times, I relied on the pre-sorted course readings. My curiosity often led me in different directions, but eventually, I kept returning to topics related to education in crisis and under-resourced settings.
What became clear throughout these readings and in reflecting on my own experiences is that education provides more than academic instruction. It offers stability, continuity, and socioemotional support in times of crisis. Technology has the potential to bridge educational gaps, but its impact depends on careful implementation, sociocultural considerations, and equitable access. These readings reinforced that technology alone is not a solution. It must be intentionally designed, contextualized, and sustainably integrated into the realities of the communities it serves.
References
Bett Show. (2023). Delivering education in crisis zones: Can EdTech save education amid disaster? Bett Show. Retrieved from https://www.bettshow.com/bett-articles/delivering-education-crisis-zones-edtech-save-education-amid-disaster
Global Partnership for Education Knowledge and Innovation Exchange (GPE KIX). (2023). Bridges to impact through innovative EdTech: Forging links between policy, research, and practice. GPE KIX. https://www.gpekix.org/project/bridges-impact-through-innovative-edtech-forging-links-between-policy-research-and-practice
Qahman, A. I. A., Dahlan, H. A., Hussin, M., & Al-Zaqeba, M. A. A. (2025). AI-enabled adaptive e-learning systems adoption in conflict zone: Case study of Palestinian schools. TEM Journal, 14(1), 789-804. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM141-70
BOLD Science. (2023). Can EdTech promote inclusion for conflict-affected children? BOLD Science. https://boldscience.org/can-edtech-promote-inclusion-for-conflict-affected-children/
BOLD Science. (2023). The challenges of implementing EdTech solutions for conflict-affected children. BOLD Science. Retrieved from https://boldscience.org/the-challenges-of-implementing-edtech-solutions-for-conflict-affected-children/
Media Outreach. (2023). Education in conflict zones: Advancing technology for learning in Chad. Media Outreach. https://www.media-outreach.com/news/chad/2023/12/13/267472/education-in-conflict-zones-advancing-technology-for-learning-in-chad/
Koomar, S., Coflan, C. M., & Kaye, T. (2020). Using EdTech in settings of fragility, conflict and violence: A curated resource list. EdTech Hub. Retrieved from https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/CMS6HPI8
Tauson, M., & Stannard, L. (2018). EdTech for learning in emergencies and displaced settings: A rigorous review and narrative synthesis. Save the Children. Retrieved from https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/edtech-learning.pdf/
