A Landscape Review of ICT for Disability-Inclusive Education January 15, 2022 Source: Shutterstock. Contributer Ann Gaysorn. Abbreviations 2 contents Acknowledgments 3 Executive Summary 1.  Introduction 11 5 Purpose of Report 13 Definitions and Concepts 15 2. Methodology 17 3. Global Context 21 How Can EdTech Support Inclusive Education? 22 What Is the Evidence of Efficacy? 24 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic 26 What Further Evidence Is Needed to Help Close the Gaps? 30 4. Global Survey on Technology for Disability-Inclusive Education 31 Participant Characteristics 32 ICT for Inclusive Education 33 Summary of Findings 38 5. AI-Powered Research on Academic and Media Articles 39 Results of Media and Academic Searches 39 Technology Hype and Academic Articles 43 6. Country Case Studies on Using ICT for Inclusive Education 45 Country Context Overview 46 Bangladesh 46 Ethiopia 47 Kenya 47 Nepal 48 Rwanda 49 Insights from Key Informants 51 People 51 Pedagogy 56 Policy 60 Place 64 Provision 68 Summary of Findings 71 7. Discussion of Key Needs 72 Systems Strengthening and Market Shaping 73 Open Innovation to Improve Technology Infrastructure 77 Products 79 Community, Family, and Out-of-School Learning Support 83 Better Data and Evidence 84 8. Conclusion and Recommendations for the Way Forward 86 Conclusion: A “Massive-Small” Open Innovation Approach 86 Recommendations 89 References 94 Appendix A. Definitions & Concepts 98 Appendix B. Detailed Methodology 100 Appendix C. Expert Roundtables and Consultations 111 Appendix D. About the Global Disability Innovation Hub 113 A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 1 abbreviations AAC augmentative and alternative communication AI artificial intelligence AP assistive products APL Priority Assistive Product List ARATA Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association AT assistive technology COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019 CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities DPE Directorate of Primary Education EARC Educational Assessment and Resource Center EdTech Education and Technology EMIS Education Management Information Systems ICT information and communication technology IEI Inclusive Education Initiative KBTA Kilimanjaro Blind Trust Africa LMIC low- and middle-income country MAG Microsoft Academic Graph OPD organizations of persons with disabilities REB Rwanda Education Board SPIP Social Protection Investment Plan UDL Universal Design for Learning UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WHO World Health Organization A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 2 Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. acknowledgments This report is a global knowledge product from the Inclusive Education Initiative (IEI)—a multi-donor trust fund on disability-inclusive education managed by the World Bank, with support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 3 The review was conceptualized and recommendations. Noah Yarrow (Senior developed by a World Bank team led by Education Specialist) and Sophia D Angelo Charlotte McClain-Nhlapo (Global Disability (Consultant) also provided valuable feedback. Advisor and Lead Social Development This study would not have been possible Specialist, World Bank) and comprising without the gracious support of our World of (in alphabetical order) Ariam Mogos Bank colleagues Anna Olefir, Annet Wanjira (Consultant), Anna-Maria Eftimiadis (Senior Kiura, Annette A. Omollo, Athman Ali, Deep- Partnership Specialist), Deepti Samant Raja ika Shrestha, Fitsum Zewdu Mulugeta, Flora (Social Development Specialist), Elizabeth Kelmendi, George Bob Nkulanga, Huma Acul (Program Assistant), Hanna Katriina Kidwai, Judith Kinya Bariu, Karthika Rad- Alasuutari (Senior Education Specialist and hakrishnan-Nair, Keiko Inoue, Kirill Vasiliev, Global Thematic Lead for Inclusive Educa- Maya Sherpa, Rosemary Ngesa Otieno, Ruth tion), Lisha Almeida (Consultant), Robert J. Karimi Charo, Sabah Moyeen, Shwetlena Hawkins (Senior Education Specialist), and Sabarwal, Tashmina Rahman, and T. M. Ruchi Kulbir Singh (Consultant). The Global Asaduzzaman. The team is indebted to them Disability Innovation (GDI) Hub, based at for their advice and partnership to conduct the University College London, partnered the country case studies. We especially with the World Bank to design and conduct thank Cristian Aedo, David Seth Warren, the research for the landscape review and Helene Carlsson Rex, Muna Salih Meky, author the report. The research team led by Robin Mearns, and Safaa El Tayeb El-Kogali Maria Kett (Associate Professor in Human- for their support and guidance in conducting itarianism and Disability, UCL Institute of this study. Epidemiology and Healthcare) and Victoria Austin (CEO and Director of Research, GDI The team expresses deep gratitude to Marie Hub) included Giulia Barbareschi (Research Schoeman and Mark Carew from Leonard Fellow, GDI Hub), Nusrat Jahan (Researcher, Cheshire for their time, advice, and feedback GDI Hub), Paul Lynch (Senior Lecturer in at all stages of this study. Inclusive Education, University of Glasgow), Catherine Holloway (Professor of Interaction This work was undertaken under the excel- Design & Innovation, UCLIC and Academic lent guidance and strong support of Louise Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub), J. Cord (Global Director Social Sustainability Joel Burman (Director of Operations, and Inclusion Global Practice), Jaime Saave- GDI Hub), Felipe Ramos-Barajas (Senior dra Chanduvi (Global Director, Education Programme Manager, GDI Hub), and Lea Global Practice), Ingo Wiederhofer (Practice Simpson (Innovation Director, EdTech Hub). Manager, Social Sustainability and Inclu- sion), and Omar Arias (Practice Manager, The team sincerely thanks our peer reviewers Education Global Practice). The team is Juan Cristobal Cobo Romani (Senior deeply grateful for their leadership and Education Specialist), Huma Kidwai (Senior unconditional support in advancing inclusive Education Specialist), and Najat Yamouri education for children with disabilities. (Senior Social Development Specialist) for their thoughtful review and excellent A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 4 executive examples of what is and is not working and how COVID-19 has impacted learning for summary children with disabilities. Assessing the Information and communication ecosystem through the 6 P’s technology (ICT) tools can have a catalytic effect in advancing both While technology alone cannot solve educational access and learning learning gaps by itself, it is vital to outcomes for children supporting the learning outcomes of with disabilities. children with disabilities. Despite tremendous potential, a gap exists The level of access and the impact of ICT between technology advancements and for inclusive education depend on various their large-scale application in educating interconnected factors. The insights and children with disabilities in low- and findings that emerged from the primary middle-income countries. This landscape and secondary research conducted in this review of ICTs for disability-inclusive edu- study reflected the themes identified by cation by the Inclusive Education Initiative the 6 P’s education systems framework: seeks to understand the current status people, products, pedagogy, policy, place, and trends in the practice of educational and provision. This framework is used to technology (EdTech) and the use of ICT summarize the essential components of in improving the educational participation the entire EdTech ecosystem, identify what and outcomes of children with disabilities. is and is not working, and how each part The review explores what factors enable or is necessary for the others. The review restrict this improvement within the wider identified six key challenges that need to EdTech ecosystem. be overcome to ensure that learners with disabilities are fully able to access and Since early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic benefit from ICT for inclusive education. required governments around the world to pivot to remote or distance learning with People. high emphasis on EdTech interventions. T  eachers, parents, and other educational The review explores how ICT supported support figures lack sufficient expertise in the continued learning of children with inclusive education and ICT and access to disabilities during pandemic-related school supports to successfully support children closures. It shares insights from the expe- with disabilities to access and take advan- riences of multiple stakeholders, including tage of EdTech. teachers, parents and caregivers, govern- ment officials, and civil society in delivering Products accessing digital learning solutions for children across the spectrum of disabilities. Most EdTech devices and software are too Global insights were supplemented with expensive for families and schools, limiting country case studies in Bangladesh, Ethio- their affordability and accessibility. Many pia, Kenya, Nepal, and Rwanda to draw out products also fail to be truly inclusive of A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 5 children with more complex needs, are poorly aligned with national curricula or are inappro- priate for the context of use. Pedagogy  There is a lack of understanding about the useful pedagogical approaches and simple and reliable assessment practices to assess the educational needs of children with disabilities, or what pedagogical approaches (and tools) will be most effective. Nor are there often mechanisms in place for monitoring their progress to ensure that any adaptations, including technology provided, positively impact their learning experiences. Policy  Existing policies for inclusive education and ICT are often separate and poorly integrated, which makes it difficult to coordinate actions across government bodies with fragmented responsibilities and between actors working in different areas. Place  Inclusive and mainstream schools struggle to access the necessary equipment that students with disabilities need, and teachers are often lacking the inclusive-education training, which leads to a risk of further marginalization of students with disabilities. Provision Funding mechanisms for initiatives focusing on ICT for inclusive education are often proj- ect-based and rarely combine a comprehensive attention to all the necessary components of successful implementation from creating adequate technological infrastructure to provid- ing training and maintenance for the correct use of devices. This leads to poor sustainability of many initiatives and reduces the potential impact of many implemented projects. A vital aspect of provision is procurement. A multidimensional approach with more human engagement to boost human capital Globally, a shift in perspective is required to embrace EdTech as part of an inclusive learning framework that is contextually specific and can support the inclusive education of children with disabilities. There is no one single “magic bullet” solution. A multidimensional and integrated approach that puts the child at the center is needed. Additionally, the successful application of ICTs for inclusive education requires concerted investments in scaling the skills, knowledge, and capacity of the human stakeholders engaged in the selection, purchase, application, and use of technologies for children with disabilities. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 6 Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. The way in which interventions for improv- of how to grow this distributed delivery ing access and impact of ICT for inclusive on a massive scale is possible—a “mas- education are delivered also matters. sive-small” approach. Adopting a twin-track approach with This report recommends an Innova- targeted disability-specific work is vital and tion-Enabled Education For All approach necessary, alongside mainstream interven- that incorporates four interconnected tions that adopt inclusive approaches. For components that are crucial for harnessing instance, the mainstream programs around the potential of educational and assistive inclusive education or innovation need to technology (AT) into tangible and success- work as hard for learners with disabilities as ful learning outcomes for children with the disability-specific interventions, which disabilities. They are: (i) systems strength- should be used to trial and test learning ening and market shaping; (ii) community, that can be adopted in the mainstream. family, and out-of-school learning; (iii) open This effort will necessitate client-side innovation and technology infrastructure; disability expertise on mainstream projects and (iv) data and evidence. Each compo- where large procurements or investments nent cuts across the 6 P’s of educational are made. It is important to forge disruptive systems. Effective actions will require partnerships to engage new and different cross-sector collaborations between actors to support innovation. Involving and stakeholders working across the entirety of including learners with disabilities and the ecosystem that places the child at the their families, communities, and teachers center. Figure ES.1 shows the four com- throughout the planning and delivery of any ponents within the multidimensional and intervention are crucial to the successful integrated Innovation-Enabled Education delivery of disability-inclusive EdTech For All approach. programs. The interventions that are work- ing are small, but creative consideration A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 7 FIGURE ES.1: The multidimensional and integrated Innovation-Enabled Education For All approach System Community, Family, Strengthening & & Out-of-School Market Shaping Learning Innovation-enabled Education for All Innovation & Data & Technology Evidence Infrastructure Source: World Bank. The report makes a series of recommendations around these four components aimed at governments, education practitioners, development practitioners, and donors. They are discussed in detail in chapter 8 and summarized here. RECOMMENDATION 1 Strengthen systems and shape markets to systematically improve the provision of inclusive education and reduce the cost of assistive ICT for inclusive-education prod- ucts. Actions to consider are the following: ● Developing ICT for inclusive-education product guidance to support the procurement and purchase. ● Investing in and develop country-, subnational-, and local-level tools to assess current country capacity, procurement, and need for ICT for inclusive-education products. ● Developing ICT for inclusive-education training guidance (beyond, but including, prod- ucts) for countries, schools, caregivers, and community education leaders. ● Enhancing ICT for inclusive-education policy and crucially its implementation by providing further technical assistance at the country level. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 8 ● Supporting teachers and other edu- ● Opening up training and support mecha- cation providers in delivering inclusive nisms to community leaders and caregiv- educational experiences through ers to facilitate the provision of education pre-service and in-serving training, outside the school when needed. learning packages, and resource tools. ● Working with parents, caregivers, chil- dren, and representative organizations RECOMMENDATION 2 to ensure they are involved in identifying Develop a “massive-small” technology the need for, and development of, Ed- and service infrastructure for inclusive Tech that is intended for their use. education to enable massive-scale dis- ● Developing clear multidisciplinary tribution of evidence-based, small-scale referral structures for early identification innovations. This can be accomplished and screening of functional difficulties through: and access to required services. ● Driving innovation in ICT for inclusive ● Collecting and sharing case studies education by raising awareness of it as of good practice of community- and an investment space, creating public-pri- family-led schooling, and consider what vate partnerships between unusual and platforms are needed to support that. disruptive actors, and raising awareness of new markets and services. RECOMMENDATION 4 ● Designing and testing novel funding Capture better data and evidence vital to mechanisms to support existing innova- policy making, identification of learners, tors who respond to the need to support early intervention, and mapping of massive-small initiatives. progress. Initiatives to support this could ● Incentivizing open innovation through include: entrepreneurial ventures and innova- ● Enhancing coordination and linkages tions, matchmaking between policy between existing identification mecha- makers, purchasers, and producers of nisms and service delivery systems to technology and services, and strength- develop better identification and screen- ening country supply chains. ing tools for children with disabilities. ● Strengthening the use of data from RECOMMENDATION 3 Education Management Information Sys- Strengthen community, family, and out- tems both as a tool for future planning, of-school learning supports to ensure including the type of EdTech that might continuity of learning across different be required at the classroom level, and settings. This can include actions to: as an entry point for identifying children who may need EdTech support. ● Shifting provision mechanisms to ensure that the technology is associated ● Digitizing data collection processes to to the child rather than the school to facilitate visualization and sharing. help children learn outside of school ● Building the global evidence base to without replacing efforts to keep chil- address research and knowledge gaps dren in school. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 9 on the use and impact of EdTech on the requirements, and the prioritization of outcomes of children with disabilities, these, are subject to discussion and debate including in comparison to their peers with key stakeholders at a country level. and classmates without disabilities. Tools can support this step, as can overar- ching prioritized technology lists, Although Finally, the recommendations have the scope of this research was not intended been extrapolated from the data and are to deliver either, this could be a next step naturally top-level strategic proposals. identified under the recommendations. To implement these recommendations, Local innovation mapping and data collec- additional contextualization will be required tion will also be helpful in supporting local to bring them to life in the local, national, implementation along with community and regional context. In keeping with other engagement. In short, the components similar approaches, such as the AT tools of the recommendations will all warrant from the Global Cooperation on Assistive discussion in context in order to facilitate Technology initiative, specific technology local-level priorities for implementation. Source: Marie Schoeman, Leonard Cheshire. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 10 01 introduction While the increased focus on universal basic education over the past few decades has led to progress against global goals, including Sustainable Development Goal 4, it has not been matched by gains in the quality of education or improved learning outcomes. Source: World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 11 Millions of children continue to identities play a significant part in access be excluded from school for a to education for many children with dis- variety of reasons, and children abilities, with girls, refugees, and members with disabilities are particularly of ethnic and linguistic minorities more disadvantaged despite efforts to likely to face further marginalization and address their exclusion (World exclusion from school or to be less likely Bank 2020a). to transition through the education system (Tauson and Stannard 2018; Dhaya 2016; The impacts of this exclusion are felt across UNESCO 2020). their life course. This report is part of the Even before the COVID-19 pandemic an World Bank’s global effort to promote equity gap existed within education for equitable and lifelong opportunities for children with disabilities (World Bank all. It aligns with the Ten commitments on 2020a). Education technology (EdTech) has disability-inclusive development, which been hailed as a key mechanism to address includes, among other relevant topics, these learning gaps, though is not without inclusive education, technology and challenges or unintended consequences innovation, disaggregated data, girls with (Muyoya, Brugha, and Hollow 2016). disabilities, and the World Bank’s Disability However, technology needs to be used with Inclusion and Accountability Framework appropriate pedagogy and be personalized (World Bank 2018a). The research present- to accommodate students’ differing and ed in this report also aims to complement sometimes conflicting needs (i.e., teaching existing evidence gathered by the World to the right level). Yet this is rarely done as Bank on inclusive education and the role teachers have not been trained to identify of technology in education (World Bank appropriate accommodations, and in low- 2020a,c; World Bank 2021). and middle-income countries (LMICs), the According to the Global Education lack of infrastructure exacerbates these Monitoring Report of the United Nations challenges (UNESCO 2020, 120). However, Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Orga- as noted by a recent rapid scan by the Ed- nization (UNESCO), there are three main Tech Hub, data on infrastructure is very lim- areas in which children with disabilities ited in the first place in many countries, so are being left behind due to unequal it is difficult to determine what is available education opportunities. First, children with (Taddese 2020). According to the United disabilities are simply left out of the school Nations Secretariat, while accessible ICT environment. Second, children with disabil- has been promulgated since 2003, several ities are failed within the classroom. This barriers have impeded this, particularly in is demonstrated in both lower completion LMICs, where only 66 percent of primary rates and decreased educational attain- schools have electricity. Only 32 percent ment (UNESCO 2020, 4). Finally, many of primary schools in Sub-Saharan Africa impairments go undetected in children have access to electricity, the lowest level (and adults) due to lack of assessment and in the world (United Nations Secretariat specialist knowledge. The impacts of this 2021, 5). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are reduced linguistic, social, and cognitive has only heightened existing gaps in development (Sass-Lehrer, Porter, and provisions and mobilized technology-based Wu 2016). Gender and other intersectional responses in many countries. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 12 purpose of report The objective of this landscape review by the Inclusive Education Initiative (IEI) is to understand the status and trends in the use of digital technologies to support the educational participation and learning outcomes of children with disabilities.1 It incorporates desk-based and empirical findings from discussions with key stakeholders and interviewees, as outlined in chapter 2 on methodology, to address the research ques- tion: Can ICT improve the learning outcomes of children with disabilities in LMICs, and what factors enable or restrict this improvement within the wider EdTech ecosystem? In addition to the overarching question, a series of sub-questions are included (see figure 1). FIGURE 1: List of sub-questions to guide primary and secondary research WHAT is the current status of access to ICT for our population HOW to measure and identify good practice of ICT to strengthen learning outcomes WHAT are the barriers to using ICT to strengthen learning outcomes WHAT are the gaps in use of ICTs to strengthen learning outcomes HOW has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the use of ICT (both positive and negative) WHERE are the frontiers of Ed Tech in terms of innovative and scalable approaches WHERE are the greatest opportunities for intervention Source: World Bank. The research specifically focused on primary level education in five priority countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nepal, and Rwanda. It has sought to address some of the shortcomings related to lack of available evidence around the use of EdTech to support learners with disabilities (Lynch, Singal, and Francis 2021). Specifically, it aims to understand 1 For more information about the Inclusive Education Initiative, visit its website at https://www.inclusive-education- initiative.org. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 13 Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. the extent to which the increasing use of The EdTech Hub took this systems ICT in education is contributing to improved approach and applied it to their work, learning outcomes for children with disabil- adding a sixth, more education-specific ities in LMICs (Hennessy et al. 2021), and one—pedagogy. They note that the 6 P’s to identify the factors that are enabling or framework allows a consistent approach to restricting these improvements within the the evaluation of EdTech solutions, while wider EdTech ecosystem. also allowing for the “complexity involved in innovating within education systems” To do this in a consistent and comparable (Plaut et al 2020, 7). Therefore the review’s way, the research utilized the 6 P’s frame- findings are structured around the 6 P’s work, which in turn built on the 5Ps frame- framework to assist the reader in identifying work developed by the Global Cooperation the strengths and weaknesses of specific on Assistive Technology (GATE). GATE is a components of the EdTech ecosystem. partnership between a range of stakehold- ers, including international organizations, donor agencies, professional organizations, The overall report academia, and user groups, led by the is structured as follows: World Health Organization (WHO), to real- ize the obligations of the Convention on the Chapter 1 sets out the approach to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities toward research, including the definitions and increasing access to AT. 2 GATE identified framing of the research questions. five priority system-wide themes necessary Chapter 2 focuses on the methodology to achieve these aspirations, which were adopted for the various stages of research, summarized into 5 P’s: people, products, including the thematic literature review, provision, personnel, and policy. These are online survey, artificial intelligence (AI) interlinked, with people (users, their families, scanner, in-country interviews, and consul- and communities) at the center (Holloway et tation with experts in the field. al. 2018, 9). 2 For more information about the Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology visit WHO’s website at https://www.who. int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/global-cooperation-on-assistive-technology-(gate). A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 14 Chapters 3–5 present the results generated by research carried out, focusing on the global situation in relation to access and impact of ICT for inclusive education. They cover the literature review, Global Survey on Information and Communication Technology for Disabili- ty-Inclusive Education, and the AI-powered media and academic article research study. Chapter 6 presents the findings from the in-country key stakeholders interviews conducted with government stakeholders, practitioners, activists, and parents and caregivers in the five countries, using the 6 P’s framework. It also highlights the challenge to accessing ICT for inclusive education, which was identified as a priority by global experts during the modified Delphi exercise. In chapter 7 findings are drawn together into the discussion and explore how they fit with work across the World Bank portfolio, particularly in inclusive education. This research identifies several potential innovative and scalable approaches and opportunities in EdTech to improve learning outcomes for children with disabilities. They are based around the idea of innovation-enabled education for all. Chapter 8 provides a set of recommendations based on conclusions. Recommendations have been extrapolated from the data and are naturally top-level strate- gic proposals. To implement them, additional contextualization will be required to bring this to life in the local, national, and regional context. In keeping with other similar approaches, such as WHO’s GATE initiative, specific technology requirements are recommended. Their prioritization are subject to discussion and debate with key partners at the country level. Tools can support this, as can overarching prioritized technology lists. Although this research was not in scope to deliver either, this could be a next step identified under the recommendations. Local innovation mapping and data collection will also be helpful in sup- porting local implementation—along with community engagement. In short, the components of the recommendations will warrant discussion in context to facilitate local-level priorities for implementation. definitions & concepts Inevitably there are overlaps in use and understanding of the range of terms around technology and education, including EdTech, information and communication technology (ICT), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), as well as overlaps with assistive technology (AT) and assistive products (AP), more broadly. While some might view ICT as a subset of AT, others might view it as a subset of EdTech. AT and EdTech are ecosystems needed for learners to integrate the products (ICT and AP) into their learning experience for maximal benefit. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 15 Within this report, the concept of EdTech, elaborated by the World Bank, is leveraged as an ecosystem approach that includes the software, hardware, internet application, and activities necessary to support and enrich learning (Hawkins et al. 2021). In the context of inclusive education and in line with the UDL approach, EdTech can encompass mainstream educational technologies (including hardware devices and software designed using univer- sal access standards or featuring built-in accessibility features), purposefully designed ICT for persons with disabilities (including physical hardware and digital software and mobile applications to enhance functional access to content and communication), and adapted teaching and learning materials that change how content is delivered and disseminated. In light of this, both the concept of AP, which includes devices, equipment, instruments, or software used to support persons with disabilities, and one of AT systems, which enable access to these products, greatly overlap with the concept of EdTech, within the context of inclusive education of children with disabilities. Another concept leveraged in the research is UDL. It is defined by CAST as an approach to education research and design that uses three core principles: providing students with multiple means of representation; providing multiple means of action and expression; and providing multiple means of engagement. 3 Finally, rather than focusing on specific conditions, a broad rights-based definition of dis- ability is used from the WHO and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). “Disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (WHO 2011). This conceptualization allows a pan-dis- ability perspective to make this research as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. At times, examples from literature or insights from key informants do focus on a particular type of impairment. However, in line with the CRPD and the goals of a fully inclusive-education system that focuses on the inclusion of all learners, the landscape review emphasizes a set of principles around EdTech for children with disabilities, rather than a specific piece of hardware or software for a child. This approach was chosen for two reasons. In addition to the point of principle, focus on in- dividual disabilities will not necessarily lead to the system transformation required to ensure the inclusion of all children with disabilities. Those with the most complex needs or least prevalence will inevitably be left behind. This is also in line with the recommendation for further contextualization at a country level. It should not dissuade country-level investigation into product and service prioritization that, as is shown through the WHO’s Priority Assistive Product List (APL) for AT, is necessary and relevant as part of a suite of country-level tools and tactics. A full list of the definitions and concepts used in this report is provided in appendix A. 3 For more information about Universal Design Learning, visit the CAST website at https://www.cast.org/impact/ universal-design-for-learning-udl. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 16 02 methodology Chapter 2 provides a summary of the methodology used in this report, with the full detail provided in appendix B. Findings and recommendations were gathered using a combination of different methods including: ● a literature review of available evidence; ● six expert roundtable discussions using an adapted Delphi approach; ● a global digital survey of stakeholders; ● an AI-powered media search; and ● country-level key informant interviews in the five countries. Junior Onango using learning materials and toys in class in Kenya. Leonard Cheshire/Hamish Roberts. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 17 The review of literature conducted focuses that powers Event Registry, which analyses primarily on the country-level literature and news articles. The time period of media includes 80 relevant articles and 20 reports. articles was limited to 3 years, from 2018 Findings are structured around the three to August 2021. A preliminary analysis of key conditions that Banes et al. (2020) these data is reported and covers overall recommended must be in place for the trends in both databases, with additional successful application of a UDL framework, analysis of the geographic spread. and in turn achieve equity and inclusion of Semi-structured interviews with key all children within the education system. informants from a variety of organizations These are: were carried out across the five countries. ● identify children with disabilities (using These included relevant government at a minimum the Washington Group ministries and agencies, such as ministries questions); of education, information and communi- cation technologies, and social welfare; ● assess and understand the educational local government; nongovernmental orga- system in terms of capacity of policy, nizations (NGOs) and international NGOs; infrastructure, and educators to support organizations of persons with disabilities the learning of children with disabilities; (OPD); donor agencies; academia; private and ventures and start-ups; and teacher and ● provide affordable, accessible AT parent groups. Interview questions covered (must be identified and assessed an organization’s ongoing activities to appropriately). support the inclusive education of children with disabilities; awareness of relevant The full report of the literature review is policy frameworks; evaluation mechanisms available upon request from the authors. to assess the inclusion; collaborations with national and international partners; and The anonymous online survey was experiences during the ongoing COVID-19 designed to elicit responses around avail- pandemic. ability, access, and experiences concerning the use and impact of ICT for inclusive Seventy-five interviews across the five education from a range of respondents. countries were carried out between May 14 The survey was conducted online in English and August 13, 2021. Data were analyzed between May 10 and May 25, 2021, and using an inductive approach that resulted received 226 responses. in the conceptualization of 12 themes. To facilitate presentation and enable a more This AI-powered media and academic comprehensive understanding of the article research study was designed to strengths and weaknesses of different understand the research trends and iden- components of the education ecosystem, tify media interest around ICT for inclusive these themes were organized according education. Two searches were completed. to the 6 P’s framework (see figure 2). The The first search combed the academic phrasing of questions in the original frame- literature using the Microsoft Academic work were slightly adapted in this land- Graph (MAG). The second search was of scape review to fit the aim of unpacking media articles and uses the infrastructure the complexity of developing and deploying A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 18 EdTech to support inclusive education for learners with disabilities at a primary school level, as follows: ● People—Who are the stakeholders involved in the development, deployment, and use of ICT for inclusive education? ● Products—What kinds of ICT for inclusive education is developed and used, and what are the procurement mechanisms for it? ● Pedagogy—On which pedagogical principles is ICT for inclusive education built? ● Policy—How do existing policy frameworks influence ICT for inclusive education? ● Place—Where is ICT for inclusive education used? ● Provision—How is ICT for inclusive education funded, and how sustainable are current provision models? FIGURE 2: Education System 6 P’s Framework Diagram Source: Plaut et al. 2020. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 19 To elicit expert opinions from across a and the country-specific key informant range of sectors and to ensure consensus interviews were conducted remotely due around findings, four focus group dis- to the ongoing pandemic, meaning that cussions were undertaken with 23 World only people who had access to the internet Bank staff, including task team leaders of or a phone line could be involved in the Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nepal, and research. In the case of the key informants Rwanda. Additionally, two online round- interviews, the research was conducted table discussions with 24 selected global with the support of local consultants who experts in the fields of inclusive education, leveraged phone calls as well as emails to educational technologies, and disability reach out to participants. A small number were completed using a modified Delphi of interviews were conducted in person, approach in order to illicit stakeholder according to local COVID-19 regulations in views and build toward a consensus. place at the time, or over the phone where possible. This may have mitigated some The study has some limitations. The first selection bias. The global survey was only is that it only focuses on five countries. conducted through the use of a digital plat- Although it provides diverse examples, it form. It is also noteworthy that the political is not robustly representative of the entire situation in Ethiopia resulted in very limited global picture. A second limitation is that access to officials. Finally, it should also be the secondary research was undertaken noted that the EdTech field in particular is in English, reflecting a predominance a rapidly evolving one. Evidence was up to of English-language resources in the date when the review was written, but it literature. Thirdly, both the global survey will inevitably continue to evolve. Source: Disability-Inclusive Education in Africa Program. World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 20 03 global context This chapter provides an overview of the literature and sets the context for the remainder of the review. The themes emerging from the literature review supported the design, topics, and methods of the primary research. In particular, it provided a framework for the country-level investigation. A much longer review by country was undertaken. The key themes are summarized here. Source: Shutterstock. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 21 how can EdTech align with the global inclusive-education agenda as they support a learner-centered support inclusive education system, with technology (Ed- education? Tech) playing an essential function within this approach. Technology can be a tool to enable These issues are addressed in the World teachers to support learners with Bank paper outlining its approach to a diverse range of backgrounds, EdTech. Hawkins et al. (2021, 7) list five skills, capabilities, languages, and fundamental principles as follows: impairments. ● Principle 1: Ask Why? EdTech policies However, it is clear that their current and projects need to be developed with training inadequately prepares them to a clear purpose, strategy, and vision of do this. UDL might offer a way to bridge the desired educational change. these gaps, but will require a rethink in ● Principle 2: Design and Act at Scale, the way teachers are taught, children are For All. The design of EdTech initiatives assessed, and parents and caregivers are should be flexible and user-centered, engaged, as well as more research and with an emphasis on equity and evidence of impact on learning outcomes inclusion, in order to realize scale and (McKenzie et al. 2021, 52). Unfortunately, sustainability for all. to date, there is very little evidence about the implementation and impact of UDL ● Principle 3: Empower Teachers. Tech- in LMICs (McKenzie et al. 2020). A recent nology should enhance teacher engage- review makes recommendations to ment with students through improved better support UDL approaches in LMICs, access to content, data, and networks, including the need to ensure engagement helping teachers better support student with teachers, families, and the range of learning. technology available. However, the authors ● Principle 4: Engage the Ecosystem. caution against over-emphasizing the Education systems should take a technology aspect, as this may deter many whole-of-government and multi-stake- LMICs from using an approach that could holder approach to engage a broad set otherwise benefit many students. Finally, of actors to support student learning. they note a number of conditions that need to be in place to ensure students do reap ● Principle 5: Be Data-Driven. Evi- the benefits, particularly teacher capacity dence-based decision-making within and leadership, relevance to context, and cultures of learning and experimentation, creative ways to assess students learning enabled by EdTech, leads to more (McKenzie et al. 2021, 52–53). impactful, responsible, and equitable uses of data. While the need to apply UDL using a mix of accessible and AT to support children These are clustered around the “connected with disabilities students has been well learner” (see figure 3). documented (Banes et al. 2020, 7), how to operationalize UDL is less well documented Hawkins et al. (2021) set out a roadmap and less well evidenced. The aims of UDL for implementing these five principles, A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 22 key to which is the “whole-of-government systems levels. Learning must be provided approach” to ensure a holistic and joined- through a range of media, including radio, up approach (e.g., connectivity for schools). television, mobile, and online. Both teach- This is also key to facilitating the inclusion ers and learners must learn not just how to of children with disabilities in education use technology, but how digital pedagogies systems and the provision of the right can enhance learning. policies and resources. The roadmap high- Crucial, especially from an inclusion lights focusing on what needs to change perspective, is the need for more, not less, to improve learning outcomes as well as human engagement. Teachers have a the knowledge and skills students require. key role to play as users of technology to Learning should be personalized and based enable learning. Ministries must be open to on the needs of the student—a point that learning and be flexible to new approaches has consistently been made by proponents and systems and evaluate their impacts. of inclusive education. EdTech can enable The roadmap also talks about sharing this, but it must be for all learners and not data and avoiding technology and vendor widen inequalities. Design must be for “lock-in” (Hawkins et al. 2021, 23). This inclusion and engage the end-user (the is crucial in the rapidly changing AT and learner) to facilitate the rapid scaling of educational innovations at classroom and EdTech worlds. TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION IN EDUCATION AT THE WORLD BANK FIGURE 3: A diagram illustrating the World Bank’s approach of the connected learner Some of the interconnected and varied topics that the principles touch upon. CCT Safety/Ethics Evaluation AI/ML Privacy Cloud Value Exchange Devices Adaptive Certification Learning Connectivity Blockchain Policy Digital Infrastructure Digital identity BE DATA Data visualization DRIVEN ENGAGE the NRENs ECOSYSTEM Procurement Startups Ecosystem Data collection EMIS AssistiveTechnologies 21st century skills Skills LEARNER Mobile based Digital Skills DESIGN and Computer based STEAM ACT AT SCALE, Digital ASK WHY? FOR ALL Assessment Literacies Digital Learning VR/AR Materials TV Gaming Remote EMPOWERED Online Learning TEACHERS Training OER Mobile Skills Pedagogy Radio Source: Hawkins et al. 2021, 11. 11 NOTE: AI/ML = artificial intelligence/machine learning; CCT = conditional cash transfer; EMIS = Education Management Information System; NRENs = national research and education networks; OER = open educational resources; STEAM = science, technology, engineer- ing, arts, and mathematics; VR/AR = virtual reality/augmented reality. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 23 what is the traction across a number of countries, whereby the learner brings their own device evidence of efficacy? to their learning institution. While this has the advantage that the learner is already Debates are ongoing around familiar with the device, and has all they how the impact of EdTech has need already installed, it obviates the need been measured with much of for schools or educational institutions to the emphasis on the inputs of supply a range of ICT and EdTech devices. This approach transfers the costs from the EdTech (e.g., number of computers institution to the learner, which could be provided to a school) and outputs substantial. They surmise that students (e.g., number of teachers trained from disadvantaged backgrounds will be to use technology), rather than even more disadvantaged unless they have on outcomes, such as improved additional support. Funding for learners learning outcomes because of using came from various (generally) public sourc- technology (Muyoya, Brugha, and es, including local education authorities and Hollow 2016, 6). social services. There were also examples of funding by health insurers and rehabilitation These measures are already contested in funds. However, they note: debates about the effectiveness of inclusive education, as measurement of learning outcomes tends to be narrowly focused on The fact that national health literacy and numeracy scores, rather than services, health insurance, and/ more “citizenship-focused” measures, such or social services, rather than as participation and inclusion. education ministries, funded Even in higher-income countries (mainly learning (or employment support) in the global north), there is a lack of data technologies in several countries on the different ways in which learning may indicate that disabled people technologies are used to support students are frequently treated as patients with disabilities, as well as a lack of rec- rather than citizens requiring ommendations for good practice (Hersh support to overcome barriers. and Mouroutsou 2019). In their review of (Hersh and Mouroutsou 2019, 3340) 15 higher-income countries, 4 12 European countries, and Australia and South Korea, Hersh and Mouroutsou (2019) note that greater availability of devices and technolo- gies reduces costs, but brings with it other challenges, such as language availability, with majority languages (particularly En- glish) dominating. They note that the “bring- your-own device” approach was gaining 4 Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 24 Across the 15 countries included in No single established list of accessible and their study, Hersh and Mouroutsou assistive education-focused technology is (2019) conclude there is better available in LMICs, though some are listed provision overall of learning in Banes et al. (2020). WHO and the United technologies for persons with Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have sensory impairments, particularly developed a range of resources to support visual impairments, though they did inclusion, which complements the WHO’s not find any specific reason as to why APL. 5 this might be so. A recent evidence review by a panel Similar findings emerged from the system- of global experts, co-hosted by the UK atic review by Lynch, Singal, and Francis Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development (2021), which notes that the majority of Office and the World Bank, identified studies were conducted in special schools what it considered to be “smart buys” and including learners with sensory for education ministries in LMICs (Global impairments rather than learning disabil- Education Evidence Advisory Panel 2020). ities. The review also notes the language The panel evaluated the evidence base for limitations of most devices (Lynch, Singal, cost-effectiveness and categorized them and Francis 2021, 10). Little evidence was into five levels from “great buys” through found of parents being involved in deciding to “bad buys.”6 EdTech was mentioned as which technology they should use and how a good buy, but with a very specific caveat it should be approached, or even being that educators used “software that adapts consulted in terms of what role they should to the learning level of the child (where play. The authors also found a focus on hardware is already in schools)” (Global the development of the technology per se, Education Evidence Advisory Panel, 2020, rather than aligning it to curriculum goals 14). Of note, the only best buy was giving or how the technology can help teachers information on the benefits, costs, and to support more inclusive access. They quality of education that is contextually make a series of recommendations, divided relevant, and crucially, can be acted on by across research and policy. One of them parents, teachers, community members, is to conduct a four-stage consultation to and others. create a priority list of AT and a support training package. According to the panel, where computers are already in use, using software that 5 WHO’s Priority Assistive Products List (APL) aspires to follow in the footsteps of its Model List of Essential Medicines, which creates awareness among the public, mobilizes resources and stimulates competition. The APL is similarly intended to be a catalyst in promoting access to assistive technology. It is not a restrictive list but aims to provide each member state with a model from which to develop a national priority assistive products list. Like WHO’s Model List of Essential Medicines, the APL also provides guidance for procurement and reimbursement policies, including insurance coverage. The list includes hearing aids, wheelchairs, communication aids, spectacles, artificial limbs, pill organizers, memory aids, and other essential items for many older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive, and dignified life. 6 Most of the evidence gathered came from high-income countries. Though evidence is slim, the panel believes the current explosion of innovation will strengthen the evidence base (Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel 2020, 14). A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 25 targets learning to the level of the individ- ual child can be highly cost-effective, as impact of the evidence suggests from countries including COVID-19 pandemic India and Uruguay. Moreover, the benefits continue out of school. There is some The impact of the ongoing evidence from Uruguay that they had the coronavirus pandemic has been highest impact on the most disadvantaged unprecedented and has impacted all learners (Global Education Evidence sectors of society. Advisory Panel 2020, 14). Computers can aid teaching at the right level when other According to UNESCO, at least 1.5 billion factors are in place, including electricity, students and their families have been internet connection, hardware availability, significantly affected by school closures as as well as teacher training, and appropriate a result of the pandemic (UNESCO 2020). software is used. Merely investing in inputs, To address the education gap, govern- such as computers or textbooks, that ments around the world have responded demonstrate tangible evidence of invest- by switching to remote or distance learning ment, without improving how they are used through the use of TV, radio, or the internet or for whom, will not result in improved to ensure that students have a way to learning (Global Education Evidence continue their studies. Advisory Panel, 2020, 18). Therefore, while computers and other EdTech are also an However, it is also unclear how many input, the panel judged them to be a best students with disabilities are receiving buy as long as they are accompanied by educational support largely due to a lack other contextually relevant and considered of disaggregated data and information, measures, including personalized adaptive but the disproportionate effect on already software and teachers trained on how to marginalized and excluded learners has use the software. The panel also note that been well documented (Barron et al. 2021; it can be more cost-effective to improve UNICEF 2019). Moreover, these figures learning using available technology, such are largely focused on learners who were as mobile phones (Global Education Evi- already in school. Many children with dis- dence Advisory Panel 2020, 19). abilities are not regularly attending school or have never been to school, though exact Finally, as is well established, little evidence numbers are difficult to obtain due to lack was found about what works to improve of data or reporting (Global Partnership for access to education or learning for children Education 2019). with disabilities, and what little there is, is often small scale and therefore difficult A global learning crisis was occurring to evaluate its impact (Global Education before COVID-19 as documented in the Evidence Advisory Panel 2020, 23). This 2018 World Development Report (World situation and limited data about EdTech Bank 2018b). For children with disabilities, cost in the first place raise a number of the learning crisis existed long before questions, including whether EdTech is COVID. The report Every Learner Matters cost-effective as an investment in the long argues that for children with disabilities, term, as well as raising questions about the learning crisis is two-fold—issues relate obsolescence and upgrading. to education access and equity as well as A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 26 quality and learning (World Bank 2019). The also rely on alignment with the curriculum pandemic offers an opportunity to change and quality of teaching (McAleavy et al. these systems for the better. 2020, 15). This last point highlights both the critical Little research is available that identifies role teachers play—and one that can be sup- the most effective remote or distant ported, but not replaced, by technology—as learning approaches that support chil- well as the need for them to “teach to the dren with disabilities and address their right level.” This will require skills and tools education needs. The IEI’s report, Pivoting that now are limited, especially in LMICs: to Inclusion: Leveraging Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic, acknowledged the emerging education, social needs, barriers, Understanding which teacher and issues experienced by learners with behaviors and practices most disabilities (World Bank 2020a). closely map to better student Further, data from the COVID-19 School learning outcomes, and how to Closure Survey highlighted the challenges measure those behaviors and in remote learning for learners with disabil- practices, are important steps ities. Inequitable access to devices as well to designing better policies and as internet availability and data packages programs for recruiting and and limited to no access to assistive devic- training teachers. (Filmer, Molina, es or accessible learning materials were and Wane 2020, 31) reported by parents (World Bank 2020a). The survey found that 1 in 4 parents re- ported a lack of internet access and data, A recent report published by the Education 1 in 10 parents pointed to lack of power Development Trust reviewed the steps be- and electricity as a barrier, and 23 percent ing taken by countries to ensure continuity reported not having available the device of education under COVID-19, particularly their child needed (World Bank 2020a). In for the most disadvantaged students(M- addition, data from the survey also showed cAleavy et al. 20202). Overall, it paints a that access to a device does not always bleak picture, especially in LMICs where translate to access for the learners with little attention has been paid to the needs disabilities. For example, while more than of students with special educational needs 60 percent of parents had access to a TV, and disabilities. It highlights the potential less than 20 percent believed it was helpful for this already marginalized group to be in remote learning purposes for their further disadvantaged by school closures child. In addition, learners with hearing (McAleavy et al. 2020, 2). Significant and visual impairments were particularly gaps in current provision are identified, in excluded from any lessons broadcast on particular a generalized failure to monitor the TV or radio. the interventions that were put in place to address school closures. The report notes The follow-up report published in 2021 that while many of these interventions by the World Bank gives key examples of were technology-based, they were not on where a twin-track approach ensures the their own enough of a guarantee of educa- inclusive design of mainstream education tional continuity and good outcomes. They programs combined with the development A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 27 of targeted support to address the specific Since May 2020, the Organisation for needs of children with disabilities (World Economic Co-operation and Development, Bank 2021). Moreover, it also highlights the UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank potential negative effects that technology have undertaken three rounds of a joint can have if not appropriate for learners with Survey of National Education Responses disabilities (e.g., excessive screen time for to COVID-19. The first report noted that 56 learners with sensory issues) and highlights percent of responding governments re- promising practices, including non-tech or ported taking measures to provide specific low-tech approaches. support to students with disabilities during school closures (UNESCO, UNICEF, Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the World Bank 2020, 24). However, remote or distance learners with disabilities responses to the third round of data experienced many barriers to education, collection show that less than one-third of from physical access, stigma and discrim- schools in LMICs reported that all students ination, lack of support through to lack of had returned, increasing the likelihood of trained personnel and equipment (UNICEF dropouts, and only one in four countries is 2019). Recommendations are in place to providing incentives, such as cash, food, address these issues, ranging from legisla- transport, or fee waivers, to help girls tion and policy through to improving edu- or children from disadvantaged families cation assessment and accommodations, return to school. Student learning has modifying curricula and teaching practices, been affected across the board, and while implementing competency-based learning, counties made efforts to address learning developing individualized education during school closures, there has been programs, and supporting teachers, much less focus on enabling students to family, and caregivers. However, there is no catch up on missed education. This means consensus on one systematized approach that already disadvantaged students, in on using ICT in education in LMICs (Coflan particular students with disabilities, will be and Kaye 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic even less able to catch up with their peers offers an opportunity to redress this gap, without disabilities. but the growing evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on learners with disabilities does School closures have been substantial, not indicate this is the case. The World amounting to the loss of an average of 79 Bank has produced a series of Knowledge instruction days in 2020. LMICs reported Packs, including on EduTV, which details the most extended average duration of the benefits of television-based learning closures, placing them at the greatest risk for a range of students, but it does not of significant learning loss, especially for specially address learners with disabilities. the most disadvantaged children. Moreover, Furthermore, both a Guidance Note on how the report goes on to note the following: to strengthen disability inclusion in educa- tion (Saavadra, Alasuutari, and D’Angelo 2021) and a more comprehensive Inclusive Only 25 percent of low-income Education Resource Guide (Alasuutari et countries compared to 96 percent al. 2020) have been published to support of high-income countries reported country offices in developing and carrying regular or extra expenditures on out different activities (e.g., data collection digital learning. An additional and engagement with stakeholders in dis- abilities on planning and implementation). allocation from government was A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 28 the most commonly cited source The Secretariat also makes several recom- of additional funding across mendations about data and monitoring. countries, particularly among high- They move away from merely collecting data on the numbers of learners with income countries, as 86 percent of disabilities toward collecting more specific them reported. (UNESCO, UNICEF, data about categories of disabilities that and World Bank 2020, 8–9) do not conflate impairments that require different interventions (e.g., deaf and hard of hearing learners), which make the This clearly highlights the financial data less useful for policy and program disadvantage for LMICs and the lack of development. However, improvements in funding to education globally. A policy brief collecting disability disaggregated data can published by the EdTech Hub, Education be linked to monitoring progress through during the COVID-19 Crisis: Opportunities an Education Management Information and Constraints of Using EdTech in Low-In- System (EMIS) or the development of come Countries, noted that technology indicators that track educational perfor- alone would not solve the learning gaps mance to accurately measure the progress and would require the efforts of teachers, of students with disabilities. Setting up a parents, government officials, and many specific task force or group can facilitate others (Raluca et al. 2021). this, and the committee also gave examples of where communities have been success- The United Nations Secretariat addressed fully engaged in monitoring educational these challenges in a note that recognizes outcomes for learners with disabilities the need for flexible and adaptive teaching (United Nations Secretariat 2021, 15). Some approaches, adapted curricula or programs, countries have established “disability and provision for alternative arrangements helplines” as a recourse mechanism. for exams and assessments (United Nations Secretariat 2021). Teachers need While most of these are not EdTech-spe- up-to-date contextually specific guidance cific solutions, they highlight the need for a and resources on how to deliver inclusive robust, strengthened systematic approach lessons, as well as for learners with specific to inclusion. More research and develop- impairments. They also support investing ment of the most effective approaches for in the universal design of information and learners with disabilities is needed. As yet, communications technologies for educa- it is unclear if the increased reliance on tion and making them accessible to all. technology during the COVID-19 pandemic However, the Secretariat notes that in many has led to reduced EdTech costs and countries, national initiatives to increase the improved outcomes overall. It also raises availability of ICTs in education for persons questions about procurement, availability, with disabilities are lacking. Both ICT and and obsolescence of some EdTech. disability actors work in isolation, creating problems of coordination and implementa- tion of policies as procurement. Many of the devices required, such as augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) including voice output communication aids, are already included in the APL (WHO 2016). A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 29 what further Funding based on school assessment is usually directed to the school rather than evidence is needed to to the child, which may limit the child’s help close the gaps? ability to access learning supports outside of school. Much of the focus of research Assessment of children for potential impair- to date has been on the technology ments is currently a gap in the skillset of itself and how it may or may not community health workers (McCollum et al. support children’s access 2016; Naidoo, Taylor, and Govender 2019.) to learning. Simple tools are being piloted (Hatch and Dombrowski 2019; Tekola et al. 2016), but Much less focus has been on how children most are impairment-specific, and there is are assessed for these products or how still a need to develop more simple commu- technology is part of a plan to support nity-level assessment tools, possibly digital. inclusion more broadly. Gaps in the literature are found around the roles and impact of allied professional staff Attention is growing in the disability-in- (e.g., physiotherapists, occupational thera- clusive education sector on the need for pists, and speech and language therapists) improved assessment and identification within the education system. mechanisms. Banes et al. (2020) recom- mend that children with disabilities should The key role of teachers in inclusive edu- be identified using at a minimum the cation is already well established, but with Washington Group questions; however, less evidence about how they are delivering these questions are intended for popula- in practice. Teachers in most LMICs contin- tion-level surveys and only give a proxy ue to face challenges of limited resources, indicator of the prevalence of disability in over-crowded classrooms, rigid and population groups in general and specific inflexible curricula, as well as lack of com- functional limitations more specifically. petencies in using EdTech. Some countries, More detailed questions for children are including Kenya, have begun to shift to asked through the Washington Group/ a competency-based curriculum, which UNICEF Module on Child Functioning may redress some of these issues, but it is and the UNICEF Multi-Indicator Cluster still too early to tell (Akala 2021). Evidence Survey. Still, in general, these are indictive from the IEI’s global survey on COVID-19 of need and are useful only as a guide for school closures further points to evidence planning resourcing needs. A more detailed that teachers felt unsupported during the individual assessment of a child’s needs pandemic, which has required a massive is necessary to appropriate identify and shift in service delivery. Less than one-third provide the learning supports required. It is of teacher respondents believed they were difficult to extrapolate which children need receiving adequate support to continue assessment from population-level data. helping their students with disabilities learn compared with their students without A gap also exists between health-focused disabilities. More information and data assessments and school-based assess- are needed on the experience of teachers ments, with greater emphasis on the latter. (World Bank 2020a). This also influences budgeting decisions. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 30 04 global survey on technology for disability-inclusive education This chapter presents findings from the online survey undertaken for this study to ascertain the level of knowledge of various stakeholders about ICT for inclusive education; to identify what works and what does not work to improve learning outcomes of children with disabilities; and to identify what EdTech is available to support learning outcomes for children with disabilities across a range of settings. Findings here are based on responses from 226 participants. Source: Shutterstock. Contributor Ann Gaysorn. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 31 participant characteristics As shown in figure 4, the most common professional affiliation of respondents were NGOs (28.8 percent) and academia (25.7 percent), followed by health professionals and independent consultants (clustered under “other”) at 11.1 percent and teachers (10.6 percent). FIGURE 4: Distribution of survey respondents according to their professional profile 80 Number of respondents Academia 70 65 Private Sector 58 60 OPDs 50 Donor/Funder 40 Government Innovator 30 24 25 NGOs 20 14 12 Headteacher 11 8 10 4 5 Teacher/Specialist Teacher 0 Other Professional Affiliation Source: World Bank. Most respondents were based in the African region (Rwanda 14.4 percent, Kenya 9.9 per- cent, and Uganda 4.5 percent), followed by the Americas (Mexico 7.2 percent, United States 5.4 percent, and Brazil 2.3 percent), Asia (Sri Lanka 4.5 percent, Bangladesh 4.1 percent, and India 3.2 percent), and Europe (United Kingdom 6.3 percent and Italy 2.3 percent). Respondents’ areas of expertise were primarily linked to education (total = 54.7 percent: mainstream 28 percent; special education 26.7 percent), or disability and accessibility (28.5 percent), with only 10.6 percent of respondents stating they had expertise in innovation and product development, and less than 2 percent reporting commercial experience. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 32 ICT for inclusive education Almost 30 percent (n = 67 respondents) stated that they had no knowledge of any ICT or EdTech currently being used to support children with disabilities in the country in which they worked. Of the 159 respondents who reported knowledge of ICT for inclusive education in their respective countries, 34.1 percent were able to cite at least one example, 27.1 percent presented two examples, 19 percent three examples, 12.3 percent four examples, and 7.5 percent five examples. ● The 358 examples provided by respondents included both low- and high-tech devices, mainstream and dedicated software, and a variety of educational platforms and repositories of resources. The technologies most commonly mentioned by participants were: ● Computers (laptops, desktops, personal computers)—32 mentions ● Text-to-speech technologies (screen readers, speech readers, Microsoft’s JAWS)—28 mentions ● Braille writing equipment (slate and stylus, note takers, Perkins Brailler, emboss- ers)—27 mentions ● AAC technologies (communication boards and applications, GoTalk devices, Widgit symbol software)—25 mentions ● Accessible textbooks (accessible EPUB, Bookshare library, digital accessible information systems, OpenBook, Braille books)—22 mentions These 358 examples were organized thematically to create a taxonomy of keywords repre- senting the main types of ICT for inclusive education used in primary schools around the world (table 1). The taxonomy is organized across 12 broader categories, 35 subcategories, and over 80 individual keywords. Most categories of EdTech mentioned by respondents are already included in the APL, suggesting that adopting the APL would also facilitate countries in making these products more available to learners.7 7 Banes et al. (2020) also contains an extensive list of EdTech. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 33 TABLE 1: Taxonomy of ICT for inclusive education formulated based on the examples provided by respondents in the survey Main category Sub-category Interactive whiteboards Tech for teaching Audio and video broadcasting technology Complete classroom toolkits Reading equipment Braille reading and writing equipment Writing equipment Embedded accessibility features Mainstream software and applications Social networks, instant messaging, and video conferencing Screen readers Text to speech Optical character recognition Victor readers Computers Mobile phones and tablets Personal electronic devices Voice recorders Accessible calculators Vibrating wrist watch Multimodal digital learning platforms Platforms and applications for learning Educational applications support Multi-language support software Source: World Bank. The vast majority of these technologies (81.8 percent) were reportedly in place before the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas only 14.6 percent were developed or introduced solely after the start of the pandemic. As might be expected, almost all educational activities leveraging technologies (87 percent) are still in place in various countries around the world, with only 6.3 percent of them being reported as discontinued (see figure 5). Some technologies mentioned by respondents were targeting learners with a specific type of functional impairment, whereas others were suitable for learners with a variety of im- pairments, including those with multiple disabilities. Some aim to be universally accessible to all users through smartphones and other mainstream technologies. Overall, 22 percent of technologies supported learners with communication impairments; 21 percent, learners with visual impairments; 18.1 percent, learners with intellectual or cognitive impairments; 15.3 percent, learners with hearing impairments; 12.9 percent, learners with physical impair- ments; and 9.8 percent, learners with psychosocial impairments. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 34 FIGURE 5: Availability of ICT for inclusive education in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic 300 261 247 250 Number of respondents In place 200 before COVID-19 Still in use 150 100 44 50 19 20 11 0 Yes No Don’t know Source: World Bank. The purpose of different EdTech were varied and often one type of technology had more than one aim in its use, ranging from supporting the development of communication skills of the user to enabling access to textbooks and other material relevant to the curriculum or to aid mobility. Figure 6 summarizes the main functions attributed to the various EdTech cited by participants. FIGURE 6: Overview of purpose of different types of ICT for inclusive education Improve communication skills 24.7 Aid mobility 4.4 Improve daily living skills (e.g. hygiene and toileting) 9 Help with seating & posture 4.1 Access textbooks & curriculum related material 25.9 Increase knowledge of sign language 10 % Improve social skills 14.7 Other 6.6 Don't know 0.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Source: World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 35 Respondents reported that schools and families most commonly acquired these technol- ogies through NGOs (25.2 percent) and government agencies (19.4 percent). However, direct acquisition through private sellers (18.1 percent), manufacturers (12.1 percent), or even self-production of devices by the school or the family (9.5 percent) were also reported as common ways to gain access to necessary technologies. As expected, schools (23.2 percent), closely followed by OPDs (20 percent) and government agencies (17.6 percent), were mentioned as the most likely source of information, training, and support for users when learning how to use EdTech. Nonetheless, participants stated that about 1 in 5 users (19.6 percent) will need to learn how to use EdTech independently, with only the support of families or caregivers. Cost was reported as a major barrier in access to both AT and EdTech. Respondents stated that more than one-third of the technologies they cited had a cost greater than $100 (35.9 percent), with only 15.1 percent of technologies being available to schools or individuals free of charge (see figure 7). FIGURE 7: Overview of estimated price per unit of different types of ICT for inclusive education mentioned by survey’s respondents 3% 5% Below $5 $6–$25 15% 9% The technology $26–$50 is free 8% $51–$100 24% Unknown 36% More than $100 % Lorem ipsum Source: World Bank. When EdTech or AT were acquired for learners, the most common way to assess if it appro- priately matched the needs and capabilities of the user were usability tests (27.8 percent) and recorded observations on a chart or schedule (21.3 percent). Validated assessment tools were only used in 12.8 percent of cases, with graded progressions and accessibility A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 36 guidelines in 12.3 percent of cases each. Participants stated that for about 1 in 10 learners provided with EdTech or AT (10.9 percent), no tool or instrument was used to measure the appropriateness of the technology. Of the technologies mentioned in the survey, 66 were developed directly by respondents or their organizations. Most of these organizations were based in the Global South, but 7 were from either Europe or the United States (see figure 8). Almost half of the organizations were NGOs or OPDs (44.1 percent), with other developers of EdTech and AT being based in university laboratories (17.6 percent) or hospitals and clinics (11.8 percent) and more in social enterprises (8.8 percent) or private companies (5.9 percent). Over half of the respondents (55.6 percent) working on EdTech mentioned in the survey stated that these technologies were well past the piloting and testing stages and were being deployed in their own countries and, in some cases, in other countries as well. FIGURE 8: Distribution showing the country of origin of organizations who reported being engaged in the development of ICT for inclusive education Vietnam 2 United States 5 Tanzania 1 United Kingdom 1 Sri Lanka 4 Rwanda 7 Nigeria 1 Mexico 3 Malaysia 1 Kenya 4 India 3 France 1 Number of Respondents Bangladesh 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Source: World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 37 summary of findings In summary, the findings from the global survey show that: ✚ The level of awareness about the use of ICT and ICT for inclusive education is still rela- tively low among many practitioners. ✚ Although the COVID-19 pandemic brought increased attention to the use of technology in education, most of the EdTech that has been used to support the switch to remote education already existed. ✚ Participants were most familiar with mainstream technology, such as laptops, mobile phones, and messaging applications, or technology specific to a particular impairment type, such as Braille readers, hearing aids, or AAC technology. Rarer were mentions of more flexible tools to support learners with cognitive disabilities or specific devices linked to the study of a particular subject, such as modified calculators. ✚ A significant share of EdTech for learners with disabilities are still purchased by the family or school through private sellers or manufacturers without government mediation. In this context, both the cost of technology and low levels of awareness represent important barriers to access. Source: “Young child listens on a mobile telephone” by Arne Hoel/World Bank under license CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 38 05 AI-powered research on academic and media articles results of media and academic searches The purpose of this work was to understand the maturity of the research in the topic areas while also capturing trends in research and media interest in topics. The searches conducted using MAG and the Event Registry identified 9,428 articles. Table 2 shows the breakdown of media topics and academic articles found by the searches carried out based on the categories of the taxonomy. Source: Shutterstock. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 39 TABLE 2: Total counts and ranked position of media topics and academic articles identified through the searchers on MAG and Event Registry Total media count Total academic count Topic (ranked position) (ranked position) Augmentative and alternative communication 149 (1) 152 (3) Assistive hearing and listening technology 531 (4) 110 (4) Accessible textbooks 53 (10) 20 (10) Technology for vision enhancement 425 (5) 66 (6) Mobility technology 1018 (3) 355 (2) Platforms and applications for learning support 69 (8) 32 (7) Personal electronic devices 3091 (1) 980 (1) Text-to-speech technology 256 (7) 151 (2) Mainstream accessible software and applications 1065 (2) 88 (5) Braille reading and writing equipment 40 (9) 11 (9) Technology for teaching support 316 (6) 19 (8) Technology for vision enhancement 425 (5) 66 (6) Source: World Bank. Personal electronic devices followed by mainstream accessible software and applications topped the media topic counts (see figure 9). FIGURE 9: Media articles on Event Registry focusing on personal electronic devices, 2018–August 2021 Source: World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 40 Personal electronic devices were also the most popular academic counted topic (see figure 10). FIGURE 10: Academic articles on MAG focusing on personal electronic devices, 1963–August 2021 Source: World Bank. The key findings from these trends are presented in table 3. TABLE 3: Main insights about media and academic trends toward the different types of EdTech categorized in the taxonomy based on the inspection of generated graphs Topic Insights Augmentative and alternative ● Academic interest toward the topic has steadily increased over communication the years and it is almost exclusively focused on digital AAC rather than physical communication boards. Assistive hearing and listening ● There were only 1-3 academic articles per year in this topic. technology ● The number of media articles was significantly higher with headphone interest peaking in 2020. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 41 Topic Insights Accessible textbooks ● Consistently low number of academic articles per year on the topic. ● Media interest increased steadily over the years with a shift from Braille books toward digital accessible books. Mobility technology ● Over 95% of academic articles and media topics focused on wheelchairs, compared with less than 5% on white canes. ● Media interest in wheelchairs has increased each year. ● Since 2005 there has been a marked increase in wheelchair re- search which may relate to new topics, such as smart wheelchairs and novel manufacturing possibilities. Platforms and applications for ● Media interest in translation software peaked in 2018 with 62 learning support topics. Last year, however, Google Classroom was the highest with 24 topics, possibly due to COVID-19 driven acceleration of use. ● Educational research peaked with 5 articles in 2014 within the ac- ademic database. It is possible a peak relating to COVID-19 could emerge this year given the time-lag for academic publications. Personal electronic devices ● Academic interest on the use of personal electronic devices peak- ed in 2016, but the media covered it a lot more in 2020 (possibly an artifact of COVID-19). ● Interest around the use of laptops, desktops, and even iPads has been declining, whereas interest in phones, smartphones, and telephones remains more consistent. ● Little academic interest has been seen around basic telephones since 2016, but more in the media. Text-to-speech technology ● Within assistive technology, there is limited research across the known EdTech platforms identified in the EdTech taxonomy. ● Mainstream technologies, such as Google Euphonia, will come online this year, which could transform the market, although this will only initially be in English. ● Media interest is healthier with over 20 topics across NonVisual Desktop Access and Fusion each year. Mainstream accessible software ● Media interest in this topic surged during 2020, driven by a spike in and applications Zoom-related topics. Braille reading and writing ● Volume of articles and papers on Braille reading and writing equipment equipment versus personal electronic devices is hugely different. ● Academic papers are almost exclusively on refreshable Braille displays. ● Media interest toward traditional Braille reading and writing equipment almost disappears in 2021. ● Orbit’s refreshable Braille reader appears in the media in 2021. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 42 Topic Insights Technology for teaching support ● YouTube dominates media topics with a peak of 144 topics last year, demonstrating the platform’s increasing popularity. ● Very limited academic interest in this space within the topic of assistive technology. Technology for vision ● Media articles are nearly all regarding glasses, averaging over 100 enhancement articles per year and with increasing interest. Last year saw the highest number (12) of topics mentioning ZoomText. ● Academic articles follow a similar trend with the majority of articles focused on glasses, although absolute numbers are an order magnitude smaller with less than 10 articles on average across the whole topic. Note: Digital AAC are high-tech standalone devices or software applications that can be installed on personal computing devices that support communication by producing a voice output in response to the input of the user. Communication boards are simple low-tech devices that display a set of pictograms that the person can point at to convey simple messages. technology hype and academic articles When reading academic trends, it is important to note there will be waves of papers, provided there are sufficient numbers. The first wave occurs when a new technology emerges. These papers all seek to prove the basic science and ensure it can reliably work in a range of scenarios. During this time, small-scale user studies will occur. Larger-scale studies can infer user needs from big data sets. Once the technology is proven and some basic design principles and applications exist, interest dips as people move onto the next big topic. A second wave emerges when the technology is rolled out and used in daily life. This stage is about capturing benefits, understanding use, and developing advances across scenarios of use. The findings from the AI-powered scraping study showed insufficient fundamental research on the use of ICT for inclusive education to advance the state of the art. At the same time, research is developing in the areas of mainstream technology, such as personal electronic devices. EdTech like any other sector will have technologies that follow the Gartner Hype Cycle. The cycle has five phases. It starts with a “Technology Trigger” that leads to a “Peak of Inflated Expectations,” followed shortly by a “Trough of Disillusionment,” followed by a “Slope of Enlightenment,” and then a “Plateau of Productivity.”8 When allowed 8 The definition of Hype Cycle is available on the Gartner website at https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/ glossary/hype-cycle. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 43 by enough academic papers, this research looked for indications for each stage because they can help inform approaches to investment in ICT for inclusive education. In table 4, the Gartner Hype Cycle phases can be seen, along with suggested investment implications in relation to the Global Disability Innovation Hub (see appendix C). TABLE 4: Gartner Hype Cycle phases mapped to elements of the GDI Hub inclusive investment lens approach Gartner Hype Cycle Phase Possible investment implications Technology trigger Raise awareness of inclusive design benefits and develop case studies of disability inclusion specific applications. Peak of inflated expectations Assess the most likely applications to succeed and assess market options for disability-inclusive avenues. Trough of disillusionment Build evidence of market and product-need fit. Slope of enlightenment Invest in evidence building at scale. Plateau of productivity Continually assess for new options for disability-inclusive data and evidence strengthening and diversification of technology applications. Source: World Bank. Note: GDI Hub = Global Disability Innovation Hub. Hype curves are created for topics each year by Gartner. For example, the Artificial Intelligence Hype Curve contains technologies, such as natural language processing, chatbots, machine learning, and computer vision (Gartner 2014). However, these terms did not make it into the findings despite their usefulness for developing new intelligent EdTech. This means that within a topic, such as Technology for Vision enhancement, this research did not find mention of computer vision. This points to a gap and disconnect between core technology trends and trends on ICT use for inclusive education. Based on this media scraping study, there appears to be a disconnect between core technology trends. This gap could be bridged through a better understanding of inclusion with EdTech communities and a better understanding of emerging technology trends and their possibilities in the inclusive- education communities. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 44 06 country case studies on using ICT for inclusive education This chapter starts with a brief overview of the inclusive- education context and COVID-19 response of the five countries, before turning to findings from interviews undertaken in each of them. The country-level overviews are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to give a snapshot of the education ecosystem and the available resources against which the interviews were undertaken. The findings from the interviews are grouped under each of the 6 P’s to illustrate the situation across the entire education ecosystem. Under each “P,” the common themes that emerged across the five countries are highlighted, followed by country-specific insights. Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 45 country The government of Bangladesh has mobilized a stimulus package to support context overview COVID-19 affected industries and communities, but it is not yet clear how education services will be strengthened Bangladesh and supported, let alone for children with disabilities (Rohwerder et al. 2021). In Bangladesh, disability inclusion is However, the government was able to build on the agenda for both the Ministry of on the foundations laid by its English in Education and the Ministry of Primary Action program. It uses mobile phones, and Mass Education. However, children print-materials, television, and peer-to-peer with disabilities fall under the purview of learning to help 25 million Bangladeshis the Ministry of Social Welfare, resulting improve their English as a route into in fragmented responsibilities or gaps in work and out of poverty. This program providing education services to children has influenced the emerging education with disabilities. This results in several continuity plan and the prioritization challenges, including delays in provision of television broadcasting within this of teaching materials or assistive devices plan. The plan has been developed with (Siddik and Kawai 2018). close collaboration between the Ministry Since 2008, Bangladesh has been pursuing of Primary and Mass Education, the “Digital Bangladesh” a program to increase Department of Secondary Education and access to digital public services, leading Higher Education, and the ICT division to a substantial increase in online learning of the government, a unit called Access opportunities since 2010. Examples include to Information (a2i). a2i has established a student platform, Konnect, which provides four technical working groups (radio, learners with online learning content and television, internet, and mobile phone), live classes. The government’s e-learning each with responsibility for planning platform MuktoPaath, which mostly hosts the implementation of remote learning online courses and virtual classes at the during and after COVID-19 (Ndaruhutse, tertiary level, has more than 690,000 sub- Gibbs, and Fitzpatrick 2020). At this time, scribers (Sarwar, Hossain, and Kaye 2020). phone-based remote learning is not However, challenges remain, including infra- implemented at scale. The government has structural barriers, limited electricity supply, also developed the Education Hub, a digital and resourcing (Mou 2016). The costs make platform to host educational resources it is difficult to allocate sufficient funds for for schools and parents, alongside a ICT equipment, and most rural schools communication strategy to help parents to are limited in the number of devices, such engage with their children’s learning and as computers, multimedia projectors, disseminate messages about online safety or printers, they can access (Mou 2016). to parents and children. Within refugee Bangladesh faces additional challenges as camps at Cox’s Bazaar, UNICEF provides it hosts around 1 million Rohingya refugees. print-based materials to support parents Education programs for refugee children teaching their children (Ndaruhutse, Gibbs, with disabilities are currently limited and Fitzpatrick 2020). (Thompson 2020; UNICEF 2020). A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 46 Ethiopia loneliness and anxiety. Their parents voiced considerable challenges in meeting the Literature focusing on Ethiopia shows educational and emotional needs of their a very significant disparity of access to children as well as continuing to engage education and EdTech between children with their livelihood activities (Tiruneh et al. depending on location, disability type, 2021). and gender. Children from Afar, Benis- hanguel-Gumuz, Gambella, and Somali Initiatives are being developed in Ethiopia (often called emerging regions) have for children with disabilities. For example, the lowest level of enrollment compared SENTIgray is using solar-powered with other regions (particularly Amhara; MegaVoice devices to give students Oromia; Southern Nations, Nationalities, who are blind access to textbooks and and People’s Region; and Tigray). In the additional learning and reading materials Gambella region, for example, no children (World Bank 2020a). Some high-tech with hearing or visual impairment were options can accommodate children who found attending school (Tefera, Admas, and use screen readers and require voice Mulatie 2015, 57). And girls with disabilities output, and there are options with sign from emerging regions (those with lower language interpretation alongside the socioeconomic status) and/or rural families material presented on TV or by video clip. are generally among the most marginalized However, this is typically only available for groups in Ethiopia. children with access to such technology. During school closures, less than 10 percent of learners could access education Kenya remotely. Even with the gradual reopening of schools in October 2020, it is estimated The Ministry of Gender, Children, and that only 50–60 percent of learners have Social Development is the focal point resumed classes (OCHA 2021). Prior to the for disability issues in Kenya. There are pandemic, areas where free school meals Disability Mainstreaming Committees in were offered had higher rates of enrollment government ministries and departments and retention. It is also unclear how many (Rohwerder 2020). The National Special of the children who did receive lessons Needs Education Policy Framework during the pandemic are children with (2009) underwent revision in 2018 as the disabilities. Tiruneh et al. (2021) noted that “Sector Policy for Learners and Trainees during and after the COVID-related school with Disabilities” to ensure alignment with closures in Ethiopia, children with disabili- the CRPD on the principle of inclusive ties did not have adequate formal learning education (Rohwerder 2020). The new opportunities due to the absence of spe- policy highlights that the financing of cialized learning materials and personnel. special education is a major challenge They also lacked access to specialist largely because, as with many other services, such as physiotherapy or speech countries, no specific funding directly therapy, which would have been available goes to children with disabilities in at school. Significant concerns were mainstream classes, though schools raised about children’s socio-emotional may get an additional subvention at the well-being, especially increased feelings of administrative level. Initiatives, such as the A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 47 Social Protection Investment Plan (SPIP), access sign language instructional videos have complimented constitutional legal and and visual storybooks (GSMA 2020a, 30). policy commitments under the ministry’s These low-tech initiatives are intended to guidance in coordination with the Ministry be accessible offline at no cost to enable of Education. The SPIP currently awaits access to quality knowledge more equita- Cabinet approval. It sets out an ambitious ble for learners with disabilities. schedule for expanding social protection However, several large-scale EdTech in Kenya, including specifically for persons options applied during the COVID-19 with disabilities, such as a child disability pandemic were less accessible to children benefit and a new disability benefit for with disabilities, especially for those with adults with severe disabilities (Kabare 2018). visual, hearing, and cognitive disabilities, Kenya is currently ranked 14th in EdTech including radio- and TV-based learning. start-ups globally, attracting about $10 More accessible initiatives, such as those million in venture capital funding. Still, only provided by Airtel, eKitabu, eLima, and a few of them have scaled up regionally Eneza Education, have all launched low- with low-cost solutions requiring minimal cost or free education programs designed digital skills (GSMA 2020a). For instance, to be accessible to children with disabili- eLimu provides digitized curriculum ties. However, for sustainable and impactful content for upper primary students that EdTech to be applied, further investment integrates videos, games, and sound or in identification of needs, awareness of music in an affordable mobile app. It grew options, training of teachers, access to from 500,000 users to 750,000 users resources, and increased investment in during the pandemic (GSMA 2020a). In education is needed. While several EdTech 2018, Airtel’s Internet for Schools Program initiatives have been piloted before and partnered with Computers for Schools during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya, Kenya and Longhorn Publishers to provide information is limited regarding the acces- free access to internet services in 30 sibility and outcomes of these interventions schools in Nyeri County as well as access on children with disabilities. to e-learning content from Longhorn Publishers (GSMA 2020a). Nepal Inclusive education for learners with disabilities or displaced populations has Nepal has a raft of policies and action been made possible by low-tech solutions plans around disability, including the adapted to their needs. For example, National Policy and Plan of Action on start-up eKitabu distributes accessible Disability (2006). It stated that a policy digital content in local languages in 13 would be adopted to provide free education African countries through Orbit Reader to on all levels to people with disabilities, and help learners with visual impairments read. 9 residential facilities would be developed It also launched Studio KSL (Kenyan Sign in each district for such children. Nepal Language) to help the deaf community ratified the CRPD in 2010, and disability 9 For more information, visit the webpage “Accessible digital content for quality education” on the eKitabu website at https://www.ekitabu.com/content/. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 48 rights are guaranteed by the 2015 Con- includes tailored approaches based on stitution and the Rights of Persons with need of, for example, children living with Disabilities Act (2017), among others. disabilities and other children identified The Ministry of Women, Children, and with pre-existing vulnerabilities (Nepal Ed- Senior Citizens and a National Disability ucation Cluster 2020, 3). Digital and remote Direction Committee are responsible at the teaching materials are identified as means national level. In contrast, at the village and to do this. However, the UNICEF Child and municipality level, there should be disability Family Tracker shows that only 5 percent of coordination committees (Rohwerder 2021). children in the poorest households in Nepal Within the education system, a disability have access to and use distance learning. assessment officer or resource person The poorer the household, the less likely is supposed to receive basic training in it is that children can access or will use disability awareness and identify children distance learning (New Spotlight Online with disabilities in coordination with the 2020). Provision of a variety of home-based local office of women, children, and social learning supports are all focused on chil- welfare at the municipality level. As this is a dren who were already in school. school-based service, it is only accessible There is a mushrooming of EdTech start- to those attending school. ups in Nepal, especially due to the pivot to The government has made significant remote learning during the pandemic and efforts to include children with disabilities the proximity to India. For example, one in the education system, including policies website provides a list of EdTech start-ups to promote inclusion such as the 2017 in Nepal, most of which are education Inclusive Education Policy for Persons with platforms for school management rather Disabilities and the School Sector Devel- than education providers, and there is no opment Plan 2016–2023. However, despite specific mention of provision for learners these efforts, many children continue to be with disabilities. Another is OLE Nepal, left out of education, especially children which provides laptops and digital services with disabilities, including girls with disabil- to schools across Nepal. They also provide ities and those living in remote rural areas a digital library, with over 6,000 books (Eide et al. 2019). Some pre- and in-service available online. However, it is unclear how teacher training on inclusive education and many of these are accessible. disability is provided by the government and NGOs along with specific training courses on special education; however, Rwanda there is very limited training in ICT skills As part of his vision to revitalize the at the primary or secondary school level country, President Paul Kagame has (Dhakal and Pant 2016). called for SMART classrooms, powered Nepal faced numerous development chal- by solar and with access to the internet. lenges even before the COVID-19 pandem- However, the rollout has been slow, and its ic, particularly for adults and children with alignment with a vision for teaching and disabilities. The COVID-19 Education Cluster learning is less clear (UNICEF 2018). The Contingency Plan, 2020, developed by the Rwanda Basic Education Bureau (REB) government and United Nations agencies, has set up an e-learning portal that hosts A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 49 a range of educational content, including reached 3 million viewers, with children interactive and animated content, videos, who watched Know Zone outperforming and e-books (Kimenyi, Chuang, and non-viewing children who owned a TV Taddese 2020). Rwanda also initiated a by 10 percent (Moss 2020). However, it is One Laptop Per Child program, but not clear what percentage of viewers who challenges related to lack of electricity and benefited from the series were children internet have surfaced throughout the with disabilities. implementation (Bizimungu 2018) as well Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, learners as more recent plans to change laptop with disabilities were apparently supported providers (Kimenyi, Chuang, and Taddese through classroom arrangements, assistive 2020). devices, and timetable settings to cater to Mastercard Foundation’s Centre for their different needs (e.g., special needs Innovative Teaching and Learning is head- education). During the COVID-19 crisis, the quartered in Rwanda and aims to “drive the Ministry of Education has tested different innovative use of technology to close gaps ways to continue supporting learners in access to education, building the with disabilities. For example, lessons evidence on effective and appropriate use broadcast on TV and through e-learning of technology in education, and fostering a platforms have sign language interpretation network of innovators and leaders to ad- (UNICEF Rwanda 2020), while learners vance the use of educational technology in with visual impairments are expected to policy and practice across Africa.” Another access lessons delivered through radio tech-focused program funded by Master- programs. However, these approaches card Foundation in partnership with the reach only a small number of learners with REB, Ministry of Education, and University disabilities. For example, learners with of Rwanda is the Teacher Training Program visual disabilities complain about the lack of the African Institute for Mathematical of Braille-translated materials (Mbonyins- Sci-ences. It is focused on building huti 2018). The government is struggling to knowledge, skills, and behaviors when reach more learners with disabilities, in part teaching math-ematics and sciences using because of the quick transition to distance ICT (Kimenyi, Chuang, and Taddese 2020). learning (Ngabonzima et al. 2020). Some have argued that the education of children Africa Knowledge Zone-Know Zone is a with disabilities has stopped altogether, locally produced TV series shown in Kenya, partly due to lack of access or parental Rwanda, and Uganda. It aims to raise support (Nyembo 2020). The government children’s literacy and numeracy levels and has decided that the school year will be is aligned with official primary school repeated when schools resume, though curriculum. The program supplements its some scholars have suggested that this educational TV content with two-way in- may reduce learners’ motivation to take teraction with viewers through SMS (short part in distance learning, especially sec- text messages) and social media channels. ondary students (Ngabonzima et al. 2020). There is some evidence of success, and data showed that in 2014, Know Zone A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 50 insights from were linked to a variety of factors, including unavailability of devices, such as laptops, key informants mobile phones, televisions, and radios; no access to electricity or connectivity in the home; high cost of data for mobile internet; People inability of teachers to provide adequate support in remote learning modes; Is EdTech truly unavailability of learning material; and inclusive of everyone? inaccessibility of certain forms of remote learning for learners with particular types Stakeholders from all countries mentioned of impairment. several programs and initiatives that focused on the introduction of EdTech to improve learning of children in primary Children with disabilities are school. Unfortunately, many of the remote completely out of education system education strategies deployed, especially since the country got affected from on a large scale, were not inclusive of the pandemic. All the schools are learners with disabilities. Most stakeholders closed, and children have remained recognized that learners with disabilities inside their own houses. They do were the hardest hit by the consequences not have access to technology. The of the pandemic due to the limited access government ran sessions through they had to the remote learning opportuni- radios and televisions but these ties that were implemented. were not disability friendly. (Nepal P10, OPDs) Most of children with disabilities come from impoverished family, and it was really hard for them to Even among learners with disabilities, access internet during taking their significant differences were found in the online lessons and submitting their ability to successfully access and leverage EdTech both before and during the assignments. (Ethiopia P9, NGO) COVID-19 pandemic based on the nature of the learners’ impairment. In particular, children with cognitive impairments were For example, early results from a Building consistently reported by interviewees to be Learning Foundations assessment shows systematically excluded from being able to that learners with disabilities were less access and benefit from EdTech and most likely to have done any learning during remote learning opportunities. In addition, school closures in Rwanda than children although to a lesser extent, stakeholders without disability (Education Development from relevant ministries, OPDs, NGOs and Trust 2020). This means many children parents’ groups reported that students with with disabilities will need catch-up lessons, hearing and visual impairments also faced especially if they have never previously significant challenges in leveraging EdTech been to school. The difficulties encountered for learning. by learners in accessing remote education A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 51 burden for which they are going to be held COVID-19 negatively impacted responsible, but for which they are unlikely students with disabilities. For to receive any support. example, students who rely on AT where not able to access I found that most of the teachers them. Students with visual even in resource schools have not impairments were not able to been receiving any training for last access materials, and those with 15 years. They received a short hearing impairments were not able training when they started the to follow radio lessons. (Rwanda job, but since then, they have not P17, Ministry of Gender and Family been given any such training as Promotion) follow-up or refresher. This is even worse in the case of mainstream Interestingly, several stakeholders schools. Most of the teachers mentioned that EdTech presented less do not even know the concept challenges for students with mobility of inclusive education let alone impairments and that the switch to remote the use of technology. (Nepal P5, learning may have actually been beneficial, international NGO) as it allowed them to avoid many of the environmental barriers linked to the need to physically access school. As a result of the prolonged school closure triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, sev- Many stakeholders eral government departments and organi- with diverse knowledge gaps zations mentioned that they have released, or are planning to release, dedicated The lack of training opportunities and training for teachers on how to adapt to support that are necessary for teachers to lessons for remote learning. However, none incorporate EdTech into their teaching in of the stakeholders interviewed mentioned an accessible manner was highlighted by that accessibility, AT support, and disability almost all interviewees as a key roadblock inclusion will be included in this training, to implementing ICT for inclusive which could lead to further widening of the education in primary schools. Several ICT for inclusive-education gap. stakeholders pointed out how training for digital fluency is rarely available to The lack of opportunities for teachers to teachers. In mainstream and inclusive develop relevant skills combining inclusive schools, many teachers often do not education and ICT was also identified as a receive appropriate training on inclusive priority barrier that needs to be addresses education for face-to-face classes. As a by the panel of global experts involved result, they have little knowledge on how in the Delphi consultation conducted as to adapt the delivery of lessons to a set part of the study. The panel highlighted of learners with diverse abilities. They also how a key consideration to be taken are more likely to feel that EdTech and ATs into account is that the teachers should are unnecessary or, worse, an additional not be “blamed” for their limited digital A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 52 literacy or insufficient knowledge of UDL, learn about ICT, and there are no as these gaps occur as a result of lack teachers well trained in AT to of opportunities more than lack of will. teach blind and visually impaired Instead, teachers should be encouraged students. Therefore, blind and and empowered to leverage EdTech to visually impaired students grow up make their teaching more effective and without familiarizing themselves to shown how inclusive approaches lead to ATs unless they have experienced better learning experiences for all students. them by their individual efforts and exposures. (Ethiopia P4, Other, Because this area of ICT, we can Inclusive Education Consultant) say is a recent trend, and many teachers have a phobia of digital Secondly, interviewees advocated for devices. And so we should increased involvement of parents and increase reaching out to the caregivers who were seen as essential teachers and then encourage figures in successful educational journeys them to learn more about ICT. for children with disabilities, particularly in We continue integrating training. light of the switch to home-based remote Maybe ICT training will make sure learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. that the teachers learn more Stakeholders from NGOs and OPDs in about ICT. (Kenya P2, Ministry of Kenya reported that, as many children with Education) disabilities attended residential special schools before the pandemic, parents had little experience in supporting them with Many interviewees also pointed out a need their education at home. to better support a variety of stakeholders who have often very different needs. First of Moreover, many caregivers had limited all, learners with disabilities themselves are digital experience or were illiterate, rarely actively included in the development, impacting their ability to provide support selection, and implementation of EdTech to their children. For example, in Ethiopia, at the primary school level. This can have the COVID-19 education response plan is significantly negative effects for children heavily weighted toward high-tech options. with disabilities, not only within primary This includes online platforms, radio, and school, but throughout their lifelong learn- television, which will only be successful ing as they lack the required digital fluency if they are implemented in tandem with to access and take advantage of potentially support to parents and communities available learning opportunities. with limited access, particularly for the hardest-to-reach learners, including those with multiple disabilities. Similarly, for The use of ATs in primary and first-generation learners whose parents secondary schools is not that much are illiterate, it is very difficult to support experienced in Ethiopia. Blind and their children in any text-based work. Some materials delivered over the radio, televi- visually impaired students do not sion, or a mobile phone app can be used A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 53 Source: Shutterstock. by parents who cannot read or write, since successful development and deployment the information is not solely based on text of ICT for inclusive education for primary (World Bank 2020a). school learners. Many entrepreneurs, developers, and innovators working in the Stakeholders highlighted how developing EdTech domain have little knowledge of training and mentoring resources that disability. They refrain from engaging in specifically target caregivers is incredibly the development of accessible platforms important to ensure continuity of learning and technologies as they fear the excessive when students with disabilities are away complications. On the other hand, many from schools. governments officials and employees work- ing on the development of national policies for inclusive education, or the drafting of We need to prepare some emergency education plans to mitigate the awareness program and capacity impact of school closures, lack technical development or training programs, knowledge related to both physical and or some initiatives for our parents digital EdTech, including advantages and or caregivers, so that they can be disadvantages in terms of accessibility. This an important and integral part of prevents them from being able to address this blended education. So yes, this the needs of diverse learners. is very much needed for blended education system. (Bangladesh P5, Prime Minister’s Office) So, I may be an expert in building games, in designing games, but when you are working with kids, Beyond parents, teachers, and learners, especially kids who are visually interviewees mentioned that other groups impaired, we need expertise. of stakeholders lack specific knowledge (Ethiopia P7, start-up innovator) that could play a pivotal role in the A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 54 BOX 1: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: People BANGLADESH As a result of the experiences and learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic, the a2I (previous- ly Access to Information) program in Bangladesh, situated in the Prime Minister’s Office, is pushing for a new blended approach to education driven by technology combining tradition- al and remote education. As part of this new vision, there is understanding of the need not only to raise awareness among both educators and technologists to increase opportunities for collaboration, but also to provide training and support to a variety of stakeholders (from teachers and learners to school principals and government officials) to enable successful im- plementation. However, relatively low awareness or attention is being given toward including learners with disabilities in this vision. OPDs and NGOs have argued that increased collabo- ration between relevant stakeholders working across different government departments and direct participation of OPDs and other relevant organizations could ensure that this program will lead to better inclusion of children with disabilities in the new educational landscape rather than increase the current divide. ETHIOPIA The realization of the crucial role of parents and caregivers in education has led to the development of EdTech that specifically aims to offer advice to caregivers on how to support learners during remote schooling. A successful example is the platform called Parentsy developed by the Ethiopian start-up Accelerated. Parentsy leverages Telegram to deliver bit-size material in the form of flashcards, videos, audio clips, and texts that parents can use to support the learning of their children and promote educational engagement. The use of a platform that most parents were already familiar with combined with the multimodal nature of the material provided have made Parentsy hugely successful with the target audience. KENYA Many children with hearing impairments and limited sign language abilities found them- selves at home for most of the day, surrounded by family members without adequate knowl- edge of sign language themselves and often unable to communicate with them effectively. To support children in continuing to develop their language skills while out of school and promoting connection and communication with family members, the Nairobi-based start-up Lugha Ishara launched a series of video-based sign language classes for the whole family. They also organized a sign language Christmas recital and conducted individual lessons and group rehearsals using video conferencing and small in-person classes when it became possible with government guidance. The program was a huge success. Caregivers reported that the experience made children more confident and led to better communication and sign language skills in social settings. NOTE: Telegram is a free and open source, cross-platform, cloud-based instant messaging software, often compared with WhatsApp. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 55 Pedagogy Assessment is also key for children to receive financial resources that support Challenges and importance their educational journey. In Nepal, for of assessment and evaluation example, to receive government support (i.e., the cash allowance for children with Assessment and evaluation emerged both disabilities), children have to been identified as key challenges and crucial enablers to and assessed. According to government the success of EdTech in improving the policy, municipalities are required to learning of children with disabilities at the operate mobile camps in areas under their primary school level. At an individual level, jurisdiction at least once a year to facilitate assessment is essential to understand the identification of persons with disabili- what the learning needs of children with ties. However, this is not always the case, disabilities are, and what kind of AT, which can make it difficult for children to EdTech, or other adaptations are necessary be assessed and receive adequate support to better support them. For many children, (Holmes et al. 2018). these evaluations are expected to take During the consensus-building Delphi place at the school level, but most teachers process, global experts also pointed out do not have sufficient competencies to how the lack of appropriate assessment conduct extensive assessments, and pathways represents one of the biggest they lack the support of specialized challenges to implementing ICT for professionals. Furthermore, for certain inclusive education in many countries. types of impairments, such as cognitive Moreover, they highlighted how the and learning difficulties, there is no agreed assessment should not just happen at the codified procedure for assessing learners’ initial “matching” phase but needs to be a needs, nor guidance on how to support continuous process that tracks the impact students or indication of what types of of technology on learning outcomes and EdTech might be most beneficial. the educational experiences of children with disabilities. This gap is also borne out A fundamental issue is that in the literature. everything is saying “special Many programs, especially at large scale, needs.” I mean, there are some leverage the use of national examinations to specific schools for the visually monitor the change in children’s learning. challenged and the hearing challenged students but apart from that, literally everything is We run regular tests to assess all just one big group. And especially the children [including children with no diagnostics in place, no with disabilities]. Some parents learner gets screened for any are also afraid about the tests; learning disability or any other they think if their children receive issues or anything. So it’s all a lower grades, they may not receive matter of feeling and perceptions. attention. Like during reading tests (Ethiopia P10, start-up innovator) many students opt to be absent A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 56 from the classes. And the reason disabilities. Overall, successful strategies is the parents do not bring them strived to incorporate both quantitative and along. (Bangladesh P4, NGO) qualitative feedback at both the general and granular level. However, exams are often not adapted to the needs of students with disabilities. They We do regular monitoring using offer a narrow mechanism of assessment different tools, such as the School and are unsuitable to evaluate the impact of Accessible Assessment Tool and EdTech, particularly for students who have School Environment Assessment more significant cognitive impairment, as a Tool. We do training of the field government official notes. staff, and they do the regular monitoring. We also assess whether the School Improvement We want to give fair examinations Plan, learning materials, and and assessment to every child. pedagogy are inclusive enough to But we don’t know about the accommodate children with challenges of students with different disabilities. disabilities in exams. Our priority At the individual level, we now is to conduct a study that will assess children’s engagement, look at the challenges students participation, and learning. (Nepal with disabilities face during P5, international NGO) examinations. (Rwanda P18, Ministry of Education) Developing inclusive and flexible curricula Finally, assessment and evaluation are not only needed to track the progress of Another key pedagogical challenge to the individual children, but also to monitor implementation of ICT for inclusive edu- the impact of entire programs and make cation at the primary school level is linked decisions about the use of EdTech for to the lack of integration with existing disability-inclusive education. Many curriculum. The issue is multifaceted, as it government and NGOs run initiatives concerns both the lack of adaptation of cur- that are not properly evaluated. They rely ricula to the needs of children with disabili- on informal and unstructured feedback ties and the poor integration of technology collected from teachers, families, or users into the curriculum. This became especially targeted directly by providers, which relevant—and problematic—in the pivot to produces data that are hard to compare remote learning that took place in response and highly susceptible to bias. On the other to the pandemic. Most guidelines about hand, relying solely on quantitative large- how to deliver lessons, support students scale evaluation might miss the complexity with disabilities, or conduct examinations of the impact of EdTech on the overall became suddenly inadequate. education and well-being of children with A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 57 in addition to teacher training to optimize There was also a subcommittee integration of EdTech, the government must established under the main address ICT as an instrument of teaching committee to look into curriculum (Piper et al. 2015). and to provide education online Government bodies in charge of the design by choosing the main content of curricula also pointed out how incor- that the students can learn while porating the degree of flexibility needed being at home using this to address the learning needs of primary educational technology like TV, school children with disabilities as well radio, and virtual. So in that as negotiating the different accessibility regard, we have been actively challenges introduced by different types participating in the committees. of technology can be extremely difficult. (Ethiopia P5, Teachers Group) It requires cross-sectional expertise that cannot be addressed solely by ministries of education, as an official from Nepal notes. Some attempts to do this were made, for example, in Kenya. In regarding to providing education technology/ICT for children with UNICEF in conjunction with the disabilities, we have not been able Ministry of Education and KICD to progress as required. We need [Kenya Institute of Curriculum different interventions to tailor to Development] was working to the various needs of the children come up with some ways that the according to their disabilities. For current curriculum for learners example, the interventions could be adapted into formats that designed for children with visual are accessible for learners with impairments do not work for disabilities. (Kenya P3, OPD) children with hearing impairments. Providing supports to the children with multiple disabilities requires The importance of incorporating technology different supports. It is really in the curriculum as well as in teaching challenging to design different IT practices was also highlighted by Piper et interventions to tailor to the needs al. (2015) comparing three separate EdTech of children with different interventions in the Kenyan education sys- disabilities. (Nepal P15, Ministry of tem which were e-readers for pupils, tablets Education) for teachers, and tablets for tutors at Teach- er Advisory Centers. All three promoted positive learning outcomes in English and Finally, for most primary school children Kiswahili when compared with the control with or without disabilities, learning cannot group. What was consistent among the be confined solely to curriculum material. interventions was that these were aligned to Arguably, some of the most important the national curriculum. It did conclude that, A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 58 aspects of education linked to social participation mediated by schools and communities are not necessarily included in the curricula and are therefore overlooked. The education system does not address language acquisition [for deaf children], because it is not in the curriculum, but it is the bedrock of education and something that most deaf children will otherwise miss. (Kenya P1, start-up innovator) BOX 3: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: Pedagogy KENYA To facilitate the screening and educational assessment of children with disabilities by teach- ers in schools or employees working for relevant government agencies, an international NGO operating in Kenya and other countries in East Africa is rolling out an assessment tool that leverages questionnaires from the UNICEF Child Functioning Module. The aim is to combine insights generated from connecting the data of more generic questions around functional difficulties in different domains with more specific questions linked to education to create individualized learning plans and recognizing potential needs for various ATs or accessible EdTech. As part of this pilot scheme, the same assessment tool will be used to provide continuous assessment and monitor the children’s learning progress, evaluating the impact of interventions and EdTech use. RWANDA The centralized nature of the education system led to the creation of adapted curricula for children with disabilities and a dedicated program for teacher training colleges that incorporates inclusive education and AT. One example is the tech-focused program funded by the Mastercard Foundation in partnership with the Rwanda Education Board, Ministry of Education, and University of Rwanda. The Teacher Training Program of the African Institute for Mathematical Science is focused on building knowledge, skills, and behaviors when teaching mathematics and sciences using ICT (Kimenyi, Chuang, and Taddese 2020). Howev- er, Rwanda still lacks formal education pathways for assessing children with disabilities and monitoring their progress beyond the use of data from national examinations. Unfortunately, the section of REB in charge of planning and monitoring examinations reported several challenges in screening primary school students with disabilities and identifying their needs for ATs or adaptations during exams. Officials expressed the hope that ICT for inclusive education might help to streamline some of these processes, which are currently carried out on an individual basis and with little guidance on how to support students to perform at their best in their exams. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 59 Policy most of them were described as largely “aspirational” with very limited details Need for detailed concerning practical implementation plans implementation plans that could be used to guide and coordinate the efforts of different parties involved. All five countries studied had signed and ratified the CRPD. Similarly, they all have policies that outlined visions for inclusive There is a need for an action education at the primary school level and plan. The existing policies are ICT use in education. However, disability, really vague and ambiguous. ICT, and inclusive education (usually still The government should have overlapping with special education) often developed concreate time bound were under the jurisdiction of different min- action plans. This is not the istries of government leading to the creation case, however, and it is not clear of separate, and often misaligned, policies. who is responsible. There is no Among stakeholders working in organiza- accountability. (Nepal P10, OPD) tions outside government, the research also found limited awareness of the various rel- evant policies that might guide and support The lack of details for the practical imple- the selection, procurement, and delivery mentation of this policies had, in the opin- of ICT for inclusive education for primary ions of stakeholders, two major drawbacks. school learners. Furthermore, stakeholders On the one hand, the absence of concrete working on the ground generally felt that plans for how EdTech, AT, and ICT were to policies were a rather distant tool that had be leveraged for the delivery of inclusive little connection with everyday practices in education made it extremely difficult for schools, communities, and homes. the responsible government departments to coordinate actions between not only different ministries, but also external I am not really aware. But even stakeholders, leading to replication of if those policies are there, I am effort and mismatched alignment between not sure if they are being used, various initiatives. Secondly, many NGOs because if they were being stated that the lack of detailed policies used, then they will have trickled containing explicit implementation plans to the community level where with allocation of responsibilities creates we work. (Kenya P9, Parents problems concerning the transparent Group) accountability of government departments. It is impossible to track the progress of local and national initiatives and monitor Although policies concerning the procure- how close countries are to achieving the ment and use of EdTech and AT for inclu- goal of inclusive education for children with sive education were present across the five disabilities at the primary school level, a countries, the biggest challenge was that point reiterated by a ministry representative from Bangladesh. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 60 the EdTech needs of children with disabili- But for primary, I think every school ties, making it difficult to develop plans for got a laptop or desktop. But you large-scale interventions or develop articu- need to check with the Directorate lated policies and argue for the appropriate of Primary Education [DPE], maybe allocation of funding when government it would be better to check with budgets were decided. Ultimately, without DPE, that what they have provided. the necessary data about the presence of learners, their national and regional distri- This is another challenge that we bution, and their learning needs, including don’t have access to information the need for AT or EdTech devices, some from other departments easily. stakeholders find it difficult to establish (Bangladesh P1, Ministry of precise national targets and estimate the Posts, Telecommunications, and amount of funding needed to achieve them. Information Technology) We don’t know the exact number The lack of integration between relevant of students who need devices and policies around ICT and inclusive educa- what kind of devices they need. tion was also identified as the key chal- So, we decided to start working lenge in the policy area of the framework on making the content accessible. by the panel of global experts engaged in After this, then we can look at the Delphi consultation. Experts pointed how we can go into providing out how the disconnect between different technologies and other devices. government departments can hinder coor- dination of efforts. It creates a leadership But this will necessitate a study to vacuum that can make it harder to drive understand what is needed and change effectively, whether streamlining technical expertise which we do procurement of devices, to creating curric- not have now. (Rwanda P16 ula that integrate technology in inclusive Ministry of Education) education or ensuring the development of adequate technological infrastructure for schools and homes. It is important to note that the lack of data extended to the current availability of devic- Data as key to es, the state of technological infrastructure successful policy development in schools around the countries, and ade- quately trained teachers that could support If the lack of implementation plans was primary school children with disabilities. seen as a key roadblock to the successful Moreover, even when general data about application of policies, the unavailability prevalence and distribution of disability of relevant data was generally considered at national level existed, these lacked the a major difficulty in developing com- sufficient level of details that stakeholders prehensive policies. Many stakeholders needed to plan interventions. highlighted the paucity of data surrounding A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 61 Source: Shutterstock. So what makes it difficult here in Ethiopia is we can’t find the specific statistics. For example, we don’t know how many visually impaired kids are out there, how many of those have access to a mobile device, and if they have the devices, do they have access to the internet. We don’t have these stats. (Ethiopia P7, start-up innovator) Finally, data and research are also essential to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions that have been implemented in the country and to help develop and share best practices that can maximize the access and impact to ICT for inclusive education for learners with disabilities, as one government respondent from Nepal notes. Action researchers are really needed to understand what works and what does not. Such researchers are really essential to progress in using technology and ICT in education especially focusing on children with disabilities. However, we have not been able to conduct such research. In the absence of such research, we do not exactly know what to promote (and what not to) to achieve our goal of providing inclusive education for children with disabilities using technology. (Nepal P14, Ministry of Education) A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 62 BOX 4: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: Policy ETHIOPIA Stakeholders reported that the policy landscape in Ethiopia presented two major barriers to the adoption and use of ICT for inclusive education. The first one was the lack of an impor- tation tax exemption for EdTech devices, which significantly increased the cost associated with most necessary technologies, as the in-country manufacturing capacity for this par- ticular sector was relatively low. Secondly, policy frameworks around the use of technology for inclusive education seemed to prioritize secondary and higher education, whereas the introduction of ICT in primary schools, especially for children with disabilities was still seen as a relatively low priority, making it less likely to be the subject of ambitious programs and initiatives. KENYA The policy framework for Inclusive education and ICT use is rather comprehensively struc- tured. In comparison to other countries, the government of Kenya was highly committed to ensuring that the education of primary school learners with disabilities are educated in mainstream rather than special schools. Of central importance to this are the Educational Assessment and Resource Centers (EARCs), which are responsible for screening children with disabilities, assessing AT and EdTech needs, and supporting the development of individualized educational plans. However, many of the EARCs, especially in rural areas, lack the necessary financial, material, and human resources to appropriately assess children with disabilities for more complex learning needs. They rarely have access to adequate EdTech resources that would enable them to test the use of different EdTech to find the best match for children’s needs. Finally, EARCs tend to operate almost independently from each other. To date, there is no national structure that would enable them to collect and share compre- hensive data concerning the functional and educational needs of children with disabilities. NEPAL Following the devolution process, the responsibility for the delivery of primary school edu- cation for all children was shifted from the Ministry of Education to local government offices responsible for different regions. According to the stakeholders interviewed as part of the research, this has created an interesting situation in relation to the development and imple- mentation of policies related to ICT for inclusive education, with both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, local governments generally have better connections with local educational institutions and better awareness of regional challenges and dynamics, includ- ing languages and infrastructural aspects that are significantly varied in Nepal. This tighter relationship is useful for implementing policies. However, the drafting of national educational and ICT policies still falls under the remit of central ministries of Education and ICT who don’t always have comprehensive oversight of the different activities and challenges faced at the local government level. This creates a potential disconnect between the formulation and implementation of policies around the use of technology for inclusive education of children with disabilities. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 63 Place disparity between inclusive and special schools as a key obstacle to be addressed Disparity between types of in this area of the framework. It represents schools and different locations a strong indication of stigma in many mainstream and inclusive schools, which Across the five countries, the ability of promotes the segregation of children primary school children with disabilities with disabilities from their peers. This to access ATs and EdTech was strongly disparity is often compounded by a series linked to the type of school in which they of mechanisms that reinforce the gap. were enrolled and their location. Despite all Examples include unequal allocation of countries having policies that encouraged funding and resources in favor of special the inclusion of learners with disabilities in schools or staffing patterns that facilitate inclusive government-run primary schools, teachers with expertise in disability to the research consistently found that special be hired in special schools, rather than schools, which were usually catered toward designated inclusive schools, despite policy learners with a particular type of impair- recommendations. ment (e.g., visual, hearing, or mobility), Unequal access to ICT for inclusive were better equipped, prepared, and more education was not only linked to the type accessible to children with disabilities. of primary school that children attended, Furthermore, special schools were not but also to the location of the school. In only more likely to have access to ICT for all countries, access to appropriate ICT inclusive education and specific AP, but for inclusive education was significantly also most likely to be staffed with teachers less likely to be available for children who that were better trained and able to offer attended schools in rural and remote support to children, which directly impact- areas compared with those in urban areas. ed the learning outcomes of the primary This was primarily due to infrastructural school level students in these schools. challenges ranging from inaccessible school buildings to lack of electricity and When we look at the national internet connectivity, but also reduced examination results and examine penetration of devices and limited training opportunities for teachers. For example, how students with disabilities access gaps were identified between urban performed, it is clear that students and rural areas in Rwanda for radio (72 in special schools perform better percent versus 62 percent), mobile phones than those in inclusive schools (97 percent versus 88 percent), computers because they have enough (12 percent versus 0 percent), and internet materials compared to those in connectivity (28 percent versus 2 percent) inclusive schools. (Rwanda P21, (Kimenyi, Chuang, and Taddese 2020). Ministry of Education) Infrastructural challenges were common to all schools—special and mainstream—in both urban and rural areas, but were more When prioritizing challenges affecting prominent in schools located in more national and international educational remote regions across all five countries. systems, the global experts identified the A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 64 Almost all public schools are In the public school system in closed and all children are out of Kenya, I mean, the further you the education system. The private get away from Nairobi, the more schools in particularly urban difficult the situation is, for the areas are however doing online schools, some of them really suffer. classes. This is going to widen the Some of them don’t have enough existing education gaps between teachers, some of them don’t have haves and haven’t. (Nepal P11, enough desks. (Kenya P4, NGO) School Management Committee Federation) Even in the switch to remote learning during the school closure period, stake- EdTech access beyond schools holders stated that the learning opportu- nities available to children with disabilities Although for most children with were significantly different depending on disabilities, schools worked as a gateway the type and location of their school, which to being assessed for, and provided has negative implications for the widening with, many suitable ATs and EdTech, of educational gaps. many stakeholders highlighted how a considerable number of children in all five In Ethiopia, for example, most private countries were unable to access school in schools in urban localities did find tempo- the first place, either as a result of long- rary solutions to continue instructing their term closures, such as during the COVID-19 students from a distance by uploading pandemic, or on a permanent basis due to reading materials and assignments through community stigma, physical barriers, or a Google Classroom and e-mail and by using variety of other reasons. This means that social media platforms such as WhatsApp those children who were unable to access and Telegram. However, there seems schools were also unable to access the to have been little in the way of similar technologies they needed for learning. In efforts by public schools in either urban general it is worth noting that while APs, or rural areas. It has been argued this is such as hearing aids, wheelchairs, and largely because the majority of public glasses, were typically provided to the school teachers and parents have limited child through provision pathways that often or no access to internet connectivity, and depended on the schools, EdTech, such teachers were not prepared to work in such as computers, tablets, or screen readers, unprecedented circumstances (Tiruneh were provided to the school rather than the 2020). learner. As a result, when school closed In general, a gap was detected between during the pandemic, many children lost public and private schools where both access to their EdTech devices, which teachers and learners had better access remained behind the closed doors of their to devices and connectivity essential to institutions. In addition, although some access the lessons beyond those provided programs for remote learning included on radio and TV by government bodies. the distribution of educational material A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 65 to learners’ homes, many of the more However, some stakeholders perceived expensive and sometimes important that some community and home-based pieces of EdTech for learners could not be education programs had also been accessed for prolonged periods. successful, as they enabled organizations to reach learners with disabilities who are normally excluded from primary schools. Some students who rely on These successful approaches were often available materials in the resource supported by technology ranging from room were not able to access the simple phone calls, WhatsApp groups, materials. We have students with videoconferencing software, or social visual impairment who use our media platforms that enabled the creation computers with JAWS (a screen of a network of communication between reading software) to learn, they parents, teachers, community members, could not access the computers. and learners. They were characterized by their relatively small size and strong partic- (Rwanda P3, Academia) ipatory component, as illustrated by one of the parents from Nepal. Stakeholders also stated that many of the infrastructural challenges related to I started online classes for schools were also present for students children with disabilities. Only attempting to follow remote learning three children participated in programs from home. Additionally, losing the supervision of teachers and interaction the beginning. Now the number with peers was extremely difficult for has reached to 15. Families are many children with disabilities. It exposed also helping their children’s them to the risk of further isolation in their learning process, and they also homes and communities. get involved in. We developed our own curriculum and shared with the parents. So they know Children with disabilities in what to be done on a particular rural areas were unable to day so that they also contribute learn this education online to making the learning material using technologies because ready. For example, if we are very few children, few farmers, doing art drawing work, parents and families have a radio and make materials ready. For television. Generally, there are example, paper, colors… (Nepal lack of infrastructures regarding P4, Parents Group) technology. (Ethiopia P5, Teachers Group) A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 66 BOX 5: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: Place BANGLADESH Stakeholders from Bangladesh reported that many children with disabilities struggled to access school and being provided with the AT and EdTech they needed to support their learning. Especially when moving away from the capital and toward more remote areas, the infrastructure is also quite poor, with lack of suitable buildings for schools and limited cover- age of electricity and internet connection. Some of the regions facing greater infrastructural challenges are one of the islands in the Bay of Bengal. As one example of addressing some challenges, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, an NGO, has begun to leverage existing buildings, in particular clubs to work as schools during the day as they often feature open spaces that are more likely to be accessible and connected to electricity and internet. KENYA Geographical location plays an incredibly important part in the likelihood of children with disabilities to have access to ICT for inclusive education and ATs necessary to support their learning. In the central region of Kenya, close to the capital, a greater number of inclusive schools have both access to electricity and generally reliable availability of mobile connec- tivity. However, schools in the rural region had very limited access to internet connection or electricity and no availability of devices. Several stakeholders also pointed out how schools in rural areas were also more likely to be highly oversubscribed making it extremely difficult for teachers to offer appropriate support to students with disabilities when needed. EARCs operators in remote regions had also very limited knowledge of EdTech, which hinders their ability to make recommendations for learners with different disabilities. NEPAL Possibly due to the more distributed organization of the education system, stakeholders reported fewer regional disparities compared with other countries when it came to access to ICT for inclusive education for primary school learners. However, gaps between rural and urban regions still existed. The presence of regional spoken and sign language created challenges for the distribution of educational material and the accessibility of national education portals created to support remote learning during the pandemic. To mitigate some of the challenges created by the relatively poor technological infrastructure in Nepal, some organizations developed successful programs for community schools and reading groups leveraging small networks that usually remained connected, combining the use of mobile phones and where possible home or community visits. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 67 Provision we addressed the needs of the primary students. (Bangladesh P1 Ministry Lack of stable and of Posts, Telecommunications, and coordinated funding Information Technology) Stakeholders in all five countries unani- mously raised concerns about the lack of This tension often leads to the exclusion funding to appropriately support the many of most marginalized learners, especially changes that would need to be implemented children with more severe disabilities who to improve the situation significantly. Several are seen as “too costly” to be included in interviewees pointed out that increasing many programs. Moreover, innovators and access to AT and ICT for primary school entrepreneurs from private companies children with disabilities is simply not seen and start-ups have stated that they face as a priority, compared with other pressing significant difficulties when attempting to needs that countries have been facing, enter the AT or ICT for the inclusive-edu- especially in light of the ongoing pandemic. cation market given limited opportunities to generate sufficient revenues to create sustainable business plans. The government does not allocate money for the education of children with disability for technology The other big challenge for us to do advancement. Policy makers may think with special needs education was kind that the investment for the children of a market-based approach. So, we with disability somehow goes in vain. are a private company at the end of They think like that because it has not the day, and somebody has to pay us proof of productivity. (Nepal P1, OPD) for it. And most of the conversation usually is dominated by non-revenue generating agencies like governments Others have also highlighted that although or non-government agencies. (Ethiopia funding might be available for increasing P10, start-up innovator) access to technologies in schools, this is often not inclusive of children with disabilities, as investing bodies grapple Governments occasionally provide dedicat- with the need to balance addressing the ed funding for inclusive education, which specific needs of learners versus the need is targeted directly to the child, but these for demonstrating the biggest impact they schemes are not sufficient to cover the can deliver. existing need. For example, in Bangladesh, the Ministry of Social Welfare implements a stipend program for students with disabil- Primarily, you know, when we talked ities. However, financial incentives remain about education and training, we low and with limited coverage (Thompson always emphasized on developing 2020). Moreover, during the pandemic, tertiary level people. And people those who were already receiving who are in government services. But disability assistance were denied access actually if you talk about primary to COVID-19 specific social protection education level audience, we didn’t (Rohwerder et al. 2021). have many programs where actually A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 68 This viewpoint was echoed by the global experts in the consultation for consensus Maintenance is another problem—no building. Lack of dedicated funding was personnel to maintain the core devices, identified as a key barrier to the appropriate many said that what you realize is that provision of ICT for inclusive education for even when they did the laptop projects primary school children. Experts specified in 2016 and 2017, the laptops or the that, rather than simply attempting to increase the amount of money that is tablets in schools ended up not in invested in initiatives around ICT for good working condition. They were just inclusive education for primary school lying in the store with nobody to repair. children, what is actually needed is devel- (Kenya P7, Teachers Group) oping mechanisms that allow for better coordination between different initiatives to maximize resources and align goals. It Finally, most of the funding provided by is also important to promote more stable government and other organizations to funding streams. At the moment, a large improve access to education for primary portion of funding is provided in the form school learners with disabilities, which of grants or charity donations, which can should cover access to AT and accessible create problems of sustainability once the EdTech, is provided at the school level grant expires and the funding runs out. rather than to the child. The only exception is individual scholarships or devices that More focus on things and schools are sometimes provided to students by with less on children and intangible government or other organizations. Gov- resources ernment funding is usually in the form of When stakeholders were asked how the capitation grants based on the number of available funding for increasing access students with disabilities. These capitation and impact of ICT for inclusive education grants are usually a fixed amount rather in primary school is usually invested, what than being based on the needs of the child. emerged was an overemphasis of financial This means they are not necessarily linked allocation toward products (both physical to a particular child or their needs, nor that and digital). This often occurs at the ex- they have to be spent on EdTech or AT, for pense of more intangible resources, such which they would often be insufficient, as a as the training of teachers, caregivers, or ministry representative from Kenya notes. learners; curriculum adaptation; improve- ment of the technological infrastructure; So with KES 2300,10 a school is free adaptation of learning material; and other to use it to buy, for instance, whatever important activities. Even when it came AT that it may deem fit. But the reality to the purchase of accessible devices for is that it doesn’t even get to that; it ICT for inclusive-education access, very usually is over when it comes to very, few initiatives included resources to cover very simple learning materials. And potential maintenance and repair costs, it rarely gets to the point of covering which can negatively affect the longevity issues of technology. (Kenya P10, of a project. Ministry of Education) 10 The standard capitation grant per year provided by the government to support children with disabilities. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 69 BOX 6: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: Provision ETHIOPIA Through the General Education Quality Improvement Program, funded by multiple donors including the World Bank in 2011, the Ethiopian government built resource centers incorpo- rated into inclusive schools around the country to support the education of primary school learners with disabilities. However, stakeholders from OPDs and NGOs have reported that many of these centers lack expertise and have limited access to ATs and EdTech. Most of them lack the financial resources to keep themselves up to date as technology continues to evolve and new skills and products are required to address the needs of children. KENYA Public primary schools have access to capitation grants provided by the government based on the number of children with disabilities enrolled. These grants are relatively small (about K Sh 2,300 [equivalent to US$21] per year), and they are supposed to cover the various edu- cational needs of children, which is often not sufficient to cover EdTech. Some donor-based initiatives, such as the Digital Learning Program (or One Laptop Per Child), have focused on the distribution of EdTech. Unfortunately, due to the lack of supporting measures to provide training and ensure access to technological infrastructure and the availability of accessible material, they had very limited success for learners with disabilities. Finally, NGOs have been providing EdTech to learners with disabilities and offering adequate support in terms of training, availability of accessible educational material, and maintenance services. However, due to the limited capacity of organizations, these initiatives, such as the distribution of the Orbit Reader, are generally smaller in size and focused on learners with a particular type of impairment. RWANDA Similarly to Kenya, a capitation grant system in Rwanda provides additional funding to schools depending on the number of enrolled children with disabilities (RF 2,750; US$2.76) per term compared with RF 1,250 (US$1.25) normally allocated to students without dis- abilities. However, as seen in Kenya this funding is usually not sufficient to cover children’s AT and EdTech needs. Schools are occasionally provided with EdTech equipment through funding from international donors and NGOs, either as a one-off charity donation or as a grant that only lasts for a limited time. Other international organizations, including the World Bank, are supporting government in the digitalization of educational material. Unfortunately, funding is limited to support the upgrade of the technological infrastructure for schools and homes that would be needed to ensure better connection to electricity and the internet, which is particularly lacking in rural areas. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 70 summary of findings approaches and simple and reliable assessment practices to assess the educational needs of children with The findings from the landscape disabilities or which pedagogical ap- review show how the level of access proaches (and tools) will be most effec- and the impact of ICT for inclusive tive. Nor are there often mechanisms in education depend on a variety of place to monitor their progress in order interconnected factors involving to ensure that any adaptations, including multiple aspects that can be technology provided, positively impact mapped along the dimension of the learning experiences. 6 P’s framework. ✚ Policy: Existing policies for Inclusive ed- ucation and ICT are often separate and As part of the modified Delphi exercise, a poorly integrated, which makes it difficult consensus was built among global experts to coordinate actions across government around the challenges grouped under the bodies with fragmented responsibilities six key themes that need to be overcome and between actors working in different to ensure that learners with disabilities areas. are fully able to access and benefit from ICT for inclusive education. The identified ✚ Place: Inclusive and mainstream schools challenges are as follows: struggle to access the necessary equip- ment that students with disabilities need, ✚ People: Teachers, parents, and other ed- and teachers often lack the inclusive-ed- ucational support figures lack sufficient ucation training that leads to a risk of expertise in inclusive education and ICT further marginalization of students with and access to resources to successfully disabilities. assist children with disabilities in access- ✚ Provision: Funding mechanisms for ing and taking advantage of EdTech. initiatives focusing on ICT for inclusive ✚ Products: Most EdTech devices and education are often project-based and software are too expensive for families rarely combine a comprehensive atten- and schools, limiting their affordability tion to all the necessary components of and accessibility. Many products also fail successful implementation from creating to be truly inclusive of children with more adequate technological infrastructure complex needs, are poorly aligned with to providing training and maintenance national curricula, or are inappropriate for the correct use of devices. This leads for the context of use. to poor sustainability of many initiatives ✚ Pedagogy: There is a lack of under- and reduces the potential impact of standing about the useful pedagogical many implemented projects. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 71 07 discussion of key needs Emerging from findings drawn from multiple primary and secondary sources and gathered through several complementary approaches are a variety of needs and factors to be addressed in order to use ICT to improve the learning outcomes of children with disabilities in LMICs. Emerging from the 6 P’s framework are four interlinked components that, if addressed, will help improve learning outcomes as well as improve inclusion of children with disabilities within the wider EdTech ecosystem. Chapter 7 structures and discusses these requirements along the four components: ✚ systems strengthening and market shaping to systematically improve the provision of inclusive education and reduce the cost of AP; ✚ open innovation for an improved technology infrastructure; ✚ community, family, and out-of-school learning support; and ✚ better data and evidence. Source: Shutterstock. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 72 systems strengthening broader approach may also lessen the stigma often associated with using AT or and market shaping EdTech and align with that of the learner as a connected child. ICT for inclusive education sits at In general, in the five countries reviewed, the intersection of many different policies are in place to support the disciplines and sectors. This can inclusion of children with disabilities, but result in difficulties in coordinating they are rarely integrated across other efforts with huge implications for sectors, such as health or ICT. It means policy development, funding, and there is a lack of responsibility and a lack evaluation that severely hinder the of resources outside of these sectors, yet sustainability of initiatives. children with disabilities need multidisci- plinary support. Furthermore, across the To tackle this challenge, collaborative inter- board, while policies have the potential to national, national, and local implementation effect change, monitoring and evaluation plans are needed that clearly outline the processes for their implementation are responsibility of different parties, include often weak and lack of clear lines of a joint and comprehensive definition of responsibility for delivery. Policy making success, and incorporate accountability is rarely effectively joined up or coherent, mechanisms to monitor progress and which leads to a lack of responsibility by evaluation. The World Bank’s approach line ministries and ineffective budgeting to the “connected learner” (Hawkins et mechanisms. Therefore, even if there are al. 2021) sets out a roadmap. It advocated intentions to deliver a holistic approach, for a “whole-of-government approach” to implementation remains weak, and despite support the provision of the right policies intentions to the contrary, policies often and resources. Funding is crucial to deliv- remain siloed as lines of responsibility ering this. The authors specify the need are unclear. Development of targets and for ministries (e.g., of education) to work indicators in national development plans across government to review policies on may facilitate this, as well as draw attention reducing connectivity costs and increasing to responsibility. access for schools. This should also include ministries of health and social welfare to The Inclusive Education Resource Guide: ensure access to AT. Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education gives the example of twin-track and A key lesson to learn from other countries disability-responsive budgeting to support is not to make AT the responsibility of just more strategic use of existing resources the Ministry of Health or health insurers and the development of formulas that and social services. This risks their inter- account for the costs of including learners pretation as a medical need, perpetuating requiring reasonable accommodation or medical (and charity) models of disability. support services (Alasuutari et al. 2020, Rather, these devices would be seen from 31), as well as links to tools. Inevitably the a rights-based perspective as a technology COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous essential to overcoming barriers (Hersh impact on education funding, which is and Mouroutsou 2019, 3340). Taking a described in detail in Pivoting to Inclusion: A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 73 Leveraging Lessons from the COVID-19 Crisis division doesn’t exist between what is AT for Learners with Disabilities (World Bank and what is EdTech; nor is there an agreed 2020a). Advice is divided into current and list of products as there is for AP (WHO future funding guidance and focuses on 2016). Hersh and Mouroutsou (2019) give persons with disabilities as a “vulnerable the example of the debate around whether group” along with girls, refugees, and all forms of AAC fall into AT, rather than Ed- children from low-income families and Tech. In the online survey, the vast majority remote locations (World Bank 2021, 50), of categories and types of EdTech cited by making the connections between household respondents were already included in the poverty, lack of assets, and vulnerability. WHO APL (including AAC). However, since Here social protection mechanisms and the APL has only been recently adopted in incentives are promulgated within a some LMICs, no data are available yet to multisector approach to education financing, support the claim of a positive impact on which specifically targets children with inclusive education. disabilities and their families. Lynch, Singal, and Francis (2021) call In the five countries reviewed in this report for a consultative process to create a and in others, limited mechanisms are priority list of EdTech that can support currently in place that effectively identify children with disabilities. This is also in line and assess children with disabilities. More with the World Bank Guidance Note on attention is needed on joining up identifi- disability-inclusive education, which calls cation mechanisms (e.g., OPDs as the first for stakeholder engagement and feedback point of contact for disability ID cards) to loops to be established with persons with broader services, including AT and EdTech. disabilities or OPDs throughout the design Finally, the World Bank report also calls and implementation of projects. The WHO for strengthening EMIS data that can be APL has the advantage of buy-in from a used not only as an overall tool for future range of stakeholders; however, there is planning, including the type of EdTech that still a need for wider EdTech ecosystem might be required at the classroom level, engagement to ensure affordability, but also as an entry point for identifying investment in EdTech infrastructure and children with disabilities; though they are technology for schools; clear guidelines on not in themselves diagnostic. who is responsible for sourcing technology; Shifting the focus of education away from and high-quality competency skill training bricks and mortar schools may increase in EdTech for teachers (Lynch, Singal, and some of the challenges associated with Francis 2021). Encouraging ministers and technology, not least the reduced social- officials to think from a UDL approach, ization and activity. However, there are rather than seeing inclusive education as also benefits to doing this for learners with solely focusing on children with disabilities disabilities, not least the issue of how they (as this research indicates that many actually get to school in the first place. currently do), would be a pivotal shift. Lack of accessible and inclusive transport This will not obviate the need for specific is often cited as a barrier to education for EdTech for some learners but may begin learners with disabilities (Kett and Deluca to shift the perspective away from the 2016), yet AP (or indeed accessible design) homogenous “learners with special needs” are rarely thought of as EdTech. A clear to more individualized approaches. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 74 The key to personalized learning is the From the evidence presented, there comprehensive assessment of the child appears to be an ongoing gap between in terms of their capabilities, educational health-focused assessments (especially needs (including technology), learning in the early years) and other assessments, styles, and personal preferences. Tech- with the major emphasis on school-based nology should support this individualized assessments, such as the EARC system assessment process and enable collab- in Kenya. While this may be related to the oration between the child, their families, siloed approach to budgeting, common in teachers, and all the other different profes- many LMICs, a shift is needed to a more sional parties involved to collaboratively child-focused assessment, ideally in the develop and implement learning pathways community setting. A clear gap exists that can be adapted and modified as the between early childhood assessments (and circumstances of the child change (either interventions) and school. Even if children as a result of individual progress or wider are identified pre-school, it is unclear if situational factors). EdTech should also support or resources follow them to school. enable the provision of individualized For those children with disabilities who support as, and when, it is needed by the are fortunate enough to go to school, their child, promoting interactions between EdTech requirement may be identified and learners and teachers, but also among even supported there. But, as noted earlier, peers. Ultimately, technology should in this model, funding is directed mainly to increase children’s agency and empower the school rather than to the child, which them in a supported way to learn in a way in practice is often not used solely for the that suits their needs and preferences. intended child, nor is the funding likely to be enough for some specific devices There is no magic bullet piece of tech- or EdTech. Adequate funding that goes nology that can improve the education of directly to the child would be more helpful children with disabilities—each child has to support personalized learning. their own needs, capabilities, and capac- ities. While there is evidence that some Various mechanisms that could be em- technologies improve learning outcomes ployed to support this include the use of for some children, the focus needs to social protection structures, as indicated shift from the “tech” itself to the process in World Bank 2020a, or provision through of inclusion and the specific needs of the community health or development workers. child. A key finding of this research is that Assessing children for potential impair- often problems are structural and systemic, ments is a gap in the skillset of community with very limited data on learners’ needs, health workers (McCollum et al. 2016; the state of the technological infrastructure, Naidoo, Taylor, and Govender 2019), though and availability of human and material some simple tools to do this are already resources. These are combined with poor being piloted (Hatch and Dombrowski linkages between leadership, policies (such 2019; Tekola et al. 2016). However, most are as for ICT and education), and sectors. impairment-specific, and the development These issues have all been exacerbated by of simpler community-level (potentially the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. digital) assessment tools is essential. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 75 Particular gaps in the literature are found ecosystem approach. The online survey around the roles and impact of allied highlighted the information gap around professional staff (e.g., physiotherapists, EdTech, particularly in how to use it, with occupational therapists, and speech and a significant minority having to teach language therapists). What little evidence themselves. Parents and caregivers must there is rarely focuses on their role within have the necessary information to know the education system, or how they could how to address their children’s needs be a conduit between systems. Similarly, and rights, as well as the wherewithal to the recent global survey conducted by complain if they are not being upheld. the World Bank IEI has also highlighted Strengthening community engagement to the need for more coordination among monitor educational outcomes for learners educators in schools, for example, between with disabilities, for example, through the special education teachers and mainstream use of “disability helplines” as recourse teachers (World Bank 2021). Finally, it is mechanisms may be useful approaches worth highlighting that these interventions (United Nations Secretariat 2021, 15). should not be seen as one-off assess- Making all content more accessible, ments, but rather need continuous review inclusive, and adaptable will benefit all and updating over the life course. Such an learners in the classroom. This does not approach aligns with the need for joined-up obviate the need for specialist assess- services and resourcing, including social ments and devices for some children with protection across the life course. impairments, nor more targeted support At the same time, interventions should aim for those falling behind, but it would begin to increase digital fluency and build capac- to address some of the wider classroom ity of parents and teachers to increase their challenges. However, there is a big caveat awareness of EdTech and enable them to here, as teachers already bear the brunt of use technology to support learning, ensur- education failures and are blamed for their ing continuity of education even in the face limited digital skills or knowledge about of disruptions. Shifting to a more individu- pedagogical approaches. alized, and less rigid, way of teaching has Teachers and learners need to learn how been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. to use technology and how technology Despite the possibility of the government can enhance learning (“learning to use training or retraining teachers on ways to technology and technology for learning”). adapt lessons, little evidence was found that It is clear from interviews that inclusion is accessibility, AT support, or inclusive-edu- often only understood to mean children cation methodologies would be included in with disabilities and is often decontextu- this training. This is a missed opportunity to alized from local realities, which inevitably improve learning outcomes overall and risks include large classes, limited resources, widening the learning gap more for learners and difficult working conditions. As McK- with disabilities specifically. enzie et al. (2020) note, capacity building It is clear from the research that more of educators should not just be about engagement of parent and caregivers is developing UDL skills, but contextualizing needed, not only to support the learners it as well as strengthening leadership in themselves, but also to facilitate the UDL (McKenzie et al. 2020, 53). Key to A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 76 this is using local resources, materials, funders’ responsibilities. Arguably, donors and other low-tech tools and devices and could do more to redress these gaps and working with parents, caregivers and the mandate specific inclusion responsibilities community. Teachers also need not only to as part of funding requirements. To ensure be encouraged and empowered to leverage buy-in from countries, this aspect needs to appropriate AT and EdTech for students be part of a wider discussion about attain- with disabilities, but also to undertake any ment of development goals and equality of reasonable accommodations that might all citizens. be required, an aspect often neglected in the classroom and elsewhere. However, giving teachers the confidence to deviate from rigid and inflexible assessment-based open innovation to approaches requires buy-in for all stake- improve technology holders, including ministries and donors. infrastructure Funding, identification, and assessments are core necessities to ensure children (and EdTech should be designed to adults) with disabilities get the right AT they support learning in a way that is need. But as yet, this research shows this inclusive of children with disabilities is an area that still needs more evidence and should be developed in about effective approaches as well as more partnership with children, parents, resourcing for professionals in the field. teachers, and other relevant The move by the government of Kenya to stakeholders. provide minimum quality standards for Educational Assessment and Resource Adopting an inclusive and collaborative Centers (EARCs) reflects this need. While approach will lead to greater acceptability the major source of education funding is and enable better integration with existing from governments, households are also curricula and ensure that technology is significant contributors. Development contextually appropriate to the learning partner contributions are often the smallest setting in which it is used. Moreover, open share, but do hold significant power as approaches to innovation and EdTech they are likely to contribute to other sectors development based on partnerships of the economy (World Bank 2020b). Yet between different stakeholders and knowl- according to the online survey, NGOs were edge sharing could allow for the creation the most likely provider of EdTech, followed of shared resources that can be leveraged, by government agencies and self-acquired. adapted, and recontextualized by providers However, private vendors, such as shops promoting scalability without adopting a and markets where people can buy prod- one-size-fits-all approach. The creation of ucts directly as well as tech companies or standards and guidelines for the develop- innovators, are rarely included in discus- ment of EdTech innovations is a key step sions around EdTech ecosystems. While in this direction. The promotion of open donors may make suggestions as to what and inclusive innovation approaches could needs to be done to increase inclusion, lit- significantly help to maximize the impact of tle discussion is seen in the literature about ICT for inclusive-education innovation. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 77 The World Bank EdTech Strategy’s road- with multi-functionality, such as mobile map highlights the need to avoid technol- phones with built-in access features. Pre- ogy and vendor “lock-in,” which is crucial vious studies from GSMA have shown high in the rapidly changing AT and EdTech mobile phone penetration among people worlds as product specifications change with disabilities in Kenya and Bangladesh rapidly, requiring expensive upgrades. It (respectively, 82 percent and 62 percent). is important to get the right technology to However, it is important to notice that the right child in the right place. The right only 29 percent of these mobile devices in place may be school, but it may also be Bangladesh and 26 percent in Kenya are home, the community, or elsewhere. There smartphones, including the accessibility are strong arguments for the child being features necessary for children with disabil- allocated the device directly to ensure ities (GSMA 2019). There are also signifi- personalization of use and familiarity with cant gender gaps in access (GSMA 2020b). applications. A counterarguments is that Providing accessible smartphones may this can remove responsibility for provision be more cost-effective in the long term, as from government (Hersh and Mouroutsou they have a range of additional uses and 2019). Alternative ideas include that of are less likely to need upgrading so often. education as a service (or EaaS), where From the empirical evidence presented, users can tailor their education experiences in the EdTech field, interest is limited from around a single point of delivery (Fogel local innovators and entrepreneurs, or 2010).11 Mobility as a service (or MaaS) indeed private retailers, in part because of involves a range of providers coming limited demand and profitability related to together to provide a single point of access the perception of limited market size. It is and payment for a joined-up, integrated, hard to identify solutions given limited data and wholly accessible service for users.12 and evidence to substantiate what these Similarly, EdTech could be provided as part problems are in the first place, as some of the education service through a single innovators point out. Moreover, if parents point of access and payment, adapting to and caregivers are not aware of either need the child’s changing needs over time. or availability, then there is less demand Seeing EdTech as a comprehensive service in the first place. A lack of incentives and could also help to sustain distribution over competition is seen around supply. In this time and ensure that children have access area, the consensus of the global expert to resources directly rather than requiring group spoke to guidance to define EdTech the constant mediation of schools. Another priorities and specifications for those opportunity to leverage is that of devices purchasing it as being helpful in terms of 11 Increasingly the focus for this is on tertiary education, trying to move away from a traditional three- or four-year degree program, to seeing it as a modular experience tailored to the users’ needs over time (https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/12824514.pdf). 12 For more information on “What Is MaaS?” visit the MaaS Alliance website at https://maas-alliance.eu/homepage/ what-is-maas/. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 78 procurement and the enabling of market products. In Nepal, for example, only 3 out shaping and market making and other in- of 10 children have access to television, ra- centives, such as procurement guarantees dio, and internet-based learning platforms, or advance market commitments. However, and an estimated 45 percent students it should be balanced with the chance to have no regular access to online or other make catalytic, agile, innovative invest- media (Ministry of Education, Science, ments. The expert group did not see this and Technology 2020). Most inclusive as either/or, but rather both are necessary. schools managed by national governments World Bank colleagues also highlighted the have relatively limited funds and the need to experiment with different and more financial resources of families of children innovative business models. Public-private with disabilities are even more limited. partnerships involving technology compa- High-tech and specialized digital devices, nies in the private sector can be essential such as advanced AACs, hearing aids, and to leverage new ICT for inclusive education most high-end laptops and smartphones, with enormous potential to scale (e.g., are manufactured abroad and need to be Google Euphonia and Microsoft Reading imported, which can add significant cost Progress), though to date, many of these to the already expensive tag price (Tang- services are only available in English and charoensathien et al. 2018). Issues around have not been tested widely in LMICs. costs are especially significant in relation to the provision of EdTech for children with Finally, to increase access and impact of more severe or multiple disabilities. ICT for inclusive education, more disrup- tive innovations, in tandem with overall system strengthening, are necessary. We are using Braille, hearing aid, This will require a shift in how the needs magnifying glass to train children and rights of children with disabilities are with deaf blindness but we cannot addressed in many LMICs, and it under- access Braille displaying computer scores the work the World Bank has been because it is too expensive. doing on inclusive education and EdTech (Ethiopia P3, OPD) around the connected learner (Hawkins et al. 2021). This shift will take time, effort, and resources. Global experts consulted as part of the Delphi consensus-building exercise agreed that the high cost of many ATs and ICT Products for inclusive education was the most significant barrier affecting children’s ability Cost, appropriateness, and to access the technologies they need to accessibility of physical products maximize their learning opportunities. Experts also argue that many providers One of the critical barriers that hinders and donors tend to focus too much on access to AT and ICT for inclusive edu- the cost of the device, without necessarily cation for most primary school learners considering the impact that the product with disabilities across the five countries might have on multiple activities or learning was simply the high cost of many of these A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 79 Source. Marie Schoeman, Leonard Cheshire. outcomes. Being able to match the cost of a particular product with its effectiveness When we think about mobile in creating educational gains for a child phones, we think about high with a disability could significantly impact configuration expensive phones. the perception of a cost. Moreover, as a But with the basic configuration key to reducing costs of individual AT and you can also buy mobile phones EdTech, several interviewees suggested at tk. 2000. Just imagine how that developers and providers should focus much impact that would ensure. their attention on multi-purpose devices, (Bangladesh P2, NGO) such as smartphones, which can incorpo- rate multiple features and applications with built-in accessibility capabilities. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 80 Global experts, and country-level stake- holders also highlighted the need to We are working to make all the distinguish what determines affordability, content of our digital lessons depending on who is bearing the cost of available and add interactivity the device, as the financial resources of features to support students donors, governments, schools and families with disabilities. By adding sign are vastly different. Furthermore, mobile language, subtitles and videos, phones, radio, televisions, and other elec- we support three types of tronic devices available in the household disabilities. (Rwanda P19, Ministry were often shared among different mem- of Education) bers, creating tension and limiting their availability for educational use. Stakeholders also pointed out how different The parents, they don’t have types of ICT for inclusive education had adequate devices in one family. specific shortcomings that limited their effectiveness. For example, refreshable If there are three children, then Braille displays often could only be used to the priority is given to the access texts, but did not enable students children without having to explore pictures or other graphical disability. (Nepal P1, OPD) elements due to hardware limitations. Many of the technology-mediated methods lev- eraged to deliver lessons to children with More flexible and disabilities remotely offer limited opportuni- adaptable digital devices ties for interaction, dedicated support, and engagement, all of which negatively affects In contrast to physical devices, the the student’s experience. availability of digital products was greater, and these technologies were, to a certain extent, perceived to be less affected by cost The ways in which you can interact barriers. Nonetheless, many stakeholders with that kind of very dry TV or advocated for the need for increasing radio kind of lesson is very limited. awareness and availability of open-source It obviously doesn’t offer any products and accessible educational individualized education plans material. Of particular relevance were either. It’s like it’s a standardized, considerations around encouraging the generic kind of curriculum that is development and subsequent adoption of done by the radio where children digital platforms, tools, and educational material that could support access for with disabilities don’t have any learners with different disabilities, but interactions with teachers. There also better fit the context of students with are no adaptations done to suit disabilities both in relation to language and individual needs, and all kinds of the culture of a particular country or region. individual barriers. (Kenya P5, international NGO) A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 81 BOX 2: Country-Level Experiences and Insights: Products BANGLADESH In Bangladesh, Young Power in Social Action, along with a2i, Accessible Books Consortium, and the DAISY Consortium, have produced DAISY digital multimedia books, accessible e-books, and digital Braille books for learners from grades 1 to 10. These are more cost-effective than printed books and are accessi- ble for all, including students with visual disabilities, print disabilities, and learning disabilities (UNESCO 2021a). Learners with visual impairments have also been testing MBraille, a new app that helps users learn to read and write Braille. These advancements should lead to apps gradually replacing more traditional forms of AT, such as handheld magnifiers. However, there still needs to be more evidence that they are pedagogically and environmentally appropriate for the target group of learners and can be afforded by the supplier, for example, a national ministry of education (Lynch, Singal, and Francis 2021). ETHIOPIA One of the challenges faced by tech developers who are keen to create new educational products for a diverse cohort of learners is the need to integrate multiple interactive modes to promote accessibility without clashing with hardware limitations common to most devices. For example, the Ethiopian EdTech start-up called BeBlocky has recently been focusing on making their application that supports the learning of basic computing concepts through play accessible to learners with visual impairments. Most platforms that facilitate children in writing computer code use graphical user interfaces that cannot be navigated by audio. BeBlocky has been successfully experimenting with the use of tangible interfaces, such as Braille blocks that can be moved and arranged by children. However, there is concern around the fact that introducing the need for additional hardware might increase the cost and reduce the ability of children with disabilities to access the application. This tension exemplifies how, even when using devices with multiple interaction modes, such as smartphones, there are often challenges in ensuring that EdTech is accessible to learners with disabilities. KENYA Since 2019, the Kilimanjaro Blind Trust Africa (KBTA) has spearheaded the initiative focused on the provision of the Orbit Reader 20, a portable refreshable Braille display. Collaboration with government ensures that the device is distributed to students with educational material relevant to the curriculum already uploaded on it. The plan for distribution has been following a systematic approach starting from primary school students in grade 3 to older students until the end of the primary school cycle. Alongside the device, KBTA also provides training to learners, teachers, and schools technicians so that students are able to access adequate support and maintenance if needed. In the context of the pandemic, the device has been particularly valuable thanks to its portability and long-lasting battery. Students were able to use the device for remote learning. The individual cost of the device is $650, which could be easily labeled as too expensive by many funders or providers. NEPAL Throughout several of the interviews, stakeholders pointed out how, when it comes to the production of accessible educational material for primary school learners with disabilities, Nepal presented some additional challenges compared with many other countries. First of all, some of the major languages used in Nepal are not recognized by most computer programs in either their written or spoken form, yet they are still used in primary education in some schools. Secondly, although Nepali sign language has been recognized by the Ministry of Education, there are great variations in its use across educational settings in the country. This significant variation of written, spoken, and sign language leads to significant challenges when it comes to producing accessible content for primary school education, especially in the case of technology development where languages need to be appropriately coded for the digitalization process. These challenges are not unique to Nepal. They highlight the need to develop more flexible and comprehensive approaches to create accessible educational material that can be used by children with disabilities regardless of their primary language. NOTE : The DAISY Digital Talking Book (DTB) is a collection of multimedia digital files that provides an accessible representation of a printed book for individuals who are blind, visually impaired, or print-disabled. These files may contain digital audio recordings of human or synthetic speech, marked up text, and a range of machine-readable files. The structure of the book is designated by the XML tags and is accessible to the reader by use of a browser or a playback device. The DAISY DTB utilizes the technology of the internet with the addition of specialized applications to provide improved access to the information. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 82 community, family, fosters children’s motivation to learn and create more resilient inclusive-education and out-of-school systems that continue outside the school. learning support Schools are of course important not only as learning institutions, but also for socialization and play, and as a place where Engagement with local communities additional services, such as school vaccina- is key to reducing the disability tion or feeding programs, can be delivered. stigma that still prevents many But, as the pandemic has illustrated, a children with disabilities from system that relies exclusively on schools accessing education. for the delivery, access, training, and use of EdTech is not resilient to either local The role of ICT for inclusive education is disruptions whether earthquakes, flooding, not just to improve the academic learning or conflict, or more global events, such as outcomes of the child, but also to facilitate the COVID-19 pandemic. ways of engaging in intra- and extra-curric- ular activities, helping them connect with It is clear from the research that poverty their peers in a motivating and fun way. Play has had a significant impact on household is a vital part of a child’s growth and devel- resilience to the worst effects of the opment, helping them learn about others pandemic, whether because of precarious and promoting participation and inclusion employment, limited resources or access within families and local communities. to online lessons, and limited availability of social protection. Worldwide, children One example identified through the attending private schools have generally literature review is the telecommunication fared better than their state educated model Pashe Achhi (beside you), counterparts.13 Moreover, evidence indi- developed by the BRAC Institute of cates that children with disabilities have Educational Development during the fared significantly worse overall (World COVID-19 pandemic. This model provides Bank 2020a). psychosocial support to parents and caregivers and engages with children While different countries will have different through playful approaches to learning strategies to address this gap, families at home, aiming to mitigate the adverse and communities will have a considerable effects of the situation on children and role to play in the recovery. Examples of caregivers (Ahmed et al. 2020). This communities coming together to support example and others like it show how remote teaching include networks of technology can support collaborative support in Nepal. But to ensure sustain- play and connect children, schools, and ability, such groups need resources and communities (Goodwin 2020). local government support, including from the education ministries, to ensure they are EdTech can support the development of inclusive of all children and connected to a more engaged education journey that the wider system. 13 https://www.economist.com/international/2020/04/30/closing-schools-for-covid-19-does-lifelong-harm-and-widens- inequality A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 83 Source: Shutterstock. The research has highlighted the need to engage better the parents, caregivers, better data wider community, and of course, children and evidence themselves. Learning does not only happen in the school, but also at the home and Another challenge often mentioned, community level. Huge opportunities exist particularly by policy makers, was to leverage EdTech to empower initiatives, the limited data about the presence but with few examples of where this has of learners and their specific been successfully done in LMICs. To better learning needs. support children, EdTech should be part of a ubiquitous learning system accessible Significant gaps are still found in data in and out of school (at anytime and collected at the country level (including anywhere), which does not further increase EMIS), but much better use could be made inequalities. Key to this is the engagement of these data, including understanding of the end-user (the learner). Teachers are trends over time and areas of high need. part of the community and have a key role This information could facilitate a better to play as users of technology too. understanding of resource gaps as well as costs, procurement processes, and general market access and availability. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 84 Several other gaps in evidence are such as participation and transition, and apparent from this review. The first is that the relationship to EdTech or AT. Also discussions tend to focus either on general needed is research around developing a education or special education. Very little wider range of outcome indicators and their documented evidence is available of the relationship to EdTech or AT. impact of EdTech on children with disabil- Almost all services were delivered at the ities compared with their peers without level of the school or remotely and linked disabilities (in particular focusing on inter- to schools. Yet in all five countries, children sectional issues of age, gender, location, with disabilities were more likely to drop ethnicity, and so on). Data on this would out of school or not be in school in the help more targeted interventions especially first place. While there appear to be some in the post-pandemic recovery period. promising developments around communi- Related to this, more evidence is needed ty-level support, little evidence is found of about the process of inclusion. How does the impact of community-based services it take place? What are the differential and interventions on a larger scale. impacts (e.g., on sex, age, and impairment type)? What are the barriers and facilita- Another gap is around the identification tors? Which pedagogical approaches work and assessment of disability. Even with best? And how can it be taken to scale? some areas of good practices (e.g., EARCs in Kenya), a much better connection is Most of the documented evidence around necessary between existing child health EdTech is based on the technology itself, screening (particularly in early childhood), rather than the process of inclusion (for community-based assessments (e.g., by which the child or children may need AT). OPDs), and school-based systems. More research is needed on how this pro- cess takes place, what are the barriers and Finally, gaps in teacher training are high- facilitators, which pedagogical approaches lighted in much of the literature, although work best, and how it can be taken to scale. with little evidence of good practice in this Linked to this, most of the measures of area (pre- or in-service teacher training). impact focus on learning outcomes. This A systematic review of the evidence would is necessary, particularly post-pandemic, provide a baseline for UDL approaches and but there is very little discussion— or highlight areas of potential replicability. evidence—of other indicators of inclusion, A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 85 08 conclusion & recommendations for the way forward conclusion: a “massive-small” open innovation approach This study has highlighted the need for the right technology to be received by the right child, in the right place, and at the right time, with pandemic- related school closures offering a window into the possibilities and challenges of teaching all children differently. Source: “People work on computers at the Busy Internet computer center in Accra” by Jonathan Ernst/World Bank licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 86 However, the evidence suggests that identifies what support they need, the poorest and most marginalized including which (if any) EdTech is most are among the worst impacted by suitable to them based on their capabilities, the pandemic. Unless measures preferences, learning styles, and personal are put in place now, the gaps circumstances. Children will have access already experienced in learning to appropriate products, which belong to by many children with disabilities them and can be used whenever they need, are only likely to increase and that will be updated and upgraded when will impact them across their life necessary and as their learning and other course drastically, as well as the needs change. They have the necessary global hopes of delivering the support, training (including digital literacy Sustainable Development Goals. skills), and services that enables them to fully leverage their EdTech to maximize Each country is at a different point on the their learning at home and—crucially—in journey to full inclusion. A shift in perspec- the community. They will be integrated tive is required to embrace EdTech as part socially, emotionally, and educationally of the UDL framework, which is contextu- and have access to increased learning ally specific and will support the inclusive opportunities. These children are part of a education of children with disabilities. Laws broader education system that is aware of and policies support the rights of children their needs and rights, is able to track their and adults, including their access to assis- learning progress, and targets support ac- tive technologies, which should facilitate cordingly both inside and outside schools. progress in this area. This review proposes an Innovation-En- Structuring the findings around the ana- abled Education For All approach, which lytical framework of the 6 P’s has helped speaks directly to its research findings identify the entire EdTech ecosystem and and the needs discussed. This approach how each component is necessary for incorporates four interconnected compo- the others. It also has clarified that there nents to be addressed for the successful is no single magic bullet solution to the harnessing of the potential for educational questions: Can ICT improve the learning and assistive technology to improve the outcomes of children with disabilities in learning outcomes of children with disabil- LMICs, and what factors enable or restrict ities. These are: (i) systems strengthening this improvement within the wider EdTech and market shaping; (ii) community, family, ecosystem? Rather, a multidimensional and and out-of-school learning; (iii) open integrated approach is needed that puts innovation and technology infrastructure; the child at the center. and (iv) data and evidence. They cut across the education ecosystem, as expressed This study highlights the different elements through the 6 P’s (people, products, that this ecosystem needs to ensure that pedagogy, policy, place, and provision), children with disabilities are at the center and highlight the actions required to build of and genuinely benefit from ICTs in their collaborations between stakeholders and educational journeys. A robust ecosystem strengthen learning outcomes across the can ensure that the child has access to entirety of the ecosystem. Figure 11 depicts early and prompt rights-based assessment the multidimensional and integrated A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 87 Innovation-Enabled Education For All approach. Supported by its four components, the approach is centered around the child. FIGURE 11: The multidimensional and integrated Innovation-Enabled Education For All approach System Community, Family, Strengthening & & Out-of-School Market Shaping Learning Innovation-enabled Education for All Innovation & Data & Technology Evidence Infrastructure Source: World Bank. How interventions for improving access and impact of ICT for inclusive education are delivered also matters. To ensure that interventions are both meaningful and sustainable, the following principles should always be considered: ✚ Adopt a twin-track approach with both vital and necessary targeted, disability-specific work, but alongside mainstream interventions that adopt inclusive approaches. For instance, mainstream programs around inclusive education or innovation need to work as hard for learners with disabilities as the disability-specific interventions, which should be used to trail and test learning that can be adopted in the mainstream. This will necessitate client-side disability expertise on mainstream projects where large procurements or investments are made. ✚ Forge disruptive partnerships to engage new and different actors to support innovation. If the current market players could deliver inclusive education, or one or two organizations or private companies could do it alone, it would be done. However, new actors and users are needed, and a collective approach is essential. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 88 ✚ Involve and include of learners with disabil- not to deliver either, this could be a next ities and their families, communities, and step identified under the recommendations. teachers throughout the planning and Local innovation mapping and data collec- delivery of any intervention. Like any tion will also be helpful in supporting local service or product, it will be made better implementation along with community by their insights, and capacity will be engagement. In short, the components built, too. of the recommendations will warrant discussion in context to facilitate local-level ✚ Mass distribution of small- scale solutions priorities for implementation. may address several gaps. The interven- tions that are working are small. There is a need to consider how to grow this RECOMMENDATION 1 distributed delivery on a massive scale Strengthen systems and shape instead solely searching for the next markets to systematically innovative technology that will work improve the provision of inclusive everywhere. education and reduce the cost of assistive ICT for inclusive education products. Actions to consider are the following: recommendations ● Develop ICT for inclusive-education This report contains a series of product guidance to support procure- recommendations around the four ment and purchase. This could include: components shown in figure 11. The recommendations are specifically ⊕ Developing a guidance toolkit on aimed at development practitioners, selecting priority products at a country level and drawing heavily including World Bank staff, from the existing APL and approach. government stakeholders, and other Such a listing of products could be development partners. blended into the next iteration of the Priority Assistive Products List or Finally, recommendations have been ex- incorporated into a specific EdTech trapolated from the data and are naturally Global List. top-level strategic proposals. To implement ⊕ Ensuring existing procurement them, additional contextualization will be guides or product accessibility required to bring this to life in the local, standards are fit for purpose, filling national, and regional context. In keeping any gaps to support governments in with other similar approaches, such as the procuring appropriate ICTs of inclu- WHO GATE AT tools, specific technology sive education and including training requirements are recommended. The and support to those procuring such prioritization of these would be subject to products within countries. discussion and debate with key partners at ⊕ Advocating and making provision for a country level. Tools can support this, as a shift in provision—from the product can overarching prioritized technology lists. provided to the school, to the Although the scope of this research was product provided to the child—which A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 89 is necessary to enable the child to practices are currently rare and continue learning outside of the providing examples and case stud- school setting. ies of effective implementation could be beneficial. ⊕ Facilitate mechanisms for the ● Invest in and develop country-, subna- identification of a single point of tional-, and local-level tools to assess responsibility at the ministerial level current country capacity, procurement, to avoid cross-ministry proliferation and need for ICT for inclusive-educa- and duplication, coupled with better tion products.14 Specific interventions data to support decision-making. might focus on: (See also recommendation 4.) ⊕ Considering mechanisms for pooled ⊕ Support the integration of inclusive- procurement between countries and education technology requirements regions on specific products. in National Disability Action Plans. ⊕ Collaborating with UNICEF to identi- ⊕ Consider contextually relevant fy what products could be supported targets and indicators around ICT through the Procurement Catalog for inclusive education in National and School in a Box scheme. Development Plans and loan agree- ments. (See also recommendation 4.) ● Develop ICT for inclusive-education training guidance (beyond, but includ- ● Support teachers and other education ing, products) for countries, schools, providers in delivering inclusive educa- caregivers, and community education tional experiences through: leaders. Training programs could ⊕ Ensuring that pre-service teacher include: training curriculum includes mandatory component on inclusive ⊕ ICT for inclusive-education learning education with a focus on ICT. modules with the aim to raise awareness and support teachers and ⊕ Developing learning packages that community leader) through online support the “catch up” of previously access to basic information about excluded children and young people the needs of learners with disabil- (adapting existing packages to be ities. Supplement with knowledge inclusive, as necessary.) resources and tools. ⊕ Digital products for catch up can be more broadly developed and adopted. ● Enhance the development and imple- mentation of policy on ICTs for inclu- ⊕ Non-official teaching staff (families sive education by providing technical and community leaders) can play assistance at country level, specifically: a vital role; tools support should be of- fered to the broadest group possible. ⊕ Support the integration of technol- ogy and education policies. These 14 Tools, such as the Country Capacity Assessment tool developed by WHO and AT2030, could be used as starting points. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 90 RECOMMENDATION 2 ⊕ Design a funding mechanism that makes it possible to fund these Develop a massive-small technology organizations through smaller grants, and service infrastructure for and with more hands-on support inclusive education to enable to validate and “stand up” their massive-scale distribution of organizational infrastructure to do evidence-based, small-scale business. This might include novel innovations. It can be accomplished due diligence mechanisms, support through the following: to get insurance, monitoring and evaluation, or work carried out with greater scientific rigor. ● Drive innovation in ICT for inclusive education, which is needed at global, ⊕ Scale the impact on learners, as a regional, national, and local levels to: model, supported by better data, instead of a single “unicorn” business ⊕ Raise awareness of ICT for inclusive or technology. education as an investment space. ⊕ Create partnerships of unusual and ● Incentive open disruptive actors and those with case innovation through: studies of success (even in adjacent fields); incentivize teamwork; and ⊕ Developing mechanisms to facilitate include users of series (teachers and and incentivize entrepreneurs to students). enter the sector, particularly sup- ⊕ Support awareness of new products porting the creation of innovations in and services by purchasers, edu- languages other than English. cators, learners, and their families ⊕ Matchmaking between policy makers and address the issue that many and purchasers (of technology and educators remain unaware of what services) and producers, and be- the market is already offering. tween larger companies and smaller innovators. ● Design and test novel funding mech- ⊕ Link suppliers to funded demand for anisms to support existing innovators products and services. (Linked to that respond to the need to support recommendation 1.) “massive-small” initiatives: ⊕ Hold or create space for “open ⊕ Look to spotlight and scale the best innovation” collaboration (rather than practices spotted through this work competition at all times) between at very small scale—under 1,000 supply-chain established corporates, children. Often carried out by com- innovators, service recipients and munity workforce, these initiatives implementers, and policy makers. are by definition contextually aware, ⊕ Consider capacity building access to user-centered, and problem oriented. robust testing of new innovations. ⊕ This could include distributed (small) ⊕ Consider ICT for inclusive education manufacturing of products—and as a strand when designing main- best practice service examples—on a stream innovation support. massive scale. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 91 Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. RECOMMENDATION 3 ers to facilitate the provision of education outside the school when needed. Strengthen community, family, and out-of-school learning supports ● Working with parents, caregivers, chil- to ensure continuity of learning dren, and representative organizations across different settings. to ensure they are involved in identifying the need for, and the development of, Many children with disabilities, and many EdTech that is intended for their use. children in general during the pandemic, This will help to ensure that the right find themselves learning outside of school products support the right child. settings. Important considerations for ● Developing clear multidisciplinary ensuring continuity of learning across referral structures for early detection and different settings include the following: intervention of impairments, with clearly delineated roles and responsibilities (e.g., ● Shifting provision mechanisms to ensure at the community and district level.) that the AT is associated to the child rather than the school can help children ● Continuing to collect and share case learn outside of school, but should not studies of good practice of community replace efforts to keep children in school. and family-led schooling, considering what platforms are needed for support. ● Opening up training and support mecha- nisms to community leaders and caregiv- A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 92 RECOMMENDATION 4 ● Building the global evidence base to address research and knowledge gaps. Capture better data and The following considerations should be evidence vital to policy making, central to future research: identification of learners, early intervention, and mapping of ⊕ There is very little documented progress. evidence of the impact of EdTech on children with disabilities in com- Better data and evidence can increasingly parison to their classmates without disabilities. Data on this would help be captured using emerging technology. more targeted interventions, espe- Initiatives to support this could include the cially in the post-pandemic recovery following: period. ● Connecting different identification ⊕ Most of the documented evidence is and service delivery mechanisms (for based on the technology itself, rather example, data from OPDs as first point than the process of inclusion (for of contact for disability identify cards) which a child or children may need to broader services, including AT and AT). More research is needed on how EdTech to better capture data. this takes place, what the barriers and facilitators are, which pedagogi- ● Strengthening the use of EMIS data as cal approaches work best, and how it a tool for future planning, including the can be taken to scale. type of EdTech that might be required at ⊕ Lack of teacher training is highlight- the classroom level and as an entry point ed in much of the literature, but there for identifying children who may need is little evidence of good practice in EdTech support. this area (pre- or in-service teacher ● Developing better identification and training). A review of the evidence would provide a baseline and high- screening tools for children with disabil- light areas of potential replicability. ities. In line with World Bank, WHO, and UNICEF guidelines, children should be ⊕ Most of the measures of impact screened at regular stages starting from focus on learning outcomes and their first 1,000 days. The WHO is testing other indicators of inclusion, such as tools that can be delivered at the com- participation, transition, and access munity level, but countries need more to play, and their relationship to technology. support to regularly carry out large-scale screening efforts. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 93 references Akala, Beatrice. 2021. “Revisiting Education Eide, A.H., Lamichhane, K., & Neupane, S. 2019. Reform in Kenya: A Case of Competency Gaps in access and school attainments among Based Curriculum (CBC).” Social Sci- people with and without disabilities: a case ences & Humanities Open 3 (1): 100107. from Nepal. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100107. Education Development Trust, 2020. Annual Alasuutari, Hanna, Christopher Thomas, Shawn Impact Review 2019/20. Education Powers, Laura McDonald, and Jeffrey Development Trust, Berkshire, UK. Waite. 2020. Inclusive Education Resource Guide: Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Filmer, D., E. Molina, and W. Wane. 2020. “Iden- Education. Washington, DC: World Bank. tifying Effective Teachers: Lessons from Four Classroom Observation Tools.” RISE Banes, David, Anne Hayes, Christopher Kurz, and Working Paper Series 20/045, Research Raja Kashalnagar. 2020. “Using Information on Improving Systems of Education Communications Technologies to Implement (RISE) Program, Oxford, UK. https://doi. Universal Design for Learning.” Working org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/045. Paper, Global Reading Network, Office of Education, United States Agency for Inter- Fogel, Robert. 2010. “The Education Cloud: Deliv- national Development, Chevy Chase, MD. ering Education as a Service.” White Paper, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA. https:// Barron Rodriguez, Maria, Cristobal Cobol, virtucom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ Alberto Muñoz-Najar, and Iñaki Sánchez Intel-ITDM_education_cloud_final1.pdf. Ciarrusta. 2021. Remote Learning during the Global School Lockdown: Multi-Country Gartner. 2014. Hype Cycle for Emerging Technol- Lessons. Washington, DC: World Bank ogies, 2014. Stamford, CN: Gartner. https:// Group. https://documents1.worldbank. www.gartner.com/en/documents/2809728/ org/curated/en/668741627975171644/pdf/ hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2014. Remote-Learning-During-the-Global-School- Lockdown-Multi-Country-Lessons.pdf. Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel. 2020. Cost-Effective Approaches to Improve Global Bizimungu, Julius. 2018. “Meet the Rwandan Learning. Washington, DC: World Bank. Innovation for One-Laptop-Per-Child.” The New Times, June 5, 2018. https:// Global Partnership for Education. 2019. www.newtimes.co.rw/business/ Results Report 2019. Washington, DC: meet-rwandan-innovation-one-laptop-child. Global Partnership for Education. Coflan, Caitlin Moss, and Tom Kaye. 2020. “Using Goodwin, John. 2020. “Learning through Play: Education Technology to Support Students How Schools Can Educate Students through with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Technology.” Article for the World Economic in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.”​EdTech Forum Annual Meeting, Davos-Klosters, Hub Helpdesk Response No. 4, Washington, Switzerland, January 21–24. https:// DC. https://doi.org/10.53832/edtechhub.0021. www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/ technology-education-edtech-play-learning/. Dhakal, R.K., and B.P. Pant. 2016. “Assessment of Teacher Education Curricula in Nepal: GSMA. 2020a. Education For All in the Time of An ICT Perspective.” International Journal of COVID-19: How EdTech Can Be Part of the Solu- Innovation, Creativity, and Change 2 (3): 96–108. tion. London: GSMA Association. https://www. gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/ Dhaya, N. 2016. Education in Conflict and Crisis: uploads/2020/09/EdTech-Final-WEB.pdf. How Can Technology Make a Difference? A Landscape Review. Bonn and Eschborn, GSMA. 2020b. Connected Women: The Mobile Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Inter- Gender Gap Report 2020. London: GSMA nationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Association. https://www.gsma.com/ mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/ uploads/2020/05/GSMA-The-Mobile- Gender-Gap-Report-2020.pdf. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 94 Hatch, Rachel, and Eileen Dombrowski. 2019. Mbonyinshuti, Jean d’Amour. 2018. “Visually “Policy Brief: Disability Screening Instru- impaired Call for more Reading Ma- ments from Low- and Middle-Income terials.” The New Times, June 5, 2018. Countries.” Education Equity Research https://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/ Initiative, fhi360, Durham, North Carolina. visually-impaired-call-more-reading-materials. Hawkins, Robert, Michael Trucano, Cristóbal Cobo, McAleavy, Tony, Chris Joynes, Emma Gibbs, and Alex Twinomugisha, and Iñaki Sánchez Ciarrus- Kate Sims. 2020. What Steps Are Being Taken ta. 2021. Reimagining Human Connections: to Reach the Most Disadvantaged Students Technology and Innovation in Education at the during the Period of COVID-19 School Closure. World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank. Reading, UK: Education Development Trust. https://edtechhub.org/wp-content/ Hennessy, S., S. D’Angelo, N. McIntyre, S. uploads/2020/05/disadvantaged-students.pdf. Koomar, A. Kreimeia, L. Cao, L., and A. Zubairi. 2021. Technology, Teacher Professional McCollum, Rosalind, Woedem Gomez, Sally Development and Low-and Middle-Income Theobald, and Miriam Taegtmeyer. 2016. Countries. Technical Report on Systematic “How Equitable Are Community Health Mapping Review. London: EdTech Hub. Worker Programmes and Which Programme Features Influence Equity of Community Hersh, Marion, and Stella Mouroutsou. 2019. Health Worker Services? A Systematic “Learning Technology and Disability—Over- Review.” BMC Public Health 16 (1): 1–16. coming Barriers to Inclusion: Evidence from a Multicountry Study.” British Journal of McKenzie, J., A. Karisa, C. Kahonde, and S. Tesni. Educational Technology 50 (6): 3329–3344. 2021. Review of UDL in Low-and Middle-In- come Countries. Cape Town: Including Holmes, Rebecca, Fiona Samuels, Anita Ghimire, Disability in Education in Africa (IDEA). and Stefan Thewissen. 2018. Nepal’s Cash Allowances for Children with Disabilities. Moss, C. 2020. “18 large-Scale EdTech Initiatives London: Overseas Development Institute. on our Radar in 2020.” EdTech Hub (blog), January 22, 2020. https://edtechhub. Holloway, C., V. Austin, G. Barbareschi, F. Ramos org/2020/01/22/18-large-scale-edtech- Barajas, L. Pannell, D. Morgado Ramirez, R. initiatives-on-our-radar-in-2020/. Frost, I. McKinnon, C. Holmes, R. Frazer, M. Kett, N. Groce, M. Carew, O. Abu Alghaib, C. Mou, Shahrina. 2016. “Possibilities and Challenges Khasnabis, E. Tebbutt, E. Kobayashi, and F. of ICT Integration in the Bangladesh Education Seghers. 2018. Scoping Research Report on System.” Educational Technology 56 (2): 50–53. Assistive Technology—On the Road for Univer- sal Assistive Technology Coverage. London: UK Muyoya, C., M. Brugha, and D. Hollow. 2016. Department for International Development. Education Technology Map: Guidance Document. London: Jigsaw Consult. Kabare, Krystle. 2018. “Social Protection and Disability in Kenya.” Working Paper, Naidoo, Saloshni, Myra Taylor, and Desiree Development Pathways Kenya, Nairobi. Govender. 2019. “Nurses’ Perception of the Multidisciplinary Team Approach of Care for Kett, Maria, and Marcella Deluca. 2016. Adolescent Mothers and Their Children in Ugu, “Transport and Access to Inclusive Ed- KwaZulu-Natal.” African Journal of Primary ucation in Mashonaland West Province, Health Care and Family Medicine 11 (1): 1–11. Zimbabwe.” Social Inclusion 4 (3): 61–71. Ndaruhutse, Susy, Emma Gibbs, and Rachael Khetarpal, Abha. 2014. “Information and Fitzpatrick. 2020. “What Are Countries Communication Technology (ICT) and Doing That Already Use Remote Learning Disability.” Review of Market Integration 6 Extensively? What Can We Learn from Them?” (1): 96–113. doi: 10.1177/0974929214560117. Reading, UK: Education Development Trust. Kimenyi, Eric, Rachel Chuang, and Abeba Nepal, Ministry of Education, Science, and Tech- Taddese. 2020. EdTech in Rwanda: A nology. 2020. Flash I Report 2076 (2019-020). Rapid Scan. London: EdTech Hub. https:// Bhaktapur, Nepal: Center for Education and docs.edtechhub.org/lib/TYBTWI8K. Human Resource Development. https:// nepalindata.com/media/resources/items/20/ Lynch, P., N. Singal, and G. Francis. 2021. bFLASH_I_REPORT_2019_20.pdf. “EdTech for Learners with Disabilities in Primary School Settings in LMICs: A New Spotlight Online. 2020. “Nepal’s Two-Thirds Systematic Literature Review.” Working Of School Children Are Unable To Access Paper No. 7, EdTech Hub, London. https:// Remote Learning,” August 28, 2020. https:// docs.edtechhub.org/lib/XJ42VUQG. www.spotlightnepal.com/2020/08/28/ nepals-two-thirds-of-school-children-are- unable-to-access-remote-learning/. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 95 Nepal Education Cluster. 2020. “COVID-19 Sarwar, Md. Afzal Hossain, Iqbal Hossain, and Education Cluster Contingency Plan, 2020.” Tom Kaye. 2020. “Five Lessons Learnt from https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/ Bangladesh’s Experience Responding to default/files/ressources/nepal_covid-19-ed- COVID-19.” EdTech Hub (blog), July 15, ucation-cluster-contingency-plan.pdf. 2020. https://edtechhub.org/2020/07/15/ five-lessons-learnt-from-bangladeshs- Ngabonzima, Ernest, Roberte Isimbi, Marie Merci experience-responding-to-covid-19s/. Mwali, and Arnaldo Pellini. 2020. “Leaving No One Behind: Technology and the Education Siddik, Md Abu Bakor, and Norimune Kawai. Sector Response to COVID-19 in Rwanda.” 2018. “Preparing Primary Level Teachers for EdTech Hub (blog), July 10, 2020. https:// Inclusive Education in Bangladesh.” Asian edtechhub.org/2020/07/10/leaving-no-one- Journal of Inclusive Education 6 (1): 49–71. behind-technology-and-the-education- sector-response-to-covid-19-in-rwanda/. Taddese, Abeba. 2020. “A Rapid Scan of the EdTech Landscape in 11 Countries.” EdTech Nyembo, Stephane. 2020. “Never Has the Digital Hub (blog), August 11, 2020. https:// Divide Been so Real and Painful.” Chance for edtechhub.org/2020/08/11/a-rapid-scan- Childhood (blog), November 18, 2020. https:// of-the-edtech-landscape-in-11-countries/. chanceforchildhood.org/latest-news/never- has-the-digital-divide-been-so-real-and-pain- Tangcharoensathien, Viroj, Witthayapipopsakul ful-disability-and-covid-19-in-rwanda-blog/. Woranan, Viriyathorn Shaheda, and Patcha- ranarumol Walaiporn. 2018. WHO South-East OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination Asia Journal of Public Health 7 (2): 84–89. of Humanitarian Affairs). 2021. Ethiopia Human- itarian Needs Overview 2021. New York: OCHA. Tauson, M., and L. Stannard. 2018. EdTech for Learning in Emergencies and Displaces Piper, Benjamin, Evelyn Jepkemei, Dunston Setting: A Rigorous Review and Narrative Kwayumba, and Kennedy Kibukho. 2015. Synthesis. London: Save the Children UK. “Kenya’s ICT Policy in Practice: The Effectiveness of Tablets and E-Readers in Tefera, Belay, Fantahun Admas, and Missaye Improving Student Outcomes.” FIRE: Forum Mulatie. 2015. “Education of Children for International Research in Education 2 (1). with Special Needs in Ethiopia: Analysis of the Rhetoric of ‘Education For All’ and Plaut, Daniel, Alice Carter, Miranda Dixon, and Taiye the Reality on the Ground.” Ethiopian Salami. 2020. EdTech Innovation for Covid-19: Journal of Education 35 (1): 45–97. Insights from Our Global Call for Ideas. London: EdTech Hub. Available under Creative Tekola, B., Y. Baheretibeb, I. Roth, D. Tilahun, Commons Attribution 4.0 International. A. Fekadu, C. Hanlon, and R.A. Hoekstra. https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/S7JARBXV. 2016. “Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Autism Services in Low-Income Raluca, David, Arnaldo Pellini, Katy Jordan, and Toby Countries: Lessons from a Situational Philips. 2021. “Education during the COVID-19 Analysis in Ethiopia.” Global Mental Crisis: Opportunities and Constraints of Using Health 3: E21. doi:10.1017/gmh.2016.17. EdTech in Low-Income Countries.” Red-Revista De Educacion a Distancia 21 (65): 15. Thompson, Stephen. 2020. “Bangladesh Situational Analysis.” Paper, Disability Rohwerder, Brigitte. 2020. “Kenya Situational Anal- Inclusive Development, Institute of ysis.” Paper, Disability Inclusive Development, Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Tiruneh, Dawit Tibebu. 2020. “COVID-19 School Rohwerder. Brigitte. 2021. “Nepal Situational Anal- Closures May Further Widen the Inequality ysis.” Paper, Disability Inclusive Development, Gaps between the Advantaged and the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Disadvantaged in Ethiopia.” Cambridge Partnership for Education (Real Centre blogs), Rohwerder, Brigitte, Stephen Thompson, Jackie April 21, 2020. https://www.ukfiet.org/2020/ Shaw, Mary Wickenden, Shubha Kayastha, covid-19-school-closures-may-further-widen- Anita Sigdel, Fatema Akter, and Rabia Bosri. the-inequality-gaps-between-the-advan- 2021. “Because of COVID, Everything Is a taged-and-the-disadvantaged-in-ethiopia/. Mess”—How Have People with Disabilities Experienced the Pandemic in Nepal and Tiruneh, Dawit Tibebu, Nidhi Singal, Ricardo Bangladesh? Brighton, UK: Institute of Devel- Sabates, and Tirussew Teferra. 2021. opment Studies. doi: 10.19088/IF.2021.001. “Disability and Learning in Ethiopia: What Has Changed as a Result of the COVID-19 Saavadra, J., H. Alasuutari, S. D’Angelo. 2021. Pandemic?” RISE (blog), May 11, 2021. https:// “How to Strengthen Disability Inclusion in riseprogramme.org/blog/disability-learn- Education?” World Bank Blogs (blog), July 27, ing-ethiopia-what-changed-pandemic. 2021. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/ how-strengthen-disability-inclusion-education. United Nations Secretariat. 2021. “Right to Educa- tion: Challenges with Inclusive Education and A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 96 Accessibility during the Coronavirus Disease World Bank. 2019. Every Learner Matters Pandemic.” Transmitted to the Conference Unpacking the Learning Crisis for Chil- of States Parties to the Convention on the dren With Disabilities. Washington, DC: Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Fourteenth World Bank. https://openknowledge. Session, New York, 15–17 June 2021. https:// worldbank.org/handle/10986/31946. digitallibrary.un.org/record/3921484?l- n=en#record-files-collapse-header. World Bank. 2020a. Pivoting to Inclusion: Lever- aging Lessons from the COVID-19 Crisis for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific Learners with Disabilities. Washington, DC: and Cultural Organization). 2020. Global World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank. Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion org/curated/en/777641595915675088/ and Education: All Means All. Paris: UNESCO. pdf/Pivoting-to-Inclusion-Leverag- ing-Lessons-from-the-COVID-19-Cri- UNESCO. 2021a. COVID 19, Technology-Based sis-for-Learners-with-Disabilities.pdf. Education and Disability: The Case of Bangladesh. Emerging Practices in World Bank. 2020b. “The Impact of the Inclusive Digital Learning for Students COVID-19 Pandemic on Education Fi- with Disabilities. Paris: UNESCO. nancing.” Brief, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/ UNESCO. 2021b. “Ethiopia: Inclusion.” doc/734541589314089887-0090022020/ Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews, original/CovidandEdFinancefinal.pdf. UNESCO. https://education-profiles.org/ sub-saharan-africa/ethiopia/~inclusion. World Bank. 2021. Learners with Disabilities and COVID-19 School Closures: Findings from a UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank. Global Survey Conducted by the World Bank’s 2020. What Have We Learnt? Overview Inclusive Education Initiative. Washington, of Findings from a Survey of Ministries DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. of Education on National Responses to worldbank.org/handle/10986/36326. COVID-19. Paris, New York, Washington, DC: UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank. WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. World Report on Disability. Geneva: UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). World Health Organization. 2018. Raising Learning Outcomes: The Opportunities and Challenges of ICT WHO. 2016. Priority Assistive Products List. for Learning. New York: UNICEF. Geneva: World Health Organization. UNICEF. 2019. Every Child Learns: UNICEF Educa- tion Strategy 2019-2030. New York: UNICEF. UNICEF. 2020. “Rohingya Children Bearing Brunt of COVID Disruptions in Bangladesh Refugee Camps as Education Facilities Remain Closed.” Press release, August 4, 2020. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/ rohingya-children-bearing-brunt-covid-disrup- tions-bangladesh-refugee-camps-education. UNICEF Rwanda. 2020. “Rwanda COVID-19 Situation Report.” Report No. 5, UNICEF, New York. https://www.unicef.org/ rwanda/reports/2020-unicef-situa- tion-reports-covid-19-rwanda. World Bank. 2018a. Disability Inclusion and Accountability Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank. org/curated/en/437451528442789278/ pdf/126977-WP-PUBLIC-DisabilityIn- clusionAccountabilitydigital.pdf. World Bank. 2018b. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 97 appendix A definitions & concepts The following definitions are used in this report, A Landscape Review of ICT for Disability-Inclusive Education Source: Shutterstock. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 98 Assistive products (AP). APs are defined e-book readers for persons with disabilities; by the World Health Organization (WHO software, such as screen readers; and mobile 2016, 1) as “any external product (including applications to enhance functional access to devices, equipment, instruments, or software), content and communication including voice especially produced or generally available, recognition, magnification, object recognition, the primary purpose of which is to maintain and apps for alternative and augmentative or improve an individual’s functioning and communication. independence, and thereby promote their well-being.” Adapted teaching and learning materials. These materials change how content is Assistive technology (AT). AT is defined delivered and disseminated such that it can by the WHO (2016, 1) as “the application of be used by children with different types of organized knowledge and skills related to disabilities. assistive products, including systems and services.” Mainstream educational technologies. These include personal computing devices; Education technology (EdTech). EdTech is classroom teaching tools, such as electronic the use of hardware, software, digital content, whiteboards; online class management data, and information systems in education and content delivery, including massive that supports and enriches teaching and open online courses (commonly known as learning and improves education manage- MOOCs) and e-books; mobile applications ment and delivery (World Bank 2021). for learning; and web and video conferencing. These technologies and content need to be Information and communication designed using universal access standards or technology (ICT). ICT includes any have in-built features for accessibility needs communication device or application such as (e.g., UDL). radio, television, cellular phones, computers, satellite systems as well as network hardware and software and associated services (Khetarpal 2014). references Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The CAST. 2021. “CAST: About Universal Design for Learning.” Retrieved 30 August UDL approach to education research and 2021, https://www.cast.org/impact/ design uses the following three core princi- universal-design-for-learning-udl. ples (CAST 2021): Khetarpal, Abha. 2014. “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and ● Providing students with multiple means of Disability.” Review of Market Integration 6 (1): 96–113. doi: 10.1177/0974929214560117. representation; WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. “Prior- ● Providing multiple means of action and ity Assistive Products List.” Geneva: World expression; and Health Organization. https://apps.who. int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/207694/ WHO_EMP_PHI_2016.01_eng.pdf. ● Providing multiple means of engagement. World Bank. 2020. Pivoting to Inclusion: Leveraging Lessons from the COVID-19 Crisis for Learners The following are among a range of technol- with Disabilities. Washington, DC: World Bank. ogies that can be used by and for students World Bank. 2021. Reimagining Human Connections: with disabilities: Technology and Innovation in Education at the World Bank. Washington, DC: World Accessible ICT for persons with Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/ disabilities. This technology includes topic/edutech/publication/reimagining-hu- man-connections-technology-and-inno- hardware, such as magnification devices, vation-in-education-at-world-bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 99 appendix B detailed methodology The study was conducted in three stages: (i) review, (ii) seek why, and (iii) consolidate and share (figure B.1). Source: Inclusive Education Initiative, World Bank. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 100 FIGURE B.1: Overview of the three phases of the methodology adopted for the project comprehensive of individual steps undertaken for each phase of the research 1 2 3 review seek why consolidate & share Inception Phase Data Collection & Analysis Reporting & dissemination MONTH 1 MONTHS 2–6 MONTHS 6 AND 8 • Induction of team and alignment • Interviews and thematic analysis • External review with client/partnership • Questionnaire • Refinement of findings • Expert outreach – to include contacts previously consulted as • Roundtable • Report Finalization part of the • Triangulation of key findings • Dissemination of results to stakeholders • Digital Product Narrative • Internal review consultation process • Validation of key themes • Detailed study design finalised Regular Inception Report Final Report Presentation Updates Source: World Bank 2021. ● Review. This involved undertaking a thematic review of findings from published academic and grey literature to identify what is already known, including innovation ideas in the public domain, and where there are knowledge gaps. In addition, four roundtable workshops were held with a total of 23 World Bank staff from the Education, Social Sustainability and Inclusion, and Digital Development Global Practices to identify existing resources, particularly within case study countries, as well as present and discuss findings. These were invaluable in both identifying potential interviewees in county, as well as to share findings and seek consensus around recommendations. ● Seek why. This involved undertaking a global online survey, an AI-powered scrape, and a total of 75 interviews across the five countries to seek to understand the challenges and opportunities around EdTech for children with disabilities. Six expert roundtables were conducted (online), once at the beginning of the research and another to present and discuss emerging findings about two-thirds of the way through. ● Consolidate and share. At the study’s end, findings were shared with a range of stakeholders to disclose evidence and build consensus and buy-in for recommendations and next steps. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 101 methods The study used several methods to answer the research questions, comprising: ● a literature review of available evidence; ● six expert roundtable discussions using an adapted Delphi approach; ● a global digital survey of stakeholders; ● an AI-powered media search; and ● key informant interviews in the five countries. Figure B.2 shows how research methods were combined to present comprehensive recommendations for increasing access and the impact of ICT for inclusive education. FIGURE B.2: Project overview global focus country-specific focus Literature Review In-country Interviews Global Survey Expert Roundtables Al Study Innovation-enabled Education for All Source: World Bank 2021. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 102 literature review disabilities,” “law and policies for children with disabilities,” and “ICT and disability policies.” A literature review, while not intended to be a systematic review, The country-level literature review findings offers a comprehensive summary are structured around the three key three of key debates, issues, frameworks, conditions that Banes et al. (2020) rec- ommended for the successful application and approaches in both the inclusive of a UDL framework, which overarch and education and EdTech sectors, encompass the 6 P’s education systems as well as where and how they framework and take into account the need converge, and where they do not for for an approach that focuses on inclusive each country. education. This framework provides a cohesive narrative from the data and best Given a recent systematic review of the facilitates the identification of gaps and literature pertaining to the learning out- trends in country-level provision. The UDL comes of students with disabilities related framework’s three key conditions are as to EdTech (Lynch, Singal, and Francis follows: 2021), this review focuses primarily on the country-level literature, including grey and ● identify children with disabilities using policy-focused literature, to complement at a minimum the Washington Group the primary research data. Background questions); literature to contextualize the country-level literature was also obtained through a ● assess and understand the existing search of academic databases and search educational system in terms of capacity engines (e.g., Google and Google Scholar), of policy, infrastructure, and educators using related search terms (sometimes to support the learning of children with in combination) based on the parameters disabilities; and of the research and collated using Zotero ● provide affordable, accessible assistive reference manager. Only literature focusing technology (must be identified and on low- and middle-income countries in assessed appropriately). English and published between 2010 and 2020 was included. In total, 80 relevant The full report of the literature review is articles and 20 reports were identified available upon request from the report and included. A manual search of poli- authors. A summary of key findings and cy-focused and grey literature for the five themes are presented in chapters 3 and 6 countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, of the main report. Nepal, and Rwanda) was undertaken through online databases (e.g., Google, To facilitate presentation and enable a Google Scholar and ResearchGate), using more comprehensive understanding of the terms “inclusive education,” “COVID the strengths and weaknesses of different impact on children with disabilities,” components of the education ecosystem, “COVID impact on education for children these themes were organized according to with disabilities,” “EdTech for children with the 6 P’s framework (see figure B.3). disabilities,” “primary school children with A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 103 FIGURE B.3: Education system 6 P’s framework diagram Source: Plaut et al. 2020. The framework breaks down different aspects of the education ecosystem that influence the potential success or failure of ICT for inclusive-education interventions. The phrasing of the six questions in the original framework were slightly adapted in A Landscape Review of ICT for Disability-Inclusive Education to fit better the aim of understanding the complexity of developing and deploying EdTech to support inclusive education for learners with disabilities at a primary school level: ● People. Who uses and creates ICT for inclusive education? ● Products. What kinds of ICT for inclusive education is developed and used? ● Pedagogy. On which pedagogical principles is ICT for inclusive education built? ● Policy. How do existing policy frameworks influence ICT for inclusive education? ● Place. Where is ICT for inclusive education used? ● Provision. How is ICT for inclusive education funded, and how sustainable are current provision models? A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 104 global online survey The online anonymous survey comprised of 24 close-ended questions15 and was designed to elicit responses around innovation pathways for ICT for inclusive education, availability and access of ICT for inclusive education, and experiences concerning the use and impact of ICT for inclusive education from a range of respondents, including: ● parents and caregivers of children with disabilities in or at primary school level; ● service providers, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and disability service providers; ● technology providers; ● teachers and educators; and ● government stakeholders. The digitalized survey data were collected through the Qualtrics platform, routinely used for secure and anonymous data collection by the University College of London (UCL) School of Psychology and Language Sciences. The survey was conducted in English between May 10 and May 25, 2021. It was distributed through several professional groups and mailing lists, including the Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology listserv, the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association network, the Inclusive Education Initiative LinkedIn Group, and the Educause listserv, as well as social media and targeted emails to potential stakeholders and relevant organizations. The survey received 269 responses in total, of which 43 were incomplete and not included in the analysis. A total of 226 respondents completed the survey. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, whereas qualitative responses were analyzed using an inductive open coding approach to build a taxonomy of EdTech based on the function of different types of technology mentioned by respondents. Full categorization of all the EdTech examples provided by participants was completed after four iterations of progressive coding where different types of technology were aggregated in broader categories based on their function and/or technical characteristics. This resulted in a full taxonomy of 12 categories and 35 sub-categories of EdTech which were used to determine the search terms for the AI study. 15 The questionnaire is available online at [insert URL before design]. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 105 AI-powered media from these articles core event information can be extracted (Leban et al. 2014). This and academic article information is stored in database which can research then be interrogated to inspect individual events or instances of terms (Leban et al. This piece of work was designed to 2014). Event Registry uses Wikipedia as understand the research trends in ICT for a training set of data from which to then inclusive education topics and to identify search the internet for new articles (Rupnik media interest in these topics. et al. 2016). The taxonomy developed through the global survey was used to It was conducted in partnership with the search Wikipedia and train the search Department for Artificial Intelligence, Jozef across media articles for news events Stefan Institute, and the Department for relating to these products. The data will be Computer Science, UCL. This was enabled incorporated into the AI & Assistive Tech- through a partnership between the Global nology in Media watch to continue to track Disability Innovation Hub (GDI Hub) and media events across the taxonomy. Media the International Research Centre for articles were limited to 3 years. Artificial Intelligence of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organi- In both instances, a search was completed zation. Specific thanks to M. Besher Massri for “assistive technology” as a topic or and Marko Grobelnik from the Jozef Stefan phrase and then the taxonomy of 12 cate- Institute and Mo Wen and Sahan Bulath- gories and 35 sub-categories were used wela from UCL are recorded for providing to search the corpus. Each category and their inputs. sub-category were mapped to a wiki “con- cept” with the same name and derivatives in different languages. To prevent double search methods tagging sub-categories were searched, with categories being populated from these Two searches were completed. The first sub-categories. An analysis of these data searched the academic literature using the is reported in chapter 5 of the report. It Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG). MAG covers overall trends in both databases, contains scientific publication records, with additional analysis of the geographic citation relationships between those pub- spread of data for academic data. lications, as well as authors, institutions, journals, conferences, and fields of study. It is used to power experiences in Bing, expert roundtables Cortana, Word, and in Microsoft Academic and is updated weekly. To elicit expert opinions from across a range of sectors and to ensure consensus The second search was of media articles around findings, four focus group discus- and uses the infrastructure which powers sions were undertaken with a total of 23 Event Registry. Event Registry is a system relevant World Bank staff, working on the which analyses news articles. It can identify selected countries; additionally, two online groups of articles that describe the same roundtable discussions with 24 selected event across a range of languages, and A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 106 global experts in the fields of inclusive education, educational technologies, and country-level disability, were completed using a modified interviews Delphi described below. This approach was selected to illicit stakeholder views and build toward a collective position. Methodological Approach The modified Delphi approach included Semi-structured interviews with key asynchronous and synchronous activities informants from a variety of organizations to identify and build consensus around the were conducted across the five countries. prioritization of key challenges under each Interviewees were identified through a of the 6 P’s. A consensus building exercise collaborative process between GDI Hub was structured in two parts. Initially the and the World Bank with the decision of selected panel of global experts was who to interview based on representative- presented with a video presentation that ness, availability of relevant participants outlined the findings from the interviews. and strength of existing connections to Using a custom-made survey, experts maximize recruitment. were then asked to individually rank the main findings in order of importance The key informants recruited for the study and select what they identified as a key worked for a variety of national and inter- challenge under each of the 6 P’s of the national organizations operating in the five framework. In the synchronous session, countries. These included relevant govern- researchers presented the resulting ranking ment ministries and agencies (including of challenges based on the individual votes Ministries of Education, Information and submitted by the experts and consensus Communication Technologies, Social on prioritization was reached through Welfare and Local Government), NGOs global discussion. At the end of the session, and INGOs, organizations of persons experts were also asked a set of questions with disabilities (OPDs), OPDs, Donor to forecast future outcomes and explore Agencies, academia, private ventures and actions and initiatives that could help to start-ups, as well as teachers and parents’ improve accessibility and impact of ICT for groups. In total semi-structured interviews inclusive education. with 75 stakeholders across the five countries were conducted: Bangladesh Finally, two internal research team work- (14); Ethiopia (10); Kenya (15); Nepal (16) shops were held with thematic experts on and Rwanda (21) respectively. EdTech and inclusive education focusing on the extrapolation of implications Questions ranged from organizations’ around the future of EdTech based on the ongoing activities to support the inclusive results emerging from both primary and education of children with disabilities; use secondary research. To ensure alignment of ICT and EdTech to support inclusive with the broader World Bank strategy, two education both at an organization and feedback and review sessions with the national level; awareness of relevant policy Bank staff team supporting this research frameworks; initiatives to support the use were also completed. of EdTech for the benefit of learners with disabilities; evaluation mechanisms to A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 107 assess the inclusion level and the impact Interviews were conducted between May of different programs; collaborations with 13 and August 14, 2021. The majority of national and international partners and interviews were carried out in English, but the use of ICT; and EdTech resources to some were undertaken in local languages support the education of primary school according to participant preferences. These learners with disabilities during the ongoing were then translated and transcribed by COVID-19 pandemic.16 Separate interview the local researchers. The majority of the guides were prepared for stakeholders interviews were conducted individually via working in government organizations video conferencing software. However, on and these included additional questions two occasions (once in Nepal and once in about the internal collaborations between Rwanda) participants working in different different government departments; and the branches of the same government ministry allocation of responsibilities in relation to were interviewed together to provide a the implementation of inclusive education more detailed and coherent picture of the programs leveraging technology. work of a particular ministry or agency in the context of ICT for inclusive education. Five local consultants were recruited (one Two stakeholders in Ethiopia stated that in each country) to undertake interviews they did not have access to a stable enough in local languages, where necessary, and internet connection to take part in an online to facilitate in-person interviews, where interview and decided to provide answers possible due to COVID-19 restrictions. The in writing. Three stakeholder interviews in consultants underwent a two-stage training Rwanda were conducted in person accord- on the process, tools, and getting consent, ing to participants’ preferences and in-line as well as a practice interview with the core with government guidelines. Sign language team. Local researchers were accompanied interpretation was organized by the by one of the core research team members research team to enable two stakeholders for some virtual interviews to ensure quality from relevant organizations who were sign and consistency. language users to take part in the study. All in-person and remote interviews Interview Procedure were audio recorded by the researchers using portable external devices rather All participants were sent both an informa- than third party cloud storage to ensure tion sheet about the study and the consent compliance with General Data Protection form (available in physical or digital format) Regulation guidelines. Audio recordings to read and complete ahead of the inter- were transcribed verbatim in the language view and they were invited to ask questions of the interview and translated to English if they found anything unclear. At the start when necessary. These were then of each interview, before commencing uploaded to a dedicated Microsoft Team the recording, the researcher asked (a dedicated Microsoft Teams Group was participants to confirm they had signed the created for each country) and stored informed consent and that they were happy securely on UCL systems. for the interview to be recorded for the purpose of analysis. 16 The questionnaire is available online at [insert URL before design]. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 108 Data Analysis NGOs, organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs), donor agencies, Transcripts of interviews and written academia, private ventures and start- responses provided by participants were ups, and teachers and parent groups. In analyzed by the lead researcher using total semi-structured interviews with 75 reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and stakeholders across the five countries were Clarke 2006, 2019). The approach used was conducted: Bangladesh (14); Ethiopia (10); a hybrid with an initial deductive approach Kenya (15); Nepal (16); and Rwanda (21), that leveraged the 6 P’s framework for respectively. analysis, as shown in figure B.3 (Plaut et al. 2020). The findings are presented against this framework. ethics Within each area of the 6 P’s framework, an inductive approach was used to develop The protocol for this study was granted data-driven themes that outlined the spe- ethical approval by the UCL Research cific factors influencing various aspects of Ethics Committee (ID number: 1661/013). the education and technology ecosystem. All data collection, storage, and analysis Moreover, under each P, country-specific procedures strictly followed the World Bank snapshots are produced to highlight the Group’s Policy on Personal Data Privacy. contextual differences between each country. Due to the objective nature of the research, the analysis is focused on the limitations semantic interpretation of accounts pro- vided by participants during the interviews. There are some limitations to this study. It Themes were further discussed with World only focuses on five countries and is not Bank staff and global experts working in representative of the entire global picture. the field of inclusive education to ensure However, the countries were chosen in that the interpretation matched experienc- part to reflect the diversity of case, and this es of the field. study complements the recent compre- hensive systematic review by Lynch et al. (2021), and builds on gaps identified there- Participant Characteristics in. Nevertheless, many of the challenges and opportunities identified resonate The key informants recruited for the across several different contexts and as study worked for a variety of national such the recommendations are relevant to and international organizations operating the global context. in the five countries. These included relevant government ministries and A second limitation is that the secondary agencies (including ministries of research was undertaken in English, education, information and communication reflecting a predominance of English technologies, social welfare, and local language resources in the literature. Future government), NGOs and international studies might encompass a broader range of languages. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 109 The majority of the research was conducted virtually, working with local consultants due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic crisis in many of the countries at the time. This means that only people who had access to the internet or access to a phone could be involved in the research. However, where possible national OPDs and other civil society organizations were included in order to ensure a broad range of representations. In Ethiopia, the team had limited access to officials due to constraints on their time resulting from other emergency situations. Finally, it should also be noted that the EdTech field in particular is a rapidly evolving one, and naturally resources for a study such as this are limited. Especially in the light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which is still impacting education and learning globally, the evidence included here was up to date at the point of writing but will inevitably continue to evolve. references Banes, David, Anne Hayes, Christopher Kurz, and Raja Kashalnagar. 2020. “Using Information Communi- cations Technologies to Implement Universal Design for Learning.” Working Paper, Global Reading Network, Office of Education, United States Agency for International Development, Chevy Chase, MD. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qual- itative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2019. “Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589–97. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. Leban, Gregor, Blaz Fortuna, Janez Brank, and Marko Grobelnik. 2014. “Event Registry: Learning about World Events from News.” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ‘14 Companion, 107–110. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Lynch, P., N. Singal, and G. Francis. 2021. “EdTech for Learners with Disabilities in Pri- mary School Settings in LMICs: A Systematic Literature Review.” Working Paper No. 7, EdTech Hub, London. https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/XJ42VUQG. Plaut, Daniel, Alice Carter, Miranda Dixon, and Taiye Salami. 2020. EdTech Innovation for Covid-19: Insights from Our Global Call for Ideas. London: EdTech Hub. Available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/S7JARBXV. Rupnik, Jan, Andrej Muhic, Gregor Leban, Primoz Skraba, Blaz Fortuna, and Marko Gro- belnik. 2016. “News across Languages-Cross-Lingual Document Similarity and Event Tracking.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 55: 283–316. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 110 appendix C expert roundtables and consultations The team is grateful for colleagues from the World Bank and many of our development partners that graciously shared their knowledge and insights through the expert consultations. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 111 External World Bank Alana Laudone, Benetech  Alicia Hammond, Gender Specialist    Aleksandra Jovic, UNICEF, Europe and Anna Olefir, Senior Education Specialist Central Asia Regional Office   Annet Wanjira Kiura, Education Specialist Anne Hayes, Inclusive Development Partners Annette Omollo, Social Development Specialist Anthony Bloome, mEducation Alliance  Cindy Ijeoma Ikeaka, Brad Turner, Benetech Social Development Specialist David Banes, Independent Consultant on Dario Zanardi, Social Education through Technology  Development Specialist Freya Perry, FCDO Dewi Susanti, Senior Social Development Specialist Irene Mbari-Kirika, inABLE Edda Ivan-Smith, Senior Social Joshua Josa, USAID Development Specialist Julia McGeown, Humanity and Inclusion Gloria Malia Mahama, Senior Social Development Specialist  Lena Olsen Sømme, Norad Hala Ballout, Social Development Marie Schoeman, Leonard Cheshire Specialist Mark Carew, Leonard Cheshire Huma Kidwai, Senior Education Specialist Mohammed Ali Loutfy, G3ict Jaya Sharma, Senior Pamela Molina, World Federation of the Social Development Specialist Deaf  Karthika Radhakrishnan-Nair, Senior Richard Orme, DAISY Consortium  Education Specialist Sandra Boisseau, Humanity and Inclusion  Maria Elena Garcia Mora, Senior Social Development Specialist Sandrine Bohan Jacquot, Humanity and Inclusion Sanjay Agarwal, Senior Social Development Specialist  Sian Tesni, CBM  Tashmina Rahman, Education Specialist / Will Clurman, eKitabu   Dhaka A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 112 appendix D about the global disability innovation hub The Global Disability Innovation Hub (GDI Hub) is a research and practice center driving disability innovation for a fairer world. Operational in 41 countries delivering over 35 projects across a portfolio of £50 million, GDI Hub has reached 4 million people since 2018 by developing bold approaches, partnerships, and ecosystems to accelerate change. With solutions-focused experts in disability innovation, GDI Hub delivers world class research, teaching, innovation, programs, and advocacy amplifying community-led solutions to shape mainstream programming. More than a product, service, or policy, disability innovation is a way of thinking to address intractable challenges by co-designing answers and sharing knowledge. A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF ICT FOR DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION / 113 SOME RIGHTS RESERVED This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2021. A Landscape Review of ICT for Disability-Inclusive Education. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA Fax: 202.522.2625 / E-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org © 2022 The World Bank / www.worldbank.org Picture Courtesy: Shutterstock. We thank our donors: www.inclusive-education-initiative.org