A UN report found thin evidence for edtech's benefits

The short answer

UNESCO's global monitoring report on technology in education did not conclude that technology is generally good or bad for learning; it concluded that the evidence for many claimed benefits is thin, and it called for smartphones to be used in schools only where a clear case can be made that they add value learners could not get another way.

What the evidence says

The 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report, subtitled "Technology in education: a tool on whose terms?", was launched on 26 July 2023. According to UNESCO's summary of the report's findings, the report states that learning benefits from technology "disappear if technology is used in excess or in the absence of a qualified teacher," and that fewer than 2% of the education technology interventions it reviewed had strong evidence of effectiveness. The same summary records that the report found smartphones a distraction from learning in classrooms, while noting that fewer than a quarter of countries had, at that point, banned their use in schools. The report's central recommendation, according to the GEM report's own technology page, is that education systems set clear governance so technology never substitutes for in-person, teacher-led instruction, and that any classroom adoption of a new technology be justified by evidence that it improves learning outcomes for that purpose.

For context

"Fewer than 2% of interventions had strong evidence" describes the state of the evidence base the report reviewed, not a finding that 98% of educational technology fails; much technology use has simply never been evaluated with a strong research design, which is a different problem from evidence of harm. The report is a synthesis and policy document produced by a UN agency, drawing on a wide evidence base rather than reporting a single new study, and its recommendations reflect UNESCO's own editorial judgement about priorities, a judgement not every education researcher or ministry shares in every particular. Its finding on smartphone distraction concerns classroom use during lessons; it is not, on its own, a statement about screen use in a child's life outside school hours.

A practical next step

If a school is introducing a new piece of classroom technology, it is reasonable to ask what specific learning goal it serves and what evidence, if any, supports that it helps compared with not using it, which is essentially the test the report asks systems to apply.

• What learning problem is this technology meant to solve, and could a non-digital method solve it as well?
• Has this specific tool been evaluated, or is its use justified mainly by general enthusiasm about technology in education?
• Does the school distinguish supervised, purposeful device use from unrestricted access during the school day?

The report's caution is a call for evidence and governance rather than a blanket verdict against classroom technology, and it is most useful as a question to put to any specific tool rather than as a general rule for or against screens in schools.