Science Education Technology Integration

Having worked across multiple Indian states and having observed classrooms in varied institutional contexts, I believe we must confront this question directly and without rhetorical comfort. Over the past decade, large-scale device distribution has been equated with educational progress. Tablets, smart boards, and platform-based learning have been promoted as the silver bullet in education. Yet the emerging international evidence suggests that the large-scale displacement of print by screens may have unintended cognitive consequences, particularly for developing readers. In field settings across India, foundational literacy remains fragile. Reading fluency, comprehension depth, and sustained attention are still consolidating. In such contexts, the cognitive demands of screen-based reading, with its fragmented attention ecology and compressed textual forms, may interact differently than in highly literate societies. If advanced economies that invested billions in digital substitution are now reporting stagnation or decline in reading outcomes, we cannot assume technological scaling is pedagogically neutral. The medium shapes cognitive habits. Print scaffolds linearity, depth, and persistence; screens tend to privilege speed, skimming, and interruption. The issue is not procurement alone. Technology can supplement instruction. It cannot substitute for the slow accumulation of knowledge, disciplined practice, and teacher-guided engagement that undergird literacy development. In global education, policy enthusiasm often travels faster than cognitive science. India must resist importing reform cycles without interrogating their long-term intellectual consequences. Critical EdTech India (CETI) #EducationPolicy #FoundationalLiteracy #DigitalLearning #CognitiveScience #PublicEducation

In the past few months, we've worked with partners who've run into the same challenge with AI adoption. They rolled out policies or guidelines without bringing people into the conversation first—no workshop, no consensus building, just documents that needed signatures or implementation. Unsurprisingly, the result was frustrated staff expected to enforce or follow rules they had no part in creating, and leaders facing resistance instead of adoption. Both AI policies and guidelines are critical for responsible AI adoption, but they have to be built intentionally, with stakeholders driving consensus, or they most likely won't work. After working with hundreds of districts, we've created the resource below. Here are the best practices we recommend. Policies are your compliance layer and are designed to protect your district. We suggest adaptations to existing: ✔️ Acceptable use policies ✔️ Data privacy/FERPA protections ✔️ Academic integrity standards ✔️ Cyberbullying policies (to add deepfakes) Guidelines are your change management layer. They are the "why" that brings people along. We recommend including the following in your AI guidelines: 💡 Vision for GenAI adoption across your district 💡 GenAI misuse/academic integrity response protocols 💡 GenAI chatbot and EdTech tool vetting processes 💡 Digital wellbeing, data privacy, and student safety practices 💡 Implementation tips and instructional supports 💡 AI Literacy training opportunities and expectations What matters most is that both policies and guidelines should be built with stakeholders, not handed down to them. They should evolve with feedback, evidence of impact, and technical advancements. In all of our guideline and policy development work, we always start with AI literacy. It's important to build foundational understanding across stakeholders so that when policies and guidelines are developed, people can contribute meaningfully to the process and understand the "why" behind what they're being asked to implement. Intentional stakeholder engagement isn't a nice-to-have. It's what we've seen drive adoption. #AIforEducation #GenAI #ChangeManagement #AI

🌍 UNESCO’s Pillars Framework for Digital Transformation in Education offers a roadmap for leaders, educators, and tech partners to work together and bridge the digital divide. This framework is about more than just tech—it’s about supporting communities and keeping education a public good. 💡 When implementing EdTech, policymakers should pay special attention to these critical aspects to ensure that technology meaningfully enhances education without introducing unintended issues:  🚸1. Equity and Access Policymakers need to prioritize closing the digital divide by providing affordable internet, reliable devices, and offline options where connectivity is limited. Without equitable access, EdTech can worsen existing educational inequalities.  💻2. Data Privacy and Security Implementing strong data privacy laws and secure platforms is essential to build trust. Policymakers must ensure compliance with data protection standards and implement safeguards against data breaches, especially in systems that involve sensitive information.  🚌3. Pedagogical Alignment and Quality of Content Digital tools and content should be high-quality, curriculum-aligned, and support real learning needs. Policymakers should involve educators in selecting and shaping EdTech tools that align with proven pedagogical practices.  🌍4. Sustainable Funding and Cost Management To avoid financial strain, policymakers should develop sustainable, long-term funding models and evaluate the total cost of ownership, including infrastructure, updates, and training. Balancing costs with impact is key to sustaining EdTech programs.  🦺5. Capacity Building and Professional Development Training is essential for teachers to integrate EdTech into their teaching practices confidently. Policymakers need to provide robust, ongoing professional development and peer-support systems, so educators feel empowered rather than overwhelmed by new tools. 👓 6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement Policymakers should establish monitoring and evaluation processes to track progress and understand what works. This includes using data to refine strategies, ensure goals are met, and avoid wasted resources on ineffective solutions. 🧑🚒 7. Cultural and Social Adaptation Cultural sensitivity is crucial, especially in communities less familiar with digital learning. Policymakers should promote a growth mindset and address resistance through community engagement and awareness campaigns that highlight the educational value of EdTech. 🥸 8. Environmental Sustainability Policymakers should integrate green practices, like using energy-efficient devices and recycling programs, to reduce EdTech’s carbon footprint. Sustainable practices can also help keep costs manageable over time. 🔥Download: UNESCO. (2024). Six pillars for the digital transformation of education. UNESCO. https://lnkd.in/eYgr922n  #DigitalTransformation #EducationInnovation #GlobalEducation

Edtech is often criticised for poor quality, misuse of student data and limited learning impact (I’ve voiced those concerns myself several times). But we can’t hold systems accountable without first showing what good or exceptional performance looks like. Once that’s clear, we can create competitive pressure and drive improvement.  ⬇️ Excited to finally share our paper in HSCC Springer Nature that outlines key benchmark criteria for high-quality EdTech. The paper summarises the work our research group has been doing over the past three years. It focuses on educational impact and edtech’s added value for students’ learning. 📚 After an extensive literature review and cross-sector consultations, we’ve developed a multidimensional framework grounded in the “5Es” — efficacy, effectiveness, ethics, equity, and environment.  Efficacy and Effectiveness combine experimental evidence with process-focused metrics and pedagogical implementation studies. Broader metrics focus on ethical data processing, inclusive and equitable approaches and edtech’s environmental impact. 👇 The fifteen tiered impact indicators already guide a comprehensive and flexible evaluation process of international policymakers, educators, EdTech developers and certification bodies (see EduEvidence - The International Certification of Evidence of Impact in Education and our case studies). 🙏 Huge thanks to all who contributed, especially through our participatory Delphi process. Your insights were invaluable! Nicola Pitchford Anna Lindroos Cermakova Olav Schewe Janine Campbell /Rhys Spence Jakub Labun Samuel Kembou, PhD Tal Havivi/ Ayça Atabey Dr. Yenda Prado Sofia Shengjergji, PhD Parker Van Nostrand David Dockterman Stephen Cory Robinson Andra Siibak Petra Vackova Stef Mills Michael H. Levine  #EdTech #ImpactMeasurement #5Es #EdTechQuality #EdTechStandards 👇 Read here or download from:

Can government policies be opportunities for founders? Absolutely. Government policies are not constraints, they are market signals. Founders who learn to read policy early build unfair advantages. I’ve seen this firsthand, especially in EdTech. Policies Create Markets Before Customers Exist 🔥 One powerful example 👇 In 2024, the UK government under the Labour Party introduced a 20% VAT on private school fees and removed charitable status reliefs, effective January 2025, through the Finance Act 2025. The intent was clear: 👉 Redirect demand. 👉 Strengthen state education. 👉 Make private schooling more expensive. What happened next was predictable if you understand policy. • Parents started seeking cost-effective alternatives • Demand for online tutoring & supplemental education surged • Several EdTech inc Interval Learning platforms quietly gained UK market share Even large strategic moves followed, 📌 IXL Learning acquiring MyTutor.co.uk didn’t happen in isolation. It happened after the policy reshaped the market. Policy changed behaviour. Behaviour created opportunity. 💯 Opportunity triggered consolidation. We’ve Seen This Movie in India Too 🇮🇳 • UPI → FinTech, credit, lending, neo-banks etc • ONDC → Commerce infra, seller tools, logistics tech etc And in Kerala, even during the pandemic: Government policies/actions + Activities of NGOs reduced the digital divide which led to devices, connectivity, access. That single shift unlocked massive tailwinds for EdTech adoption. The Next Big Signal: NEP 📈📈📈 One policy I believe will quietly create hundreds of EdTech startups in India is the National Education Policy 2020. Not immediately. But structurally. Upcoming opportunities I see 🔥 🔥 🔥 : • Skill based & competency driven learning platforms (Already Hot) • Assessment & outcome measurement tech • Teacher enablement & training tools • Multilingual, regional-first education products • Lifelong learning beyond degrees ( Do let me know in the comments, if you're building something this space) Great founders don’t wait for customers to complain. They watch policies move, and build before demand becomes obvious. If you’re building in EdTech (or any regulated sector), don’t just track competitors. Track gazette notifications, budget speeches, draft bills. That’s where the future whispers first. 😉

Engineers can print a child’s airway splint inside a jar of gel. No supports. No extra plastic to prop it up. They drew it in open space and the gel held the shape until it set. For years, 3D printing has had one constant problem: gravity. Print an overhang and it sags. Print a bridge and it droops. So we add supports, then snap them off and throw them away. Printing inside a yield-stress gel flips that. What standard printing forces you to do: ↳ Build layer by layer on a flat bed ↳ Spend 30–50% extra material on supports ↳ Avoid complex internal channels ↳ Watch soft materials slump under their own weight What gel printing allows: ↳ Print upward, sideways, even in midair ↳ Skip supports entirely ↳ Make branches, knots, and enclosed paths ↳ Keep delicate bioinks suspended until they solidify The best example is the one that matters most. A child who needs a custom airway splint doesn’t have to accept a simplified design “because the printer can’t do it.” Surgeons can match the patient’s CT scan—curves, branches, everything. The gel holds each turn while the material sets, then rinses away with water. The same method is making soft robotic tentacles with internal fluid channels, bio-inspired grippers, and vessel-like networks for lab-grown tissue. Where it goes first: ↳ Patient-specific implants that fit the body exactly ↳ Soft robots with shapes you couldn’t print before ↳ Aerospace parts once the materials clear certification Medicine leads because each part can be worth $10,000+. And the real change isn’t a new printer. It’s a new rule set. We’ve been designing for “down.” Now we can design for the shape we actually need. __________ Inspired by: Brunel et al. (2024), Advanced Healthcare Materials, on embedded 3D bioprinting of collagen in microgel baths — and related work in support‑bath printing, soft robotics, and patient‑specific implants.

This platform is full of pronouncements about edtech platforms and AI in education. But most of it's barely more than marketing rhetoric or industry-adjacent promotional material that should be treated sceptically at best. As an alternative, here is an excellent policy brief on edtech platforms from the National Education Policy Center, written by Faith Boninger and Phil Nichols, examining the "edtech ecosystems" impacting on school classrooms: "Digital educational platforms have become ubiquitous in American classrooms, with tools like Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot!, Zearn, Khan Academy, and many others now structuring curriculum, instruction, collaboration, assessment, and communication. This policy brief highlights how these platforms are not neutral “tools” but complex ecosystems shaped by technical architectures, commercial imperatives, and political-economic interests. While educators tend to view them as aids for instruction, platforms extract and monetize data, linking schools into broader markets of advertisers and data brokers. For educators and policymakers, this reality calls for an ecological perspective that asks not only how platforms function in classrooms but also whose interests they serve, what values they embed, and whether nondigital means might better achieve educational goals. To guard against overreliance on industry marketing and the amplified risks of emerging AI systems, schools must articulate their own needs and values first, adopt platforms selectively, and seek policy safeguards that protect their educational mission." https://lnkd.in/dF9C99ke 

Researchers 3D printed materials directly inside the body for the first time. They used a technique called deep tissue in vivo sound printing (or DISP), which could change how doctors deliver treatments and repair tissue. Developed by scientists at Caltech, DISP works by injecting a specialized bioink into the body and then using focused ultrasound to activate it deep within tissues—something older methods like infrared-based printing couldn’t do, since they only reach just beneath the skin. The key innovation is that the bioink contains crosslinking agents trapped inside temperature-sensitive liposomes. When ultrasound heats the area to just above body temperature, the liposomes release these agents, triggering the ink to form into solid hydrogel at precise locations inside muscles or organs. In lab tests, researchers printed detailed shapes like stars and teardrops inside live rabbits, up to 4 cm below the skin, with no signs of toxicity. One version of the ink included a cancer drug, doxorubicin, and was tested on 3D cultures of bladder cancer cells. The printed hydrogel released the drug slowly over several days and proved more effective than standard injections, killing more cancer cells. Another version used conductive materials like carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires to create implants that could monitor temperature or electrical signals, useful for heart or muscle diagnostics. Importantly, the leftover bioink naturally cleared from the body within seven days, and the hydrogels remained stable and safe. This approach opens a new direction for minimally invasive medical treatment and personalized care. learn more https://lnkd.in/dqD35YD7

3D printing is quietly revolutionizing our labs Not so long ago, if you wanted to centrifuge flasks in a rotor like this one, you’d be out of luck. The standard inserts simply didn’t exist. You either had to buy expensive custom accessories (if available at all) or transfer the cells in falcons bottles etc which is extra plastic used. 👉 But today? A quick 3D print of a well-designed adaptor, and the “impossible” becomes possible. That’s the beauty of additive manufacturing in science: It lowers barriers. It accelerates innovation. It puts problem-solving literally in the hands of every researcher. From centrifuge adaptors to tube holders, from pipette organizers to microfluidic chips — 3D printing empowers us to create what we need, when we need it. No long waits, no inflated costs, no compromise. For me, this is more than a convenience. It’s a mindset shift: Instead of asking “What’s available?”, we start asking “What can we make?” And that question opens doors. 🚀 Have you used 3D printing to solve a lab problem? I’d love to hear your examples — maybe we can build a small library of DIY solutions together.

Research tracking actual edtech usage across K–12 districts shows that 60–70% of purchased ed-tech licenses go unused. Nationally, that adds up to $1+ billion every year in underutilized or unused software. That’s not a technology failure. That's an adoption and oversight failure. The good news: districts that address this intentionally can claw back both dollars and instructional focus. What works: • Designate a clear instructional owner for every tool. No owner, no renewal • Right-size licenses annually based on real usage, not enrollment • Simplify portfolios with fewer tools, deeper implementation • Build adoption benchmarks into contracts and renewal decisions • Invest in training for teachers with ongoing support, not one-time PD • Require vendors to provide transparent usage and impact data • Sunset unused tools regularly, make stopping just as normal as starting The hidden cost of edtech isn’t the license. It’s the clutter, confusion, and lost time when tools don’t earn their place. The next phase of edtech isn’t about buying smarter tools. It’s about managing them better. If school districts did this consistently, the budget conversation would shift from “we need more” to “we’re finally getting value.” #edtech #education #edbudget #edleadership #teachers #schools #edreform