As part of our ongoing project examining how the use of EdTech in schools can ameliorate or reinforce social and educational inequalities, we secured additional funding to speak directly with EdTech companies. Through this process we have been able to learn more about the motivations, perspectives, and experiences of EdTech developers, including how they approach designing for equity and what kinds of collaboration and evidence they would like from researchers. These conversations have been invaluable as we begin creating Open Educational Resources aimed at supporting the creation of more equity-focused EdTech.
Isabel Goddard and Liam Bekirsky
During our interviews with EdTech founders and developers (see here for a previous blog post outlining what we learnt about EdTech design through these conversations), we were particularly interested in how they understand and approach equity. After all, developing resources aimed at supporting the design of more equitable and effective EdTech for schools requires not only a clear sense of companies’ needs and priorities, but an understanding of how they themselves think about equity.
Rather than converging on a single, shared understanding of equity, these interviews revealed a complex and varied set of interpretations. Some companies approached equity at a micro level by focusing on individual students. Others took a more macro perspective, with several articulating ambitions to help “level the playing field”. These differences in conceptualisations of equity echo our ethnographic data in schools, and indeed the definitions used or taken for granted in policy literature. Across the interviews, we identified four primary ways EdTech companies conceptualise equity: 1) as ensuring access to EdTech regardless of factors such as socioeconomic status; 2) as attending to students’ individual and diverse needs; 3) as ensuring EdTech drives measurable improvements in student outcomes; and 4) as fostering fairness, particularly in relation to data practices and mitigating bias.
Equity as ensuring access
Companies most commonly framed equity in terms of access. They often discussed this in relation to the affordability of their products, emphasising that their solutions were generally cheaper and more cost-effective for schools compared to traditional resources such as textbooks. Some highlighted practices of price differentiation, allowing schools with limited budgets to access their products, though such arrangements were not always publicly advertised. Beyond issues of affordability, several companies highlighted disparities in students’ access to devices and the Internet, which often influenced design decisions (for example, ensuring platforms function effectively on both mobile phones and desktop computers).
Equity as attending to diverse needs
Many EdTech founders framed their company’s commitment to equity in terms of designing for diverse learning needs. For some, this meant embedding “personalisation” directly into their technologies, usually relying on rule-based algorithms. This approach was most evident in adaptive products, typically used for homework, which adjust the level of difficulty based on students’ responses. For others, designing for diverse needs meant developing EdTech with specific students in mind, such as those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Equity as improving outcomes
For some EdTech companies, equity was understood less as ensuring access or accommodating diverse needs, and more as achieving measurable improvements in learning outcomes. Companies commonly cited in-built tracking data and school testimonials as evidence of their impact. In this framing, equity was tied to the effectiveness of their products—high-quality, reliable technologies were seen as essential for driving student progress and to improving educational outcomes, particularly those which aligned with socio-economic disparities.
Equity as fostering fairness
When prompted, several companies discussed equity in relation to bias and “fair” or responsible data practices. While participants predominantly saw their role as supporting the delivery, assessment, and enrichment of education through their products, some acknowledged risks of technological bias and inequitable data use. Most, however, lacked access to detailed student data and therefore could not assess whether their products (dis)advantaged particular groups. For many, data management and consent were seen as the responsibility of schools, rather than something to be addressed within the product design itself.
Beyond the four main conceptualisations discussed here, some companies did not use the term “equity” at all, preferring alternatives such as “social impact” or “inclusion” (one participant noted that “inclusion” seems to align more closely with language used by educational authorities and policymakers in the UK). A small number said they found the term confusing in the context of the EdTech market, as it is also commonly associated with finance and investment, and a few explicitly distanced themselves from the term, citing its recent politicisation.
Finally, EdTech companies told us that schools are not asking for equity, with demand and appraisal for technologies largely driven by effectiveness in improving student outcomes and value for money. This very much aligns with wider policy discourse around education, where equity is often reduced to ideas of the “attainment gap”, encouraging a focus on student outcomes on high stakes assessment. Therefore, while the companies we spoke with were generally open to the concept of equity and interested in integrating equity concerns in the design of their products, so long as equity principles are not part of education policy and, crucially, built into performance metrics, designing for equity is likely to remain a positive “extra” feature rather than a guiding principle of EdTech design.
Funding acknowledgement:
This research was supported by the University of Oxford’s Social Sciences Division and funded by the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).
Photo by freepik.com.