BOOK REVIEW
Global Education Monitoring Report Pacific, Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms?
This latest Global Education Monitoring (GEM) report provides a regional (Pacific) update on progress towards the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goal 4, with the objective to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO, 2024). One value of the report lies in its authority. It is funded by “governments, multilateral agencies and private foundations and facilitated and supported by UNESCO” (p. v), and so is not one to ignore.
To provide a sense of context, “Pacific countries have long relied on alternative learning pathways to access education, given unique challenges linked to the region’s small land size, remote populations dispersed across an estimated 1,000 islands, and vulnerability to natural disasters” (p. 30). So, given the lengthy and important heritage of open and distance learning (ODL) in the Pacific, what is the state of technology in education? The situations, needs, and solutions are as varied as they are expensive, but there is evidence provided that shows positive improvements can be made. It is encouraging to see the scope of the report, which portrays the benefits of technology in education while also taking a broad view of the context in which it is situated.
The report centres on a single question: Can technology solve the most important challenges in education? The answer, naturally, relies on the most important challenges that have been identified. The points of evaluation are helpfully linked to four key policy areas identified in the Pacific Regional Education Framework (PacREF): education quality and relevance; learning pathways; student outcomes and well-being; and the teaching profession. These policy areas provide the report with its structure. In the Short Summary of the report, this overview is provided next to the alarming statistic that 77% of primary school teachers in 15 Pacific countries do not have devices to teach with. Right from the start, it is clear the answer to the central question will be complex and nuanced.
While it is tempting to see access to technology as the obvious solution (‘Just give teachers devices!’), the opening phrase from the Assistant Director-General for Education (UNESCO), Stefania Giannini, provides an important observation: “Technology is a tool, not a panacea” (p. vii). The report indicates that the difficulty is not so much the application of technology but rather its actual reach and penetration into remote locations. Inadequate infrastructure, not pedagogy or resistance, is one of the foundational barriers to the potential of education technology, and it is barriers such as this that further deepen the access divide for education. Without the requisite infrastructure, teachers cannot be trained and empowered, and these are critical steps toward effective educational technology that can make a positive difference. Regional legislation concerning data ethics, privacy, and cyberbullying also needs to be put in place in some countries.
The report evidences that technology can benefit education, but technology access represents a significant investment that should be wisely made. The Pacific is a challenging region, and the report demonstrates just how diverse Pacific countries are in terms of their technology infrastructure and experiences. Each Pacific nation has its own situation, even across the general population’s digital skills. As an example, “women in the top wealth quintile are 3 times as likely as those in the poorest quintile to use email for communication in Tonga, 8 times in Fiji, 16 times in Samoa and 24 times in Kiribati” (p. 51). Another Figure (5.1, p. 66) shows that 100% of primary school teachers in Palau report accessing computers or tablets for their use in 2021, compared with only 23% of those in the Solomon Islands. There is clearly substantial work needed to boost teachers’ confidence in applying educational technology. Whether technology can solve the most important challenges in education relies on local solutions sensitive to the political, geographical, and, perhaps more importantly, cultural and linguistic factors of each country and region.
The benefits of access to technology show it to be an enabler for expanding education’s reach and inclusivity. Sadly, the term ‘technology’ is not readily defined in the report, however, the examples and general use of the term show that it is intended to include those features and applications such as mobile phone nudges to remind students of due dates, and the use of Learning Management Systems, simulations, Generative AI, and Virtual Reality. Across these, ‘technology’ has the potential to provide access to assistive solutions, easier access to digital resources, and better reach for educational opportunities.
Achieving this access, though, requires large-scale, long-term planning and holistic thinking. Access to technology is only part of the answer; well-rounded solutions that deliberately build on the foundation of technology access are also needed. The report provides many examples of this type of partnership, where access meets implementation. The various examples highlighted show the incredible diversity of applications across the Pacific and demonstrate the importance of reports such as GEM to spur thinking and comparison. Pacific leaders have the opportunity to consider the trajectory and experience of their peers and so draw from a rich set of possibilities they might also benefit from.
It occurs to me that there is a necessary triumvirate needed for technology to make a sustainable and enriching difference in education: technology infrastructure and distribution, access to digital resources suitable for local use, and capable teachers. At stake is providing an inclusive, scalable and sustainable model of education, which also assists with developing citizens able to participate in what is increasingly a global digital economy. In the report’s own words, “People need digital skills to navigate changing economies and societies to make the most of opportunities. They also need to understand the importance of behaving as responsibly in the digital world as they do in the physical one” (p. 45).
Such solutions also improve the resilience of educational systems. Naturally, the report mentions the Covid-19 experience multiple times. It was a time that, for many of us, revealed the extent of the digital divide — even in countries such as my own (New Zealand), with reliable infrastructure and high levels of internet access. The Covid-19 period revealed just how unready countries were for an interruption to classroom-based education and led to fresh investment in technologies to support teaching and learning: “The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for the development of OERs and digital platforms to host them” (p. 19). The intervening years up to the 2024 GEM report show that there is still much to be done.
The situation facing governments and funders in providing technology access with holistic implementation is at once complex, expensive, and critical. At stake is the reach of education and the ever-broadening issue of the digital divide. Those without access to technology face increasing alienation from the opportunities of the digital economy as well as no-to-limited access to an impressive range and breadth of educational opportunities. The benefit of technology access might be thought of as proportional to the difficulty of providing it in very remote locations.
The report makes four recommendations in the form of key questions to governments and funders seeking to implement technological solutions to educational problems:
These are wise, focusing questions. The challenges are bigger than the large investments already made in them, and across the impressive amount of work going on, it is vital that these questions be applied before further efforts are made. It was particularly interesting to reflect on the improved access to universities across different Pacific countries (Figure 3.1, p. 36), noting the vast improvement of the Marshall Islands in particular, which feature across the report as having put a deliberate focus on and made an investment in digital infrastructure (the World Bank’s Digital Republic of the Marshall Islands Project is listed in Table 4.3, p. 53) and related educational initiatives. Deliberate strategies and careful investment do yield results.
I am left with the clear understanding that technology is an investment with large up-front costs but also with clear benefits:
Digital technology is used to package and transmit information on an unprecedented scale at high speed and low cost. Information storage has revolutionized the volume of accessible knowledge. Information processing enables learners to receive immediate feedback. (p. 4).
These sorts of solutions improve the inclusivity, scalability, and sustainability of education in ways sorely needed across the Pacific region. The report is well-structured, nicely paced, and has plenty of summary cues. Above all, it is well-grounded and authoritative. It is a landmark reference for educational technology in the Pacific, and even with the extreme differences across countries, its relevance to any individual nation is sealed by the strength of its recommendations.
Reviewer Notes
Dr Mark Nichols (PFHEA) is Executive Director of Learning Design & Development at Open Polytechnic, Aotearoa New Zealand and a current Commonwealth of Learning Chair. He is also President of ICDE and an EDEN Fellow. Mark has held various senior roles, including Director of Technology Enhanced Learning at The Open University. His work focuses on institutional operating models, learning design, and ODL futures. Email: mark.nichols@openpolytechnic.ac.nz (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8131-6562)
Cite as: Nichols, M. (2025). BOOK REVIEW. Global education monitoring report Pacific, technology in education: A tool on whose terms? Journal of Learning for Development, 12(2), 446-449.