EdTech in Context: What I Learned in Laos

During my time in Laos, I saw the uneven development of digital learning initiatives. On one side, there are Gen Z–led startups experimenting with innovative projects. On the other, there are stop-start efforts from public education systems, often supported by international development agencies. Some public universities have yet to begin delving into this area at all.

The non-formal education centre I worked with had an ambitious goal: to re-engage the estimated 25% of Lao youth (aged 15–24) who are not in education, training, or work. Their idea was to provide young people with a pathway to complete a high school equivalency certificate through a digital learning app. It was an inspiring, forward-looking mission, but as I discovered, implementation was tricky.

Discovery phase

When I first explored the app, I noticed a mismatch between the tool and the content. The platform was designed for microlearning, short, interactive lessons like those used in hospitality or workplace training, but it was being used to house extensive materials in subjects such as physics, chemistry, and history. Some interactive elements were sprinkled in, but it looked to me that the content was being “digitised” rather than redesigned for online learning.

Although the app had not been officially rolled out, analytics from the pilot trial showed that learners were not spending enough time on the platform to meaningfully complete an equivalency certificate. It was clear that the content-heavy approach was overwhelming learners and there was a risk of missing a chance to reach these at-risk young people. Rather than challenge the mismatch between the platform and strategy head-on, I looked for a way to model alternatives that aligned with the app’s strengths. 

Designing an intervention

Based on my observations, what the centre was struggling with was not a technical gap, but a knowledge gap. They were missing the skills in how to redesign the content for the app as well as make the most of its functionality. With this in mind, I decided to create a blended learning intervention that combined an online micro-course that demonstrated principles of good design with a face-to-face workshop where trainers collaborated to storyboard short lessons on simple, practical topics such as recipes, household environmental practices, or basic first aid.

By the end of the day, participants had created engaging storyboards and reflected on how they might adapt their own course content for microlearning. As well as participating in the activities, throughout the day trainers asked questions about the approach I was modelling and reflected on their own practice to date. While these may have been small steps, the workshop did seem to have helped shift the focus from “uploading content” to “designing experiences”.

More questions than answers

While this intervention helped build skills, what struck me most were the deeper issues that surfaced. For example, many trainers had limited time to engage with the platform outside the workshop, raising questions about whether developing courses on the app was the best use of their time. There was also the issue of whether the platform itself genuinely aligned with the centre’s broader goals of improving teaching and learning.

By the end of my assignment, I realised that the challenges I was confronting could not be addressed at the implementation level alone. They pointed to bigger questions about the role of edtech in education: How to measure whether initiatives genuinely improve learning outcomes? What criteria should guide decisions about adopting new tools when budgets and staff capacity are limited? And how to ensure such initiatives reach learners most at risk of exclusion, instead of widening the digital divide?

This experience has reshaped how I think about my role in the education and development sector. Rather than seeing doubts and questions as signs of failure, I now view them as the most valuable outcomes of my assignment. They are leading me to consider how I might contribute to research and program development, where there is space to explore these questions and shape initiatives from the outset. Ultimately, edtech offers powerful tools, but they need to be integrated in ways that strengthen and support the work of teachers and institutions, not replace them.