From Implementation to Institutionalization: Scaling and Sustaining Technology-based Pedagogical Tools in LMICs
This multi-source synthesis study of technology-based pedagogical tools in low- and middle-income countries, with a focal case in Kenya, reveals that while teacher engagement and school-level support drive initial adoption, achieving long-term sustainability and system-wide scale requires the critical alignment of micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine a classroom in a low- and middle-income country where a teacher has discovered a powerful new way to help children learn. Perhaps it is a piece of software that makes reading come alive, or a digital tool that turns math into a game. The children are engaged, their test scores are rising, and the teacher is inspired. For a moment, it feels as though the solution to the region's deep learning crisis has been found. But in the world of education, a successful classroom is only the beginning. The real challenge lies not in finding what works, but in keeping it working. This is the difference between a pilot project that shines for a few years and a system-wide change that lasts for decades. Researchers call this the gap between implementation and institutionalization. It is the space where good ideas often fade away because the schools, the governments, and the funding streams that support them are not built to hold them.
A team of researchers from Concordia University set out to understand exactly why this happens. They looked at a specific, well-documented effort to bring a suite of bilingual, evidence-based educational software to schools in Kenya, Rwanda, Bangladesh, and Nepal. This software, which includes tools for early literacy, numeracy, and digital portfolios, was paired with intensive training for teachers. The researchers did not just look at the test scores; they spent years gathering stories from teachers, school leaders, government officials, and the researchers themselves. They synthesized data collected between 2018 and 2025, including stakeholder interviews, teacher survey results, project documentation, and researcher reflections. Their goal was to trace the life of this innovation from the moment it entered a classroom to the point where it either became a permanent part of the school system or disappeared when the external funding ran out.
The story they uncovered is one of remarkable human effort meeting rigid structural walls. At the level of the individual teacher, the innovation thrived. Teachers who used the software saw their students reading better and participating more. They felt a sense of professional pride and believed deeply in the value of the tools. Because they saw these results, they were willing to go the extra mile. They spent their own money on internet data, they borrowed devices from neighbors, and they stayed late to troubleshoot broken computers. In many classrooms, the use of the software became a daily habit, driven entirely by the teacher's personal commitment and the visible joy of the students.
However, when the researchers stepped back to look at the school as a whole, the picture became more complicated. In some schools, the principal was a champion who rearranged the schedule to make time for the software, or found ways to pay the electricity bills needed to run the computers. In these places, the practice began to settle into a routine. But in many others, the use of the software depended on a single enthusiastic teacher. If that teacher left, or if the principal changed, the routine often collapsed. The school did not have a formal plan to keep the program going. There was no dedicated budget for replacing broken tablets, and no official policy that required the software to be used. The success was real, but it was fragile, resting on the shoulders of individuals rather than the structure of the organization.
When the view expanded to the national level, the barriers became even more distinct. The government had officially approved the software, and high-level officials had signed agreements to support it. Yet, this top-level approval did not translate into the day-to-day resources needed to keep the system running. The funding that brought the project to life was short-term and came from outside donors. Once that money stopped, there was no clear mechanism for the government to take over the costs. The country lacked a long-term plan for maintaining the technology, and the various government agencies responsible for education often worked at cross-purposes. A teacher might have the software and the training, but without a reliable power supply, a steady supply of replacement devices, or a salary that allowed them to focus on teaching rather than fixing broken equipment, the innovation stalled.
The researchers found that the path from a successful classroom to a national system is not a straight line. It is a process that requires alignment at three different levels. First, the teachers must believe in the tool and see it helping their students. Second, the school must build routines and leadership support that allow the tool to survive the departure of any single person. Third, the national system must provide the permanent funding, the infrastructure, and the policies that make the practice a standard part of education, not just a special project. In this study, the first level was strong, but the second and third levels were weak. The teachers carried the weight of the innovation on their own backs, but the system did not offer a hand to help them carry it forward.
This pattern suggests that the global learning crisis cannot be solved by technology alone. Even the most effective software, paired with the best training, will not last if the system around it is not ready to sustain it. The study indicates that while we have learned a great deal about what works in the classroom, we still struggle to understand how to make those successes stick. The solution requires more than just better tools; it requires a shift in how we fund and organize education. It demands that we move away from short-term projects that end when the grant money runs out and toward long-term strategies that build the capacity of schools and governments to support these innovations forever. Without this shift, the promising gains made in classrooms will remain isolated islands of success, unable to reach the millions of children who need them most.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.