A few months ago, the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University hosted the 2025 Yidan Prize Conference. This conference was both a celebration of my colleague Micky Chi’s receipt of the 2023 Yidan Prize for Education Research, as well as an opportunity to bring together researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to explore the future of teaching and learning amid rapid technological and social changes.

As part of this event, I moderated a “Catalyzing Technology for Learning” panel featuring two remarkable education innovators: Marwa Zahr Implementation and Practitioner Lead of Can’t Wait to Learn and War Child Alliance; and Rebecca Vieyra Director of Global Initiatives, PhET Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado Boulder. More details about the amazing work they do can be found at my previous blog post Technology Transforms Learning: Insights from the 2025 Yidan Prize Conference (which also includes a video of our panel).

As a follow-up to the event, the organizers asked us to write short essays reflecting on our conversation to be included in Yidan’s Knowledge Hub. These short essays have now been published.

Marwa, in her piece, titled: Not a quick fix: edtech needs context, co-creation, and continuous adaptation, built on one of the questions we had discussed in the panel, that of the “reductive seduction of other people’s problems” namely the idea that the further we are from an issue the easier it seems to solve. Rebecca, in her article, focused on a similar theme, urging us to remember that Edtech innovation keeps student and teacher agency at its core.

As I listened to their experiences during this conference, I was struck by the parallels to Silver Lining for Learning (SLL), a webinar/podcast series that my colleagues and I launched to document innovative educational approaches emerging during the pandemic. What began as a short-term project expected to last five to 10 weeks has evolved into a five-year journey spanning over 230 episodes featuring educators and educational innovators from across the globe, creating an immense archive of educational transformations. I used this experience, and our conversation in the panel, to craft my piece title Six principles for implementing educational technology.

My original piece ended up being much longer than what could go on the Knowledge Hub (what can I say—I am an academic after all). You can read the shorter piece at the link above, or, if you are a glutton for punishment, you can read the longer piece below.

---

Six Principles for Educational Technology
Implementation: A Global Perspective

Punya Mishra

Director, Innovative Learning Futures, Learning Engineering Institute,
Arizona State University

(This is an extended, per-publication, version.
The shorter, published version can be found at Yidan’s Knoweldge Hub).

Recently, I had the privilege of moderating a panel discussion at the Yidan Prize conference featuring two remarkable educational innovators. Marwa Zahr shared her work with Can’t Wait to Learn, a program that has reached over 300,000 students across eight countries, significantly improving literacy and numeracy skills for children in conflict-affected settings. Rebecca Vieyra discussed PhET Interactive Simulations, which has created hundreds of free interactive math and science simulations translated into 129 languages and used 1.7 billion times globally. As I listened to their experiences implementing educational technology in challenging contexts, I was struck by the parallels to another initiative I’ve been deeply involved with: Silver Lining for Learning (SLL).

SLL (silverliningforlearning.org) began in March 2020 when a group of colleagues and I launched a webinar / podcast series to document innovative educational approaches emerging during the pandemic. What began as a short-term project expected to last “5-10 weeks” has evolved into a five-year journey spanning over 230 episodes (and growing) featuring educators from across the globe. The conversation with Marwa and Rebecca crystallized for me how their approaches mirrored many of the insights we’ve gathered through SLL. Examining these initiatives together reveals crucial principles about effective educational technology implementation worldwide, particularly in resource-constrained environments where innovation is most needed.

From Crisis to Opportunity

Educational innovation often emerges from crisis situations that disrupt established systems and necessitate creative responses. SLL originated when the COVID-19 pandemic forced a global shift to remote learning. The initiative began with a simple premise: to document and share innovative educational approaches emerging during the pandemic and the manner in which technology could be intentionally and thoughtfully designed and leveraged to meet educational needs, worldwide. What was expected to last 5-10 weeks has continued for over five years, capturing a wealth of global responses to educational disruption.

This pattern of crisis-driven innovation mirrors the development trajectories of both Can’t Wait to Learn and PhET. Can’t Wait to Learn adapted its approach for conflict situations, evolving from a standalone program to a blended learning model based on feedback from children and teachers in Lebanon. Initially designed for specific contexts, it has continuously evolved to address the educational needs of children in increasingly diverse situations. Similarly, PhET developed creative dissemination strategies during pandemic disruptions, including techniques for teachers to share simulations via text messages or micro-projectors to reach students without reliable internet access or classroom settings.

Global Perspectives Beyond the Spotlight

A significant contribution of both the Yidan Prize winners’ work and the SLL initiative is their focus on innovations that typically remain “under the radar” in educational discourse. Traditional knowledge dissemination channels—academic journals, scholarly conferences, and practitioner gatherings—tend to favor well-resourced institutions and established voices. In contrast, these initiatives deliberately seek out and amplify grassroots innovations from diverse global contexts. Credit also should go to the Yidan organization for identifying, recognizing, celebrating and supporting these initiatives.

What has been most amazing about co-hosting SLL for five years is the immense archive we have created of similar educational transformations across continents: teenagers in Nepal leveraging MOOCs to prepare for college; filmmakers in Rwanda teaching conservation through local storytelling; virtual classrooms connecting students in Afghanistan during political upheaval; and community-based educational models across India. Similarly, Can’t Wait to Learn operates in eight countries, adapting to vastly different contexts, while PhET’s simulations have been implemented in settings ranging from well-equipped classrooms to schools without electricity.

This global perspective challenges conventional assumptions about where educational innovation originates. Rather than flowing primarily from wealthy Western institutions to the Global South, these initiatives reveal that the most creative approaches often emerge from resource-constrained environments, where necessity truly becomes the mother of invention. These innovations offer lessons not just for similar contexts but for educational systems worldwide, demonstrating how limitations can foster creative problem-solving that transcends traditional constraints.

Key Principles for Educational Technology Implementation

My conversation with Marwah and Rebecca and 5 years of conversations around diverse implementations on SLL have led me to six consistent principles that appear to guide effective educational technology implementation across contexts. I expand on each below.

Context-Driven Innovation: Effective educational technology implementation begins with a deep understanding of local context rather than with technology itself. This principle acknowledges that educational challenges are complex, culturally embedded, and highly variable across settings. Technological solutions must emerge from and adapt to these contexts rather than imposing external frameworks that may be inappropriate or unsustainable. This approach requires comprehensive assessment of existing infrastructure, cultural practices, educational priorities, and stakeholder needs before determining whether or how technology might address identified challenges.

The Yidan panel exemplified this principle through contrasting approaches tailored to specific contexts. As Marwa noted, Can’t Wait to Learn begins with a comprehensive analysis of “systematic challenges” and examines whether “educational technology is a priority for the government” before implementation. In Uganda, this contextual approach led to government adoption and sustainability. Similarly, Rebecca described how PhET’s effectiveness stems from its adaptability to different instructional settings—from teacher demonstrations to student-led explorations—enabling implementation across vastly different educational environments. This contextual sensitivity guards against what was described during the panel as “the reductive seduction of other people’s problems”—the tendency to oversimplify challenges in unfamiliar contexts and propose technological solutions that may be inappropriate or insufficient.

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: Educational innovation often emerges most organically through localized, bottom-up approaches rather than centralized, top-down implementations. This principle recognizes that successful educational change rarely occurs through monolithic system-wide transformations, but instead through smaller “pockets” of innovation that can adapt and evolve within specific contexts before potentially scaling. These grassroots approaches often leverage local expertise, respond to immediate needs, and evolve through direct feedback from practitioners and learners.

SLL episodes consistently demonstrate how innovation happens in these smaller pockets—schools-within-schools, community initiatives, or teacher-led experiments that grow organically within unique contexts. This pattern challenges the common approach of seeking to replicate entire educational systems (“what does Finland do and how can America copy it?”), recognizing instead that education is multidimensional and culturally contextual. Similarly, the Yidan panelists emphasized identifying and supporting “excellent local expertise that’s out there around the world” rather than imposing external solutions. Can’t Wait to Learn’s approach to government collaboration in Uganda exemplifies how bottom-up innovations can eventually influence broader systems through demonstrated effectiveness rather than top-down mandates.

Resilience and Adaptation: The capacity for resourceful adaptation in challenging circumstances emerges as a crucial element of successful educational technology implementation. This principle encompasses the ability to work creatively within constraints, adjust to unexpected challenges, and maintain educational quality despite limited resources or unstable conditions. It recognizes that implementation rarely proceeds according to initial plans, particularly in resource-constrained or volatile environments, and that continuous adaptation is essential rather than exceptional.

The remarkable resilience documented through SLL episodes, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan, demonstrates how “education can transcend physical and political limits” through creative applications of technology. Similarly, the Yidan panelists shared numerous examples of adaptive implementation—PhET simulations used without consistent electricity in Kenya, and Can’t Wait to Learn adapted for regions without reliable internet access. This adaptability represents what in India is often called “jugaad” (essentially a form of situational creativity)—the capacity of educators to create effective learning environments despite severe constraints. Such adaptability isn’t merely about survival but about maintaining educational quality and engagement despite challenging circumstances, often leading to innovations that prove valuable even in more stable contexts.

Technology as Enabler, Not Driver: Perhaps the most fundamental principle for effective educational technology implementation is recognizing technology as a means rather than an end—a tool that serves educational purposes rather than driving educational decisions. This principle emphasizes pedagogical objectives over technological capabilities, maintains the centrality of human relationships in education, and ensures that technological choices align with educational values rather than merely pursuing innovation for its own sake.

Both Yidan panelists emphasized this principle, with Marwa stating explicitly that “technology is here to serve education, not the other way around.” Rebecca introduced the concept of “pedagogical prudence”—teachers knowing “when to say yes to technology but especially when to say no to it.” This principle becomes increasingly critical as AI and other advanced technologies enter educational spaces with significant corporate promotion but sometimes unclear educational benefits. Throughout SLL episodes, successful implementations consistently position technology as enhancing rather than replacing crucial human elements of education. As Marwa noted, “We all had maybe a good teacher in our life that left an impact”—a reminder that technology serves to support, not substitute for, these fundamental human connections.

Co-Creation with Communities: Sustainable educational technology implementation requires meaningful participation from those who will ultimately use and be affected by these technologies. This principle recognizes that stakeholders—students, teachers, parents, and community members—possess crucial knowledge about their own needs, constraints, and aspirations that external experts cannot fully anticipate. Co-creation processes that engage these stakeholders from the earliest stages of design through implementation and evaluation lead to more relevant, appropriate, and effective technological interventions.

The concrete applications of this principle appear consistently across cases. Can’t Wait to Learn involves children in designing games, allowing them to choose characters and game worlds, while teachers and community members contribute to broader design processes. Rebecca described “participatory research” as fundamental to PhET’s approach, emphasizing that “there’s nothing that compares to lived experience.” SLL episodes featuring student voices—from Nepal to Afghanistan—reveal perspectives that expert designers simply cannot provide. These co-creation processes serve multiple purposes: ensuring technological appropriateness, building stakeholder investment, developing local capacity, and creating more sustainable implementations through shared ownership.

Evidence and Iteration: Effective educational technology implementation combines rigorous evidence-gathering with continuous improvement processes. This principle acknowledges the complexity of educational interventions and the impossibility of perfect initial design. It emphasizes iterative approaches that use various forms of evidence—quantitative measures, qualitative feedback, observational data—to continuously refine technological tools and implementation strategies over time, creating cycles of improvement rather than static solutions.

Marwa articulated this as a three-part process: “context, evidence, iteration,” describing how Can’t Wait to Learn uses both randomized controlled trials and qualitative feedback to continuously improve their approach. This evidence serves multiple purposes—understanding program effectiveness, making improvements, and advocating with governments and partners for scaling successful approaches. Similarly, Rebecca described PhET’s “crowdsourced research on multiple levels,” from discipline-based research on common learning difficulties to ongoing interviews with users throughout the design process. Both approaches recognize the tension between different forms of evidence, seeking complementary insights from quantitative metrics and human stories to inform developmental iterations.

Conclusion

As I reflect on these initiatives—Can’t Wait to Learn, PhET Interactive Simulations, and the numerous innovations documented through Silver Lining for Learning—I am struck by the consistency of principles that guide effective educational technology implementation across diverse contexts. These six principles—context-driven innovation, bottom-up approaches, resilience and adaptation, technology as enabler, co-creation with communities, and evidence-based iteration—provide a framework for thoughtful implementation that centers human needs and local contexts rather than technological capabilities or external agendas.

My experience moderating the Yidan panel reinforced what five years of moderating conversations on SLL have taught me: as educational technology evolves toward increasingly sophisticated AI applications and immersive environments, these principles become even more essential. Perhaps most significantly, these initiatives challenge our assumptions about where educational innovation originates, revealing that some of the most creative approaches emerge from resource-constrained environments where necessity drives invention.

By recognizing and amplifying these bottom-up approaches, educational leaders and policymakers can foster more equitable, effective, and contextually responsive technological implementations. The combined insights from the Yidan Prize winners and the extensive SLL archive offer valuable guidance for navigating the complex intersection of technology and education in an increasingly digital but persistently unequal global landscape.