Teacher Trainees’ Perspectives on the Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning in Forced Displacement Contexts

Introduction and situating the problem in the aftermath of COVID-19

Introducing educational technology (EdTech) and distance and online learning in low resource environments requires a deep understanding of the different multimodal forms of teaching and learning, the environment’s infrastructure, the availability of low-cost-effective technology, and addressing the knowledge needs among the teachers (UNESCO 2021; West 2023; Bouchey, Castek & Thygeson 2021; Chuag 2021; United Nations Children’s Fund and International Telecommunication Union 2020). Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic point that it is possible to expeditiously prepare, adapt, adopt, and implement educational technology. However, it is also necessary to map out the available infrastructure alongside making careful considerations around the digital divide before any technology-based teaching-learning approaches, tools, and further infrastructure are designed and implemented to reduce inequalities (West 2023; Nesamoney, Darmstadt & Wise 2021; Nicolai, Wilson & Jefferies 2021; Munoz-Najar et al. 2021; Banati, Jones & Yousef 2020; Gichuhi et al. 2020). The utilisation of EdTech has emerged as a prominent topic of debate and discussion in policy agendas, particularly about the preparedness of the education sector to respond to crises effectively. It thus became an appealing topic and approach within the context of forced displacement, which is the focus of this paper and will be discussed in the next section.

The indefinite nature of forced displacement renders investment in education a complex issue (Dryden-Peterson 2017; Crawford et al. 2015). The rights and privileges of displaced persons are contingent upon the policies of the host country and the government’s commitment to implementing inclusive measures. In considering the current and future circumstances of displaced persons and strategies for enhancing their livelihoods (Buckland 2005), education providers, donors, and humanitarian practitioners have persistently developed technological solutions to help the displaced persons, albeit with challenges. The discussions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of employing EdTech in contexts of forced displacement (Abu-Ghaida & Silva 2021; Tauson & Stannard 2018) continue to evolve. Proponents perceive technology as enticing, capable of reaching learners in their environments and offering access, retention, and transition to as many children as possible, efficiently and effectively. More critical voices argue that there is a lack of theoretical understanding and methodologies that hinder the understanding of the benefits of EdTech in teaching and learning (Traxler 2018) in different contexts. As such, usage of the tools is happening in an ad hoc manner (Traxler 2017; 2018). Using evidence-based arguments, this paper will contribute to the continued debate and further teacher education discussions in forced displacement contexts.

Use of technology in teaching and learning in forced displacement contexts

Technology has great potential to increase accessibility and inclusivity in education provision by providing personalised experiences that adapt to individual needs and preferences through online learning platforms and virtual classrooms. Furthermore, technology helps to reach hard-to-reach areas and enables both synchronous and asynchronous learning, while simultaneously improving classroom practices and teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of EdTech usage (Haleem et. al. 2022; West 2023; Javaid et al. 2020; Tauson & Stannard 2018). There are different ways that teachers and students can use online learning to meet their needs, even when technology is not working well (UNESCO-UIS, UNICEF, The World Bank and OECD 2022; Mashhadi, Mohammadi Parsa & Sharifian 2020). For example, teachers can create backup plans like the use of offline assignments and recorded resources, using different communication platforms like WhatsApp to stay connected, as well as encouraging collaborative learning using virtual study groups. As smartphones, computers, and tablets continue becoming ubiquitous for students and teachers in many parts of the world, it is not the norm in a forced displacement context. It is uncommon to have a phone or smartphone in these situations, and even for those who do, owning one does not guarantee internet connectivity or online activity. As such, designing and implementing technology-supported programmes must consider the learners and their contexts. Otherwise, some distance and online learning solutions might exacerbate inequalities while trying to mitigate them. Additionally, any technology-based teacher training must consider the opportunities and challenges of EdTech in the design and implementation phases. David et al. (2020), looking at opportunities and constraints of using EdTech in low-income countries, argue that the digital divide is a big problem during crises because learners may not have access to technology or a conducive learning environment. The authors (David et al. 2020) further write that EdTech by itself cannot bridge the learning gaps; additional factors, such as teachers who maintain learning through emergencies, are required. In certain crisis settings, the adoption of educational technology solutions is pursued to address immediate EdTech requirements without undergoing contextual testing or adaptation, potentially resulting in a lack of localised content or language compatibility that hinders effective utilisation (West 2023; Hollow & Jefferies 2022; United Nations 2022; Tauson & Stannard 2018). In addition, the wider infrastructure needed to support EdTech in a classroom environment may not be there, while power and internet outages may interfere with effective distance and online learning. Studies by Shah (2022) and Ramorola (2013) on the use of technology-based teaching and learning in teacher training emphasise preparedness, training, time efficiency, and resources for effective technology integration.

Muthima and Njoroge (2020) focused on a distance learning programme offered in the Dadaab refugee camp. The programme offered technology-enabled access to e-learning where only 44 percent of students interacted with the teachers online. Of the 44 percent, only 6 percent indicated interactions with teachers quite often, whilst a 39 percent majority indicated rarely interacting with teachers. The small numbers may be explained by the fact that the programme had a face-to-face interaction session, (Muthima & Njoroge 2020). However, this finding prompts further examination around, for example, understanding pedagogic approaches used online to enable teacher-student interactions, which was not addressed in the study by Muthima and Njoroge. In another study on the Borderless Higher Education for Refugees (BHER) teacher-based project, students reported technology difficulties connecting to the learning management system due to unreliable internet access (Sork & Boskic 2017). Further to this, Sork and Boskic report environmental and cultural considerations and challenges that affected a well-designed programme. In addition, they recommend continuous monitoring and evaluation of the programme to incorporate emerging technologies, like the use of the WhatsApp platform, that was popular among the students. Similar to Sork and Boskic, in their study in the Kakuma refugee camp, Mendenhall et al. (2018), reported intermittent internet connectivity and access to electricity in the camp during a mobile mentoring teacher professional development project, affecting teachers’ efficacy in programme implementation. While Mendenhall and colleagues (2018) acknowledge both the complexity of implementing a technology-based learning programme and the benefits of such approaches in a forced displacement context, they note that the use of technology should not be used in isolation to other variables like in-person training and peer-to-peer coaching. Therefore, while the available literature posits that internet infrastructure, the digital divide, external factors outside the designed programme and lack of technological literacy remain major barriers to EdTech-based training in forced displacement contexts, implementing technology-based teacher training programmes should be happening in combination with other strong pedagogical approaches such as mentoring and peer to peer coaching.

The next section focuses on the demand for teachers in crisis contexts, particularly within the Kenyan context.

The complexity of teachers and teaching in forced displacement contexts in Kenya

As the global number of crises continues to rise, so does the demand for teachers for displaced children. In the Kenyan context, the Kakuma, Dadaab refugee camps, and Kalobeyei Integrated Settlements are hosting around 85 percent of Kenya’s refugee and asylum seeker populations. As documented (Diarra 2023; Njue 2020), primary school access, retention, completion, and performance as well as transition rates to secondary schools (that will also have a negative ripple effect to higher education) remain poor in forced displacement contexts. As the UNHCR Refugee Education 2030 Strategy sets out the goal of achieving parity in access to education at the pre-primary, primary, and secondary levels between refugees and non-refugees and increasing access to tertiary education for refugees to 15 percent (UNHCR 2019), the demand for trained teachers is critical and urgent. Teachers are critical for the interdependence of the various levels of education to function smoothly and feed on each other. However, there are systematic loopholes in the parallel system of education in forced displacement contexts that inhibit progress (Abu-Ghaida & Silva 2021). In the forced displacement camps in Kenya, teachers who are refugees themselves (refugee teachers) make up approximately 93 percent of the workforce in refugee schools (West et al. 2022). Considering the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) (TSC 2023) teacher recruitment criteria and standards, West and colleagues (2022) found that over half of the teachers in the camps do not have the appropriate credentials to teach and are unlikely to join teacher training colleges because of low Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) scores. An interesting finding by West et al. (2022) concerning the BHER programme offered in the Dadaab camp is that despite refugee teachers studying alongside Kenyan teachers and getting a diploma, TSC only recognised the Kenyan teachers’ diplomas. This affects the motivation of refugees’ teachers to remain committed to teaching even when they are trained. Lack of recognition therefore, creates a scenario of continuous recruitment of untrained and non-recognised teachers for many organisations and government (Muchunguh 2023; United Nations 2023; Carlos 2022) offering a parallel education system in the displaced contexts in Kenya.

The study presented in this paper examined the perspectives of pre-service teacher trainees in Kenya studying for a Diploma in Teacher Education in Emergencies (DiTEIE) (see the next section). The study considered teacher trainees from Kakuma, and Dadaab refugee camps and host communities in Kenya. It focused on the availability and integration of technology to facilitate synchronous and asynchronous day-to-day learning experiences of teacher trainees.

The Diploma in Teacher Education in Emergencies (DiTEIE) Programme at the University of Nairobi

The University of Nairobi, having implemented a ‘Master’s in Education in Emergencies’ programme for over a decade, conducted an informal assessment in 2017 and 2018 (University of Nairobi, Internal Workshop Proceedings 2018) to identify existing teacher education gaps in the context of forced displacement, involving various stakeholders and crisis education experts. A gap in teacher education at the primary and secondary levels was identified in this process. As a result, and to build on the implementation success of the existing Master’s in Education in Emergencies, in 2018, the university began creating a teacher education programme focusing on crisis contexts. Initially, the plan was to follow a traditional approach to educational provision, where students would come to the university in person, as in other university programmes. However, Kenya’s encampment policy means refugees are not mobile and cannot access schools and colleges of their choice (Njogu 2017). On the other hand, the cost of sending university lecturers to refugee camps is prohibitively expensive and requires several logistics, including regular access to camps from various departments. During the new programme design, these factors, alongside other factors imposed by the COVID-19 outbreak, were taken into account. A decision was made to develop a 2-year diploma programme to reach the teacher trainees in their space and allow them to learn flexibly, hence following a pedagogic approach that included both asynchronous (independent learning) and synchronous sessions (i.e., 2-hour weekly sessions). Further, the department, with permission from university management, chose Google Classroom because of its user-friendly nature and it is accessible through different devices, including mobile phones. In addition, for the 2-hour weekly sessions, the Zoom platform was chosen.

The DiTEIE programme was launched in 2022, and the first cohort was based on a full scholarship approach. The programme has been part of the African Higher Education in Emergencies Network (AHEEN),¹ and the implementation was done through a collaboration of the University of Nairobi, the Management Development Foundation (MDF) (the grant holder), and Youth Education and Sports (YES), a refugee-led organisation that supports students in the refugee camps. The programme was originally planned for refugees from Kakuma and Dadaab with the prerequisite qualifications. However, there were no qualified female refugees to join the programme, and therefore, as per the donors’ gender requirements of an inclusive class, the university recruited female students from the host communities. The initial cohort drew 15 students: six from Kakuma (male), three from Dadaab (male), and six from host communities (5 female and 1 male). The first cohort completed and graduated in September 2024.

It should be emphasised that the majority of the lecturers chosen to teach the programme were unfamiliar with the refugee context. It was thus necessary to organise preparation workshops on topics such as an introduction to the refugee context and the foundational education in emergencies, terms, and scenarios; enhancing the curriculum with refugee context and examples; pedagogical skills for teaching a refugee student; preparing content to be delivered asynchronously; and aligning provision and content to the then-newly launched competency-based curriculum. Additionally, teacher trainees and some lecturers had minimal experience with using the selected technology (i.e. Google Classroom) in their teaching, hence this was also covered in the workshops. The training was offered upon the launch of the programme, and the training continued throughout the implementation period. The study presented here did not directly target the university lecturers involved in the DiTEIE and it is thus beyond the scope of this paper to cover this training. It should be noted that the author (and lead researcher) also served in the role of the academic lead of the programme and provided the forced displacement context perspectives throughout the design and implementation period.

In what follows, the methodological aspects of the study are presented.

Methodology

This study utilises a mixed-methods case study approach to explore the students’ perspectives of their teaching-learning experiences in the programme, the support given by different key stakeholders in the programme, the EdTech tools’ availability and their efficacy, as well as the level of usage of EdTech before and during the learning process. The programme had 15 students registered and they were all targeted for this survey. For triangulation purposes, 5 trainees were sampled for interview using a stratified sampling method. Due to financial² and practical aspects related to accessing the refugee camps online survey questionnaires and telephone interviews were preferred. Data collection took 3 weeks between June and July 2023. The survey questionnaire, consisting of closed and open-ended questions, was distributed online to all participants after the completion of their second semester. The telephone interviews were conducted two days after the completion of the online questionnaire. The interview schedule mainly consisted of probing questions of “how” and “why” that were drawn from the survey questionnaire. Nine (60 percent) students responded to the survey, while four trainees were successfully interviewed, as one declined citing personal reasons (total of 4 interviews).

This being a case study, there was an opportunity to capture the context and lived reality of the study’s small number of participants. However, some limitations related to data collection and reaching out to the trainees were experienced. The interview time took longer than planned (one hour and half), but this is not unusual given the context and trainees’ professional commitments. Additionally, out of fifteen survey participants, four trainees had requested any communication to be done through WhatsApp, which meant being online for them to participate. This was affected by internet bandwidth and electricity. The fact that the lead researcher was also the programme lead and the interviewer, may have created reluctance to participate among trainees. Additionally, this may have affected trainees in expressing their views about their experiences. Although the participants of this study came from two distinct locations (refugee camps and host communities), the analysis presented in this paper does not differentiate between these aspects, but this is something that further studies may be able to do.

The paper integrates basic descriptive statistics based on the questionnaire survey and thematic analysis from the interviews in the next section before offering conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and the literature in the debate.

Analysis and discussion

The analysis below points to teacher trainees’ use of EdTech during their studies and challenges they faced and provides insights about the implementation of the programme. Before delving into the core findings, the student profiles, including teaching experiences, are first presented.

Students’ profiles and teaching-learning experiences

Of those who responded (5 male and 4 female), four were from Kakuma refugee camps, and five were from the host communities. The interview had a mix of Kakuma (2), all males, and host communities (2), one male and one female.

To evaluate the study’s goal, the researcher sought to know the teaching experience of the teacher trainees before joining the programme. This was important in informing the researcher whether the gaps, challenges, and lessons learnt were related only to the programme. Figure 1 shows the years of experience.

Figure 1

Of the nine survey respondents, 2 (22.2 percent) had more than 10 years of experience, 4 (44.4 percent) had less than 5 years of experience, 1 (11.1 percent) had more than 5 years of experience, and the rest (22.2 percent) had none. Through an open-ended question on the pedagogy approaches used before joining the programme, those trainees with teaching experience expressed and shared different experiences. Five admitted that their pedagogical techniques were detached from the realities in the camps and in remote areas. One of the male teacher trainees with more than 6 years of teaching experience, remarked in the survey that:

“I have never been trained in pedagogical skills or basic skills in classroom management, and at no time did I know I could learn to be an effective teacher through virtual platforms. Using technology to facilitate the development of pedagogical skills is best for us in the refugee camps that are not likely to have physical classes from the University of Nairobi. I can easily communicate with teachers and peers in real time using available digital technologies” [Survey, Teacher Trainee, Male 1].

This was an encouraging finding noting that this was a pioneer class to the programme. The researcher was also interested in knowing about distance and online class preferences.

EdTech tools used by students in supporting teaching and learning

The survey analysis showed that 5 trainees (56 percent) use laptops, 2 (22 percent) use mobile phones, 2 (22 percent) use tablets, and none use desktops in their studies (see Figure 2). Of the 2 respondents who used tablets, they were all from Kakuma refugee camp.

Figure 2

As noted above, 2 students (22 percent) used mobile phones in their studies. According to them, although mobile phones can create a lot of distractions, and some have a low capacity to hold and store all the materials, they are easier to carry, and they help avoid the risk of carrying laptops everywhere. This was noted mainly by those trainees who walk long distances from work. During one of the interviews, one trainee remarked on why she prefers to use a mobile phone despite being issued with a laptop:

“Even though I have a laptop, I find it difficult to carry it on a day-to-day basis, and I prefer to use it only when I am at home. Otherwise, I may lose it along the way to and from my teaching school”. [ Interview Participant, Teacher Trainee, Female 1].

What this evidence may show is a tension between what the university lecturers who were teaching on the programme envisaged and the reality in practice. During the 2-hour synchronous class, some students expressed frustration in writing assignments that needed diagrams or tables, especially when using their mobile phones This finding confirms that educating forcibly displaced teacher trainees online may present complex and diverse challenges regarding what is expected and what may be happening in practice. For example, it is likely that by offering online/distance learning programmes, some students will access these on their mobile phones, thus some considerations need to be made in advance around designing online content that is mobile-friendly. Also, universities should be mindful of issues around safety and security when providing equipment to refugees and other students, as expressed in the quotes above. This further points to the need for monitoring the progress throughout the implementation period and bringing relevant expertise at the outset of designing such programmes so decision-makers (e.g. university level) are aware of what is happening on the ground.

The study findings further noted that the department had chosen Zoom platforms for synchronous classes, which was formally supported and recommended by the university. One major advantage of Zoom is that it can support huge classrooms as well as supporting virtual lecture recordings for offline purposes. Although the survey analysis noted that all 9 participants chose Zoom platforms for the 2-hour synchronous class over Google Meet, given the small number of DiTEIE students, some teachers would occasionally use Google Meet, which normally has a free version but unlike Zoom, does not enable recording. This, however, caused students to switch back and forth between those platforms. According to the survey findings, this situation caused mixed feelings among the students and led to confusion as to what tool to use at any given time, as often this shift was happening without notice. On the question of the preferred platform to use during synchronous classes, one participant commented:

“During our pre-orientation, the university introduced us to Zoom and Google Classroom, as well as forming a WhatsApp group for convenience in studying and communicating. These three platforms are familiar to me. Every time a teacher shifts the synchronous class to the Google Meet platform within a few minutes of commencing, this creates confusion every time different teachers oscillate between Zoom and Google Meet. I always miss the class when a different teacher chooses to use Google Meet. This is because it requires me to download the app, and my phone has a low memory” [Survey, Teacher Trainee, Female 1].

The author (lead researcher), as both a lecturer and the programme coordinator, noted that some lecturers preferred to use Google Meet due a variety of factors. The Google Meet free version was convenient and more accessible to them compared to Zoom, because using Zoom required prior arrangement with the ICT department to access it. Such liaison with the ICT department added to their workload and the time needed to prepare a session, and involved dependency on another ICT person/unit for things to work well.

On the question on the use of Google Classroom, the survey analysis shows that all 9 participants expressed satisfaction with the choice of Google Classroom for asynchronous classes. This aligns with literature reporting that the use of Google Classroom is widely acceptable in asynchronous classes because it is flexible, free, mobile smartphone friendly and easy to use (Wong 2023; Setiawati & Prakarsa 2021; Zakaria et al. 2021). One survey participant noted that “though it requires a reliable internet connection, Google Classroom distinctiveness and user-friendly nature, allows flexible submission of assignments, peer-to-peer and teacher-student interactions and discussions effortlessly” [Survey Participant, Teacher Trainee, Male 1]. However, to participate, one must always have either a laptop/tablet or a smartphone and a strong internet, which however:

“Is not always the case especially in Kakuma [camp] where internet is not always available, and this makes us lag behind in meeting assignment deadlines” [Interview Participant, Teacher Trainee, Male 1].

The survey analysis further reveals that it was possible for most of the trainees to collaborate in group assignments asynchronously on Google Classroom. One participant however, expressed a caution on this during his interview:

“Sometimes it takes long to clear some misconceptions and misunderstandings if for example a lecturer doesn’t respond in good time or if the 2-hour class for the lecturer is postponed” [Interview Participant, Teacher Trainee, Male 1].

In an open-ended question, a female participant corroborated this point that having only one synchronous class per week was too few, especially for some technical subjects that required more time and for some students who were simultaneously learning new technology while also being expected to implement it in class. This is captured with the following quote:

“I would perform better if synchronous classes were increased to at least twice per week to allow us to interact with lecturers much more in technical units such as research, mathematics, and technology usage, particularly for first-time students in asynchronous digital classrooms who are learning technology usage while implementing it in the classroom” [Survey Participant, Teacher Trainee Female 1].

Taking these into consideration, what the university could consider doing is to increase trainee-lecturer contact hours during synchronous classes to offer more support to trainees, where needed.

Further, the analysis of the survey shows that WhatsApp is the preferred tool among the participants. In response to a question on the choice of a day-to-day interactions and communication media, all 9 participants indicated their preference for WhatsApp. One notable participant remarked that WhatsApp:

“Is the most popular communication app that can be used for both social and educational interactions simultaneously. With data for as little as 0.1 of a dollar, I can share documents, videos, or even send audio to my peers, and they can give feedback in real-time” [Interview Participant, Teacher Trainee, Male 1].

During the interview session, all 4 participants confirmed the popularity of WhatsApp as a medium of choice especially because all the students and lecturers have WhatsApp on their phones. Since the inception of the programme, both lecturers and trainees have agreed to interact on WhatsApp. One participant remarked:

“WhatsApp group chats help us to have real-time communication and interactions either as a group or as individuals. WhatsApp has also helped to debunk the belief that university lecturers don’t freely chat with students. I was surprised that lecturers could answer my questions even at night. Lecturers shared materials, assignments efficiently and even sending prompt reminders to submission of assignments” [Interview Participant, Teacher Trainee, Female 1].

Though WhatsApp remains popular among students, it can be a challenge in contexts that have unstable internet connectivity, lack of bundles and access to electricity. As mentioned earlier, most of the students reported a lack of consistency in submitting assignments especially where power is only available through generators in the camp, an issue that is documented in the literature too (Motteram, Dawson & Al-Masri 2020; Mendenhall et al. 2018; Nedungadi, Mulki & Raman 2018).

Conclusion

The paper centred on the technological insights and views of teacher-trainees engaged in a diploma programme stationed in Kenya’s refugee camps and host communities. The diploma programme is the first asynchronous diploma programme in the university and one of the few university programmes worldwide offered in a camp. As such, the paper provides great insights into the design, development, and implementation of such a programme. Given the findings, a blended approach with synchronous and asynchronous characteristics is a viable option in forced displacement situations and host communities in remote regions. However, within the context the trainees were operating, we cannot conclusively say they were able to set their own pace in studying, especially in Kakuma where trainees were required to travel to the YES centre for internet and electricity. Since training on usage of technology was ongoing during the implementation period, and many students were learning while still submitting assignments, preparedness is paramount before any implementation of such a programme. Therefore, any future university programmes must consider testing materials and platforms before implementation to avoid costly technical mistakes while incorporating continuous monitoring and regular exchanges with all the programme stakeholders.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.