South Africa’s public education system continues to grapple with deep-rooted, persistent barriers that demand far greater urgency than the rollout of education technology (EdTech) –which has yet to have a meaningful impact on the country’s foundational skills crisis.

Some European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, have even attributed regressions in literacy among young learners to overreliance on digital tools, prompting them to scale back screen time in early grades and return to paper-based learning with printed textbooks and handwriting practice.

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2021 report, an internationally recognised assessment by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), placed South African Grade 4 learners last out of 57 countries. This marked a further decline from the 2016 edition (average score dropping from 320 to 288), while nearly 4 million South African adults remain functionally illiterate.

Marco Maree, Training & Development Expert at Triple E Training, South Africa’s premier provider of workplace and community literacy and numeracy programmes for industry, argues that the evidence base for EdTech’s impacts remains weak.

“This aligns with UNESCO’s 2023 Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms? Report. It highlights mixed evidence, scarce impartial research, risks of exclusion and underutilisation, proposing a human-centred vision with four key questions for policymakers: Is EdTech appropriate, equitable, scalable and sustainable?” Maree says.

Decoding the reading reckoning

An urgent national priority is the alarmingly low levels of foundational literacy and numeracy, with 81% of Grade 4 learners unable to read for meaning in any language, according to PIRLS 2021.

This stems largely from inadequate reading pedagogy, contributing to what experts have long described as a “cognitive catastrophe” – a profound failure in building essential reasoning foundations that affects lifelong learning and development.

“While EdTech offers promising tools like adaptive platforms, digital libraries, and AI-personalised learning in specific contexts, it cannot directly resolve this crisis,” he says.

Maree, therefore, calls for a comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy. This includes strengthened teacher training in evidence-based reading instruction, access to high-quality printed and age-appropriate resources. “There must also be a deliberate cultivation of a widespread reading culture among learners, families, and communities,” he says, referring to his own experience working in poorer communities where illiteracy is especially high. “Reading is simply not a priority in these areas,” he says.

Europe reboots with books

The South African Department of Basic Education aims to equip schools with more than 540 000 learner devices and 30 800 teacher devices. While policy targets 100% information and communication technology-capable learners by 2025, implementation faces rural infrastructure gaps, device obsolescence, and funding limitations. This has led to reliance on hybrid and offline solutions, approaches now favoured by many European countries.

In Sweden, the government has halted mandatory digital device use in preschools and plans to end digital learning entirely for children under six, following evidence that an “all-out embrace” of tablets and laptops hindered reading comprehension. This is based on research undertaken by Karolinska Institutet, one of the world’s leading medical universities that continues to support literacy projects.

In Spain’s Madrid region, individual digital devices are banned for more than 500 000 students aged 12 and younger, returning focus to handwriting and printed materials.

The United Kingdom’s Department for Education has issued guidance urging fully phone-free school environments throughout the day. Meanwhile, the Netherlands reached consensus to ban mobile phones, tablets, and smartwatches in classrooms from 2024. France’s 2018 law restricts phone use in primary and middle schools, with extensions to some high schools.

Paper trail of evidence

Multiple meta-analyses and studies demonstrate that reading from physical books often leads to superior comprehension, retention, and deeper engagement compared to digital formats.

This reinforces the Karolinska Institute’s clear scientific evidence that shows digital tools can “impair rather than enhance learning, advocating for printed textbooks and teacher-led methods.”

A 2024 meta-analysis of 49 studies in the Review of Educational Research found students scored higher on comprehension tests with print materials, citing a “screen inferiority effect” where digital reading impairs retention and understanding.

University of Valencia research, which involved over 450 000 participants, concluded print reading boosts comprehension skills six to eight times more than digital over extended periods. “If students spend 10 hours reading books on paper, their comprehension will probably be six to eight times greater than if they read on digital devices for the same amount of time,” it noted.

A 2018 Educational Research Review meta-analysis identified better mental mapping via spatial cues like page turning, reduced distractions, and enhanced focus as key reasons – leading to stronger empathy and critical analysis.

A 2021 study on English foreign language learners showed physical books excelled in inferential comprehension and retention, with brain imaging confirming print activates emotion- and spatial-related regions more effectively.

Meanwhile, a study undertaken in Sweden in 2024 found slight advantages for paper-based reading in comprehension especially for the same text, though effects vary by pedagogy, design, and context. Computers & Education: The role of technology in reading literacy: Is Sweden going back or moving forward by returning to paper-based reading? notes contradictory global information and communication technology impacts but supports limited evidence for reverting in early grades.

Code to success

Maree acknowledges evidence that digital solutions, if properly implemented, can improve reading skills, but notes that they must address genuine challenges in context-appropriate ways to serve learners, teachers, and systems rather than treating education as a product market.

“Simply providing devices – “box dropping” – will not automatically improve learning,” he says. “There have been instances where technology has been introduced without curriculum integration. It is no wonder teachers struggle to see the value and use these tools effectively –they are already overwhelmed and now face additional pressures.”

South Africa’s unique challenges, such as overcrowding, low bandwidth, irregular electricity especially in outlying areas, mean many international technologies are ill-suited. The full nationwide rollout is estimated at R30,6 billion, a figure the National Treasury deems unaffordable, resulting in phased provincial efforts.

Maree adds that EdTech’s short- and long-term costs, including infrastructure, training, maintenance, data, privacy risks, and digital divides, are also frequently underestimated. This needs to be factored into planning when considering that many of South Africa’s schools are already facing financial challenges. “There has been notable underspending in the country education system over the past two decades,” he says.

Foundations first, technology second

Ultimately, South Africa’s path out of its foundational skills crisis lies not in chasing digital silver bullets, but in recommitting to proven, evidence-based fundamentals: skilled teachers, quality printed resources, handwriting practice, and a culture that values deep, focused reading. While EdTech has a role when thoughtfully integrated, it cannot substitute for addressing the basics first.

As Maree concludes: “The only way we will solve this problem is to ensure citizens have access to proper skills development programmes that build solid foundations – because without literacy and numeracy as the bedrock, no amount of technology can bridge the gap to lifelong learning and economic participation.”