What we found

1. There are promising tools and learnings to take from the interventions within this review. To adjust these interventions in line with specific environments needs more research and discussion.
2. Many EdTech initiatives do not adapt programmes sufficiently for fragility, conflict and violence (FCV) settings and have limited impact. This list has selected interventions which explicitly target these spaces.
3. Various interventions are focused on ‘​hardware dumping’​ despite the lack of evidence on hardware alone enhancing learning outcomes. This is particularly problematic in situations with lack of access to power and connectivity.
4. The evidence for technology supporting out-of-school children in FCV settings within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is scarce. However, there are some regional EdTech programmes with linguistically relevant content that could be adapted for delivery in the MENA region.
5. There is a lack of effective interventions targeting marginalised children in FCV settings. However, interventions without technology, such as community engagement and teacher professional development play and important role in FCV settings. We have included several such interventions which address equity issues in our review.
6. There is a lack of impact data in FCV settings that clouds the picture around successes and learnings from specific projects (​ Tauson & Stannard, 2018)​.
7. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several resources targeting education in FCV contexts have been published. They give clear and practical frameworks for practitioners and policymakers. The literature on distance learning in FCV contexts will continue to grow.