This chapter examines policies to promote quality and innovation in the markets for education technology (EdTech) and education materials in the Netherlands. It reviews the main features of the Dutch context and examines the role that central authorities play in upholding key public values, such as privacy, transparency, ethics and pedagogical diversity, in the design and use of digital education technologies. It analyses the mechanisms in place to foster productive collaboration between developers of digital technologies, researchers and education professionals, and to ensure that innovation is aligned with the needs of schools and teachers. The chapter also reviews the role of public investment, standards and interoperability frameworks in shaping dynamics in the EdTech and education materials markets. The chapter identifies the systems’ associated strengths and challenges and concludes with recommendations designed to promote innovation and further strengthen the quality of digital education resources available to Dutch schools.
OECD Review of Digital Education Policy in the Netherlands
Abstract
The Dutch education system rests on the constitutional principle of the freedom of education, whereby anyone has the right to open a school, to determine its ethos and guiding principles (religious, philosophical or pedagogical) and to decide how to organise their teaching and school-based curricula (Chapter 1). The freedom of education extends to schools’ autonomy in choosing their education materials and resources, including digital resources and EdTech products.1 Although the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, OCW) is responsible for setting and ensuring quality standards and overarching educational objectives (through the Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het Onderwijs] and core objectives [kerndoelen] established by the Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development [SLO]), it does not offer, approve or require schools to implement a specific national curriculum or to use particular education materials or resources. Thus, in the Netherlands, schools alone are responsible for choosing learning materials aligned with their pedagogical approach and, by extension, for assessing their quality. The Netherlands is also one of the few OECD countries in which learning materials are not provided through central public platforms (OECD, 2023, pp. 138, Table 5.2[1]).
This decentralised approach has important consequences for the EdTech products and education materials that are available to schools in the Netherlands. It affects the way in which these products are developed, marketed and procured, as well as any strategies to ensure the quality of products and learning materials used in classrooms. The high market concentration around big publishing companies also raises barriers to entry for new and smaller market players, which in turn risks reducing innovative and bottom-up approaches to the co-creation of digital or technology-enhanced products. The decentralised nature of the system also makes it harder for teachers and school leaders to get a full overview of the resources available, to evaluate and to compare them (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023[2]).
Strategies to promote quality and innovation in EdTech and education materials
The Dutch Digitalisation Strategy was published in 2018 and updated in 2021 (Government of the Netherlands, 2021[3]). The strategy takes a whole-of-government approach to the digital transformation, setting out ambitions and actions across sectors, ranging from agriculture and energy to education and industry. The strategy’s actions span seven domains: artificial intelligence, data, digital skills and inclusion, digital connectivity, digital resilience, digital government, and digitalisation in decision making at all operational levels (see Chapter 2).
The Digitalisation Strategy is complemented by the education-specific 2019 Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (OCW, 2019[4]). The Digitalisation Agenda was developed by OCW, in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (EZK), the Primary Education Council (PO-Raad), the Secondary Education Council (VO-raad) and Kennisnet. It describes ambitions and corresponding actions to promote quality and innovation in digital education, guided by five goals: 1) Teachers, school principals and administrators innovate by learning together and with others; 2) Pupils and teachers are digitally literate; 3) Digital learning resources work for the user; 4) Infrastructure is secure, reliable and future-proof; and 5) There is a sustained focus on the ethics of digitalisation in education. Taken together, the Digitalisation Strategy and Agenda have important implications for the government’s efforts to support quality and innovation in the markets for EdTech and digital education materials. They provide strategic directions for efforts to equip schools with high-quality digital infrastructure and devices, and promote innovation while placing a strong focus on the ethics of digitalisation (OECD, 2023[5]).
A complementary strategic document, which builds on the 2021 Digitalisation Strategy – the Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda – was released in 2022 and updated in 2024 (BZK, 2024[6]). The Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda particularly emphasises the need to ensure that digitalisation aligns with core public values, such as fairness, inclusion, transparency and accountability. It specifically addresses the ethical and societal impacts of digitalisation and stresses the need for a digital transformation that advances technological capabilities while reinforcing democratic values and protecting citizens' rights.
The Netherlands is among the OECD countries that have proactively responded to the challenges and opportunities brought on by the rise of AI by addressing it across both the Digitalisation Strategy and the education-specific Digitalisation Agenda as well as by developing a Strategic Action Plan for AI (see Table 4.1). The EZK’s Strategic Action Plan for AI addresses both its implications for education and its ethical dimensions, underlining the importance of digital literacy to ensure that students learn how to use AI in an informed and responsible manner, and ensuring that the use of AI in education is guided by public values, trust, open competitive markets, consumer protection and security (OECD, 2023[1]; EZK, 2019[7]).
Source: Porayska-Pomsta, Holmes & Littlejohn (forthcoming), Report on AI strategies and recommendations for the British Council 2023 [working title].
The priority areas outlined across these strategic documents in the Netherlands are essential for shaping digital education and promoting quality, equity and efficiency through digital technologies (OECD, 2023[8]). They highlight a policy agenda focussed on investing in digital infrastructure for schools, establishing interoperability and procurement standards, and providing guidelines for EdTech, education materials and ethics compliance. The development, evaluation and deployment of digital technologies, including AI-driven products, are supported and implemented through various agencies and initiatives, including Edu-V, Digital Safe Education (Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs DVO), SIVON, Kennisnet, SLO and the National Education Lab AI (Nationaal Onderwijslab AI, NOLAI).
The Dutch education technology sector
Education technology is a growing sector in the Netherlands, involving technology-oriented start-ups and increasing interest and investment from traditional education materials publishing companies. Dutch EdTech is a network of Dutch education technology companies, which was established in 2021 to promote investment and innovation in education technologies as well as their internationalisation and collaboration within the wider education technology ecosystem in the Netherlands. According to the network, the Dutch EdTech sector has seen substantial growth over the past few years. It estimates that the number of EdTech companies increased from 406 to 475 between 2021 and 2024, with total valuations rising from USD 1.3 billion to USD 1.8 billion and the estimated workforce growing from 2.5 thousand to 11 thousand FTE staff members over the same period (see Figure 4.1).
Based on industry estimates
Source: Dutch EdTech (2024[9]), The State of the Dutch EdTech Ecosystem 2024, https://dutchedtech.com (accessed on 1 October 2025).
One industry estimate suggests that the Netherlands ranked 5th in Europe by EdTech funding in 2023, following the fourfold increase in the valuation of Dutch EdTech companies starting in 2021 (Dutch EdTech, 2024[9]). The dominant segments within the Dutch EdTech market, attracting the most start-ups and funding, are upskilling (workforce transformation) and digital learning environments. Other important areas include STEAM education, immersive tech, language learning, tutoring, and assessment and verification (see Box 4.1 for examples of Dutch EdTech products).
The Netherlands has a vibrant and diverse EdTech sector with products and platforms being developed to support learning and teaching across different ages and subjects. Some examples include:
Snappet (https://snappet.org/): An adaptive learning platform for primary schools that helps teachers to provide personalised instruction across different subjects such as mathematics, language and spelling. It utilises learning analytics to track students’ progress in real-time, which supports interactive teaching, immediate feedback and varied tasks for different skill levels.
Squla (https://www.squla.nl/): A widely adopted platform for children aged 4 to 12, combining gamification, adaptive learning and interactive multimedia. The platform personalises content to each student’s skill level using adaptive algorithms, while offering real-time feedback to reinforce learning. The platform is cloud-based to facilitate accessibility and scalability.
Grasple (https://www.grasple.com/): A platform designed to support higher education institutions by offering tools for collaborative learning and content sharing. Its features emphasise reliability and collaboration, enabling educators to co-create and share open educational resources efficiently. Grasple focusses on enhancing the learning experience through accessible, high-quality content tailored to higher education needs.
Mr. Chadd (https://www.mrchadd.nl/): A digital, on-demand homework assistance platform, established in 2014. The platform specialises in providing personalised support for high school students across the Benelux region, connecting them with university-educated subject experts through its online platform and mobile app.
Source: OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en; Dutch EdTech (2021[10]), The State of the Dutch EdTech Ecosystem 2021, https://dutchedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-State-of-the-Dutch-Edtech-Ecosystem-2021-Created-by-Dutch-Edtech-Dealroom_V3.pdf.
The Dutch EdTech sector is considered to be one of the most dynamic in the European Union and an industry survey conducted by the European Edtech Alliance found it to have one of the highest numbers of active EdTech organisations across EU countries (European Edtech Alliance, 2023[11]). Between 2019 and 2023, the Netherlands has increased its share of the European EdTech market from an estimated 1.8% to 8.1% (Dutch EdTech, 2024[9]). However, despite the large number of Dutch EdTech firms, their overall investment and market size is small compared to, for example, the United States or the United Kingdom. Considering that some estimates project the global education and training market to reach a size of USD 10 trillion by 2030 and project an increasing share of it to be spent on digital technology (HolonIQ, 2024[12]), the Dutch EdTech sector could see significant growth if it remains competitive globally.
The Dutch EdTech sector faces increasing competition from global players, such as Google or Microsoft, as well as from established domestic publishing companies that are transitioning into the EdTech market. Both hold a strong position in the market by virtue of their ability to provide schools with platforms of integrated services (e.g. Google Classrooms), or – in the case of publishers – through their long history of providing subject-specific curriculum resources for Dutch schools. These factors, alongside the fragmented demand side, make it difficult for new actors in the education technology market to penetrate it and remain competitive.
The Netherlands has committed significant public funding to supporting the development of education technology. These efforts have been both direct (e.g. by funding NOLAI to promote the multi-stakeholder co-creation of digital education technologies from prototypes to final products) and indirectly (e.g. by strengthening the security and interoperability environment for the use of technologies with initiatives such as Edu-V and DVO). The Dutch government has also sought to strengthen the EdTech sector as a whole by supporting the Dutch EdTech network (see further below).
The Dutch education materials sector
The production and dissemination of education materials in the Netherlands has long been dominated by a group of established Dutch publishers, such as Malmberg, Noordhoff and ThiemeMeulenhoff, alongside distributors, including Heutink and Rolf Groep (at the primary level) and TLN/VanDijk, Iddink or OsingadeJong (at the secondary level) (see Chapter 3). The large publishers are estimated to account for more than 80% of the learning materials market in the Netherlands (Kennisnet, 2023[13]). The sector is represented by the Dutch Association of Educational, Professional and Scientific Publishers (Media voor Educatie Vak en Wetenschap, MEVW), the Association of Digital Education Service Providers (Vereniging Digitale Onderwijs Dienstverleners, VDOD) and the Association of Educational Distributors Netherlands (Vereniging Educatieve Distributeurs Nederland, VEDN).
The major publishing companies, traditionally known for producing paper-based text- and exercise books, are now transitioning to hybrid models that blend digital and physical resources (known as the “LiFo” model, short for Licentie-Folio). The shift to digital education materials has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and coincided with the increasing use of digital devices in classrooms. Although official data on publishers’ revenues by product is not available, stakeholders during the OECD visit suggested that the majority of their revenue is derived from hybrid products and as much as 30% may be derived from purely digital products. Although the publishers are generally perceived as distinct from the EdTech sector, their offering now includes interactive tools, exercises and AI-based applications aimed to enhance learners’ personalised experience across educational levels. (Some of the traditional publishers are also represented by Dutch EdTech). Thus, the distinction between digital education resources produced by publishers and EdTech companies is increasingly blurred. The transition to the LiFo model is also raising questions about the future role of distributors because the new formats are reducing the need to return and reuse education materials (Kennisnet, 2023[13]).
The Free Textbooks Act (Wet Gratis Schoolboeken, WGS) was introduced by the Dutch government in 2008 to help remove the financial burden of education materials on parents and ensure students’ equitable access to learning resources. Under this policy, schools receive a lump sum per student to cover the costs of textbooks and other essential materials, which are then provided to students free of charge (see Chapter 3). The WGS was also intended to stimulate competition in the education materials market by encouraging schools to make cost-effective decisions. An evaluation of the WGS conducted in 2021 suggests that, while the WGS has effectively reduced the financial burden of traditional learning materials for parents, the rise of digital learning materials has been driving up costs for schools due to the need for digital devices to use such materials. This in turn has raised equity concerns because many schools rely on parents to purchase digital devices, which are not considered learning materials and therefore not covered by the WGS (Bisschop, van der Wel and Lubberman, 2021[14]). The parents’ association Ouders & Onderwijs and the national students’ association (Landelijk Aktie Komitee Scholieren, LAKS) have been alerting authorities to this issue in recent years (Ouders & Onderwijs, 2024, p. 8[15]; LAKS, 2024[16]).
In addition to the traditional modes of producing and delivering education resources via publishers and education materials distributors, OCW actively promotes the use of open educational resources (OER) and digital learning tools. Kennisnet operates Wikiwijs, a free platform, launched in 2009, which allows teachers to create, share and download teaching materials. To date, the platform contains over 500 000 teaching resources across all subjects and levels of school and vocational education (Kennisnet, 2024[17]). In addition, the Impulse Open Learning Materials (Impuls Open Leermateriaal, IOL) initiative had been launched to support the development of high-quality open educational resources for primary and secondary education as well as to improve the public infrastructure to disseminate and use these resources, in collaboration with Wikiwijs. IOL has been provided with a EUR 20.5 million grant from the National Growth Fund (NGF) until 2024 and an additional EUR 57.5 million, conditionally until 2030 (OCW, 2024[18]). The project involves approximately 40 professionals dedicated to promoting the creation, sharing and use of OER to make them a viable and attractive option for teachers when choosing learning materials.
Standard setting for digital education technologies
There is investment and a clear recognition of the importance of establishing interoperability, certification and purchasing standards to promote quality and innovation in EdTech and education materials in the Netherlands. Interoperability is considered critical to promote quality and innovation in the context of digital education, EdTech and education materials, because it allows for more efficient data-driven decision making, for the reduction of redundant work (e.g. multiple data entries), and for different systems to interact (OECD, 2023, p. 275[1]). Interoperability standards are also considered to be of central importance by many countries to create a level playing field for new providers to enter the market and thus to enable greater competition and choice for schools. In 2025, 22 of 32 jurisdictions participating in the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age addressed the interoperability of digital resources in their central-level strategies for digital education (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 44, Annex Table 1.2[19]).
The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) identifies four layers of interoperability (see Figure 4.2): 1. Technical (i.e. the ability of IT systems and services to communicate and exchange data seamlessly); 2. Semantic (i.e. ensuring that the structure and meaning of data are preserved as it flows across systems by using standardised vocabularies, tagging and metadata to create taxonomies and describe available digital content and educational resources, making it easily searchable and interpretable); 3. Organisational (i.e. aligning processes and responsibilities across institutions to enable collaboration in data sharing and usage); and 4. Legal (i.e. ensuring coherence between laws and regulations governing data usage, security and privacy across different jurisdictions) (European Commission, 2017[20]).
Source: OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en, adapted from European Commission (2017[20]), New European Interoperability Framework: Promoting Seamless Services and Data Flows for European Public Administrations.
Since its publication, many EU countries have relied on the EIF to guide their digital education agendas and strategies for the digitalisation of education. In the Netherlands there is presently a clear, government-supported focus on developing interoperability and procurement standards to enable innovation, to improve access to market by smaller competitors, to widen the choice and flexibility for schools, and to empower teachers to tailor resources and tools to their pedagogical goals and approaches. Most dimensions of the EIF’s interoperability framework (OECD, 2023[1]) are present in Edu-V’s approach to developing interoperability standards, with the exception of a national taxonomy for digital learning resources. This contrasts with other OECD countries, the majority of which use some form of international or national taxonomy for learning resources covering fundamental subjects such as maths (55%) and/or a wider range of subjects (62%) (see Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4).
Number of countries/jurisdictions reporting to use the following taxonomies
Note: Covering 29 countries and jurisdictions with available data.
Source: Reproduced from OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en, Figure 11.2 (https://stat.link/4fyjop).
Edu-V is a public-private partnership organisation, backed by a EUR 34.3 million National Growth Fund allocation from 2022 to 2031. It plays an instrumental role in the development of interoperability standards in the Dutch digital education resources ecosystem (see Chapter 3) (Edu-V, 2024[21]). Edu-V brings together the major organisations of the Dutch school sector and suppliers of digital education resources to collaboratively establish a system of agreements (afsprakenstelsel) and to introduce quality labels for providers of learning materials and services that comply with them (Edu-V, 2023[22]). The agreements focus on enabling the secure, seamless and reliable exchange of data and setting API (application programming interfaces) standards. In developing its agreements, Edu-V prioritises modular, user-centred standards and compliance with data privacy regulations, such as GDPR, emphasising open standards, piloting and knowledge sharing for the sustainable adoption of digital technologies in schools. The goal is to reduce both the effort and risk associated with using digital applications for teaching, reduce fragmentation in the EdTech infrastructure, ensure low barriers to entry for new providers and to enable future-proof education in primary, secondary, vocational and special education needs schools.
In contrast to the technical standards on information security and privacy for schools that have been developed by the Digital Safe Education project (DVO) (see Chapter 3) and which are expected to be legally binding from 2027, Edu-V’s quality labels will be non-binding and initially primarily serve a reputational function. At the time of the OECD review, Edu-V was expecting to introduce its quality labels and implement the first set of agreements with suppliers by the end of 2024. The Netherlands’ use of guidelines on interoperability, rather than binding rules, is in line with about a third of OECD countries. Fewer countries have committed to introducing binding rules on different aspects of interoperability, such as the use of open standards for data and technologies or data portability (see Figure 4.4).
Number of countries and jurisdictions implementing the following rules and guidelines on interoperability
Note: Covering 29 countries and jurisdictions with available data.
Source: Reproduced from OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en, Figure 11.3 (https://stat.link/70mlvh).
The need to align public and private interests in the development of digital education technologies with educators’ and learners’ needs is widely recognised
The Netherlands places a strong emphasis on public-private partnerships and co-creation across the entire digital education ecosystem. This emphasis aims to ensure the alignment between public and private interests in a way that responds to educators’ and learners’ needs and safeguards public values. Programmes like Edu-V and NOLAI are aligned with OCW’s goal to advance digital literacy and to ensure that the tools developed to support digital education serve the public good while promoting inclusivity and accessibility across the digital learning environment.
The Dutch Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education recognises the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and calls for greater co-operation between the education and business communities to promote quality and innovation in EdTech and education materials (OCW, 2019[4]). The Digitalisation Agenda thus acknowledges the need for contributions from a wide range of actors, including educational professionals, scientists, entrepreneurs and policymakers. This is an important commitment to overcoming siloes that ties in with the broader Dutch Digitalisation Strategy’s aim to establish an environment that facilitates multi-stakeholder co-operation (Government of the Netherlands, 2021[3]; OECD, 2023[5]). The main purpose of such co-creation is to develop digital tools and resources based on teachers and learners’ identified needs, rather than technological possibilities for their own sake. In this sense, the Dutch approach to promoting quality and innovation in EdTech also recognises the need for actionable knowledge ecosystems that are underpinned by evidence and can overcome boundaries between disciplines to advance innovation and best practices.
NOLAI is a research and innovation laboratory based at Radboud University, set up to improve the quality of K-12 education through AI. NOLAI is overseen jointly by OCW and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, EZK) and has been funded with EUR 143 million from the National Growth Fund (EUR 80 million initially given for 2022-2032, and an additional EUR 63 million for scaling up prototypes to market-ready products). NOLAI’s work is structured around several programmes, including the co-creation programme, which involves schools, businesses and scientists working on ten AI development projects that began in 2023 and another seven projects starting in 2024, focussing on teaching and learning rather than administrative issues; the teacher-in-residence programme, which brings educators into NOLAI to strengthen connections with schools; and the scientific programme, which researches the impact of AI applications in education and includes teacher training (NOLAI, 2024[23]). NOLAI stands out among international examples of similar initiatives in terms of both its scale and level of funding (Table 4.2).
Note: The table has been adapted to reflect an up-to-date list of labs and centres that are currently active. See Annex 13A of OECD (2023[1]) for a more detailed description of each lab/centre.
Source: Updated from OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en, Table 13.1, p. 325.
The uniqueness of NOLAI and the Dutch approach also lies in its explicit use of a co-creation framework for EdTech that incorporates important considerations on responsible innovation in AI-driven technologies for education. The central support for this co-creation model via the substantial funding for NOLAI and related initiatives, makes the Netherlands stand out compared to countries, where there is a recognition of the importance of collaboration and co-creation but where the approach is less structured around shared development processes. For example, France and Finland encourage EdTech companies to collaborate with schools and other relevant stakeholders in the development of their products, but they do not have a comparable co-creation framework specifically geared to AI-based educational tools.
NOLAI’s approach to the co-creation of EdTech is based on a “triple helix” model, whereby education institutions, scientists and entrepreneurs collaborate and inform each other’s practice (see Figure 4.5). This framework for collaborative innovation has shown significant success in the field of education technology, particularly in the context of AI-driven solutions. Similar approaches have been employed, for example, by the Simon Initiative of Carnegie Mellon University and the EDUCATE project of the University College London, which termed its approach the “golden triangle” (Molenaar, 2021, p. 72[24]; Cukurova, Luckin and Clark-Wilson, 2018[25]). NOLAI’s triple helix approach to co-creation involves the co-operation between scientists, entrepreneurs and education professionals to create, implement and refine digital tools that are directly relevant to classroom needs, effectively support learning and improve teachers’ practices while advancing both technological and pedagogical innovation. NOLAI’s research programme is built around the responsible use of AI in education and five focus areas: Pedagogy and didactics, technology for AI in education, embedded ethics, sustainable data and teacher professionalisation (NOLAI, 2024[23]).
Source: NOLAI (2024[23]), NOLAI (National Education Lab AI), https://www.ru.nl/en/nolai; and direct correspondence.
Key requirements for a successful collaboration between education institutions, scientists and businesses include a strong co-creation process where these stakeholders collaboratively design and test AI products in educational settings. This involves drawing on and contributing back to research in the learning sciences. It also includes supporting teacher training in AI-driven technologies for education and adopting ethics-by-design and sustainable data approaches to the creation, evaluation and deployment of AI technologies in the field. NOLAI’s approach aims for innovations that are not only technically advanced, but also pedagogically sound. An essential element of NOLAI’s co-creation approach is the development of a common language that facilitates communication between the diverse stakeholders involved. This helps to bridge the gap between educators’ practical needs and the technical expertise of scientists and developers. Professional development for teachers is an integral part of the model, as is a strong focus on research collaboration, whereby scientific insights are used to continuously refine and adapt the tools to meet evolving educational needs.
NOLAI also works towards increasingly collaborating with civil society representatives in its approach to align innovations with broader societal values and needs. The inclusion of civil society stakeholders, including parents, students, NGOs and other community stakeholder, emphasises social responsibility in the development of education technologies and underlines the importance of equity, privacy and public trust in those technologies, particularly if they are AI-driven. Societal stakeholders can provide essential feedback on how these technologies may impact students and their input can help to ensure that issues such as data privacy, student autonomy and equity are considered.
Research on responsible AI points to the critical importance of community engagement to foster socially responsible innovations that are acceptable to and accepted by the wider public (Porayska-Pomsta, 2016[26]). The involvement of civil society in evaluating how education technologies are used in schools is considered critical to strengthening the transparency and accountability around education technologies, especially those involving AI (Porayska-Pomsta, Holmes and Nemorin, 2023[27]). Stakeholder involvement is also important to guarantee that EdTech innovations are sustainable and scalable, based on their capacity to be implemented successfully in ways that benefits all stakeholders over a long term. The NOLAI co-creation model provides a powerful example of this approach, providing scaffolding for interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration on the development of high-quality EdTech innovation.
There are targeted efforts to strengthen the domestic EdTech sector
Strengthening the domestic EdTech sector is seen as a priority by the Dutch authorities and the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education emphasises fostering co-operation between the education sector and the business community as an important means to realise its ambitions for digital education (OCW, 2019[4]). The commitment to this vision has been demonstrated by public support for initiatives like NOLAI that actively foster co-creation processes between the EdTech sector, academic research and education practitioners, as well as by support for collaboration within the EdTech sector through initiatives such as Dutch EdTech.
Given the Dutch education system’s strong emphasis on public-private collaboration, the EdTech sector plays a vital role in ensuring a diverse offer of digital resources that responds to the heterogeneity of pedagogical approaches protected by the freedom of education principle. Supporting domestic EdTech players has also been highlighted by stakeholders during the OECD review visit as an important means to ensure the availability of digital resources that are culturally and linguistically relevant and aligned with the Dutch education system’s values and legal framework. This is considered particularly important in the context of a market that is increasingly shaped by global players and platforms that may limit users’ choice at the expense of interoperable technologies that encourage a more flexible and diverse offer (Kerssens and Dijck, 2021[28]).
In this context, the National Growth Fund’s investment in the development of interoperability standards through Edu-V (see below) reflects the government’s commitment to fostering a diverse EdTech sector that is responsive to local needs and public interests. Together with the EUR 143 million investment in NOLAI to support the co-creation of digital education technologies using AI, these efforts have the potential to strengthen the structural environment for the development of EdTech and align the sector with the government’s strategic goals. By comparison, in many other countries, financial support for the development of EdTech has been more limited and fragmented, often relying on national agencies’ calls for research proposals to fund small teams, for relatively short periods of time. For instance, Finland provides discretionary government grants for innovative learning environments, some of which involve the EdTech sector, while France provides procurement-based funding through programmes like P2IA and grants like Édu-up to encourage the production of digital services for education. Iceland and Sweden also offer grants and tax credits for individual businesses and their EdTech solutions, but the scale and holistic approach to supporting the development of education technology in the Netherlands sets it apart.
NOLAI’s approach encourages innovation from the ground up, aiming to empower smaller EdTech start-ups to collaborate directly with schools to create practitioner-driven solutions and to ensure that they are aligned with educational needs. To support high-quality, demand-driven EdTech products to successfully enter the market, NOLAI has been awarded additional funding of EUR 63 million from the National Growth Fund in 2024 to scale up promising prototypes. This investment in the start-up ecosystem stands out in international comparison. Based on data from the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age, only 12 of 36 participating jurisdictions with available data provide monetary incentives for the development of digital education resources (see Figure 4.6) and only 7 – including the Netherlands – provide funding specifically dedicated to AI‑based EdTech solutions (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 75, Annex Table 5.3[19]).
Number of jurisdictions whose central authorities support the development of digital education technologies or innovation among EdTech companies by the following means
Note: Supports provided in the Netherlands are marked in a darker tone. Number of jurisdictions with available data = 36; (1) For example through public calls for tender; (2) Includes monetary incentives for the development of digital education content, education software or AI-based EdTech solutions.
Source: Adapted from Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[19]), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en, Figure 5.3 and Annex Table 5.3.
Public authorities have also provided support to strengthen the organisation of the domestic EdTech sector. With initial support from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (EZK), Dutch EdTech was founded in 2021 to represent the sector at all levels of education, both domestically and internationally, as part of the European Edtech Alliance (Dutch EdTech, 2021[10]). Dutch EdTech aims to act as a platform for innovation and to foster an ecosystem for continuous growth and development, by: (i) building a collaborative ecosystem that connects key stakeholders across education, business and government; (ii) accelerating innovation by facilitating access to funding and organising events, workshops and knowledge sharing fora where companies can showcase their products; (iii) promoting products that are aligned with the Netherlands’ societal needs, culture and curriculum framework; (iv) facilitating public-private partnerships, especially through collaborations with schools, (v) helping start-ups to align their work with global trends to strengthen the companies’ and their products’ international competitiveness; and (vi) guiding EdTech companies in how to respond to and incorporate ethical principles into their products (Dutch EdTech, 2021[10]).
Another effort to strengthen the domestic EdTech market is the NGF-supported Edu-V project. Edu-V’s system of technical agreements on issues like interoperability and the free transfer of data aims to create conditions that make it easier for new companies to enter the market and compete on a level playing field (Edu-V, 2023[22]). Some of the barriers to entry experienced by Dutch EdTech companies mirror those seen in other OECD countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. This includes the ability to navigate complex regulatory requirements related to data protection and privacy (e.g. GDPR) and AI regulations (e.g. the EU AI Act). Furthermore, the decentralised market and fragmented demand side requires Dutch EdTech firms to build trust with a large number of individual schools and teachers. While SIVON provides an important platform to bundle demand from schools trough collective procurement processes, its activities in the field of digital learning software remain limited compared, for example, to its role in the procurement of digital devices (see Chapter 3).
Some countries, including Sweden and Finland, have sought to foster trust in digital tools by using a streamlined process for their integration into schools (OECD, 2023[5]; FinCEED, 2025[29]). These systems emphasise collaboration and knowledge partnerships throughout the technology development pipeline (see Figure 4.7), the need for agility in the adoption of education technology, as well as developing, deploying and marketing EdTech products based on rigorous research evidence. Each stage in the pipeline presents risks for the introduction of data or algorithmic biases and requires the involvement of a wide range of relevant stakeholders to ensure that data is representative of the targeted users and that any inference biases are identified, declared and, where possible, mitigated. Stakeholder involvement is also critical to develop new methods and thinking around the design and use of technology for education, to foster digital and AI literacy among stakeholders and, ultimately, to promote quality and innovation in EdTech and education (Porayska-Pomsta, Holmes and Nemorin, 2023[27]; Cramer, Holstein and Vaughan, 2019[30]). In the Netherlands, initiatives like NOLAI and the intersectoral collaboration around projects like Edu-V and DVO contribute to the strategic goal of fostering a close collaboration between schools, the government and EdTech companies and building sustainable partnerships for innovation. In this respect, the Netherlands’ approach is closely aligned with that of the Scandinavian countries described above.
Source: Adapted from Porayska-Pomsta et al. (2023[27]), “The Ethics of AI in Education” in du Boulay et al. (eds), Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education; and Cramer et al., (2019[30]), Challenges of incorporating algorithmic ‘fairness’ into practice. Tutorial at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UicKZv93SOY (accessed on 1 September 2024).
Momentum is growing to develop quality standards to guide the development and use of digital education resources and learning materials
For a long time, Dutch authorities have relied primarily on competitive dynamics in the market for learning materials and education resources to ensure quality and alignment with educators’ and students’ needs. The Edu-V system of agreements (afsprakenstelsel) – jointly advanced by the public and private sector and described in more detail in Chapter 3 – constitutes a significant initiative to provide complementary standards to steer competition and enhance the quality of digital education resources. Focussed on promoting interoperability, Edu-V is developing standards to certify providers’ commitment to facilitating the simple, secure and reliable exchange of data across platforms and products (Edu-V, 2024[21]).
In addition to Edu-V, different stakeholder groups as well as industry representatives have considered developing standards for the substantive quality of education materials. Different models are currently considered, including the development of non-binding standards to foster a culture of quality awareness among educators and providers, similar to the Quality Alliance (Kwaliteitsalliantie) in the Flemish Community of Belgium (see Box 4.5) (Flemish Department of Education and Training, 2022[31]). In interviews with the OECD review team, a diverse range of stakeholders acknowledged the potential benefits of strengthening quality assurance mechanisms in the education materials market and empowering teachers to engage competently in the selection of high-quality digital education resources. Quality criteria, labels or certifications could help to ensure that digital learning materials meet high standards and that stakeholders are guided in selecting resources based on their pedagogical value, technical reliability and alignment with public values, such as security and privacy. This is of particular importance in a highly fragmented market with a rapidly evolving set of products.
Clear quality criteria could also create a more competitive and transparent market for digital learning resources and help suppliers to understand and meet the needs of practitioners by providing them with clear goalposts for the level of quality expected from them and the areas requiring their special attention. Quality labels could also provide smaller companies and new entrants with an opportunity to gain educators’ trust by demonstrating that their products meet established standards for educational efficacy. Representatives of school boards also underlined the potential of quality criteria to guide the selection and procurement of digital learning materials or EdTech products since teachers and school leaders have limited capacity to evaluate their efficacy, safety and pedagogical alignment. This emerging consensus and heightened awareness provide momentum to build on and they are testament to the strong value that stakeholders from across the Dutch education system place on the quality of learning materials.
There are strong efforts to promote the use of open educational resources (OER)
With the creation of Wikiwijs in 2008, the Netherlands was a frontrunner in developing a central platform for the creation and dissemination of OER (Janssen, Schuwer and Orr, 2023[32]). Since then, the launch of the Impulse Open Learning Materials (IOL) initiative has marked another major public investment to strengthen the role of OER in the Dutch education system. Learning resources developed under the OER paradigm can be accessed for free and provide users with the right to adapt, reuse and distribute them. OER have the potential to democratise the development of learning materials, to provide teachers with greater flexibility and adaptability, to encourage a more active and critical engagement with education materials, as well as to generate cost savings for schools and learners (Janssen, Schuwer and Orr, 2023[32]).
IOL seeks to promote the creation, sharing and use of OER by educators, with the goal to strengthen teachers’ pedagogical autonomy and make OER viable as a go-to option for teachers when selecting learning materials. The project focusses on the co-creation and appraisal of digital learning resources through a professional commons approach involving the collaborative design, selection and use of learning materials through pilot projects (Impuls Open Leermateriaal, 2023[33]). At the same time IOL is committed to strengthening the Dutch OER infrastructure, working with Kennisnet’s Wikiwijs platform to improve the way OER are distributed and to support schools and teachers in finding the resources they need. IOL is also conducting research on the effective use of OER and is developing quality assurance processes that allow users to rate and certify materials based on predefined criteria (Impuls Open Leermateriaal, 2023[33]).
While there is no internationally comparable data on the adoption and use of OER in OECD countries, the 193 Member States of UNESCO unanimously adopted a Recommendation on OER in 2019, committing to formulating and implementing OER policies (UNESCO, 2019[34]). The Netherlands embedded its commitment to making OER available, usable and relevant in its central Digitalisation Agenda (OCW, 2019, p. 9[4]). The majority of countries still lack formal policies on OER, though many have shown interest in developing them or are in the early stages of implementing them (UNESCO, 2019[35]). With its significant financial investment in IOL and Wikiwijs, the Netherlands is among 12 of 36 countries and economies participating in the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age that reported providing financial incentives for the development of digital education content (see Figure 4.8), but its emphasis on OER stands out in international comparison. Although the OECD review team formed the impression that the routine use of OER is not yet widespread in schools, the Netherlands has put in place an infrastructure that provides a strong basis to further embed the use of OER in teachers’ professional culture.
Jurisdictions whose central authorities provide monetary incentives for the development of digital education content
Note: Number of jurisdictions with available data = 36.
Source: Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[19]), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en, Annex Table 5.3.
OCW is proactively monitoring market dynamics and price developments in the education materials market
It is widely acknowledged that the cost of education materials to schools has increased in recent years, placing pressure on schools’ budgets and giving rise to concerns about affordability and calls for remedial interventions. In particular, the Primary Education Council (PO-Raad) and the Secondary Education Council (VO-raad) have called for schools’ lump sums to be adjusted to reflect the rising costs of education materials. Yet, the factors driving price increases remain contested. The rise of the LiFo model, which combines licenses for digital learning materials across multiple grade levels with optional physical textbooks, has affected both the format and production of learning materials, as well as their distribution, which led to transformations in the Dutch education materials market. As a consequence, industry representatives point to both inflation and the need to invest in digitalisation and innovation (e.g. to transition to digital learning materials or develop and maintain personalised digital learning tools) as the main drivers of price increases. Others have pointed to the increasing market concentration and reduction in competitive pressure on the supply side, as well as schools' limited bargaining power as explanatory factors. A lack of transparency around “vendor lock-in” and bundled pricing practices have added to the challenge of ensuring fair competition and cost efficiency (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023[2]).
The Ministry of Education is committed to protecting schools’ constitutional right to freely choose learning materials that are aligned with their educational projects and believes in a dynamic market for learning materials (as well as a strong OER infrastructure) enabling them to do so. Central interventions are therefore only considered justified to the extent that they remediate clear cases of market failure or if they are necessary to safeguard schools’ pedagogical freedom and the quality of education. Identifying the drivers of price increases in the learning materials market is therefore an important condition to determine if and what kind of government action – on the demand or supply side – might be needed. An independent evaluation of price developments in the learning materials market, commissioned by OCW, promises to furnish the evidence base needed to engage in these considerations.
There are efforts to enhance technical standards for the digital education resource sector
The Netherlands has made significant progress towards developing and enforcing privacy, security and interoperability standards for digital education technologies. A central component of this process is the Edu-V programme, which is working to establish a system of agreements (afsprakenstelsel) for digital education technology suppliers that cover data security, privacy, API standards for seamless information exchange, incidence management and equitable fee structures. Suppliers that sign on to the agreement also commit to not charging each other for basic services, thus reducing barriers for smaller companies and encouraging a competitive and more inclusive market (Edu-V, 2023[22]). A key strength of Edu-V is the public-private collaboration at its heart and the ability to get stakeholders to commit to high standards through a voluntary but robust compliance framework. The quality labels developed by Edu-V, although not mandatory, are expected to confer reputational benefits to suppliers and create incentives for them to certify their compliance with Edu-Vs standards as they gain importance in schools’ procurement processes. The EUR 34.3 million funding (2022–31) from the National Growth Fund is used to develop and implement agreements and to provide some support to suppliers to offset their implementation costs. As of 2024, more than 200 public and private parties were participating in the drafting and testing of the agreements, and the initiative hopes to build momentum to eventually convince 250 suppliers to join the agreement over the coming years.
Parallel to Edu-V’s efforts, the Netherlands has achieved significant breakthroughs in successfully negotiating agreements with multinational enterprises such as Google and Zoom. These negotiations have resulted in national agreements that compelled Google and Zoom to comply with Dutch privacy and data security regulations and adapting its privacy impact assessments to Dutch standards (SURF, 2023[36]). This achievement sets an important precedent underlining the Netherlands' ability to influence global practices in data privacy and security. The impact of these negotiations is likely to extend beyond the Netherlands and could offer a model for other countries as they seek to enforce the compliance of large tech companies. These efforts could also contribute to the development of a unified European regulatory framework for education-oriented technologies, as they did to the 2021-2027 Digital Education Action Plan (European Commission, 2020[37]). Together, the Edu-V interoperability framework and the outcome of the compliance negotiations with Google and Zoom underline the Netherlands' leadership in shaping a secure and reliable digital education ecosystem in which both domestic and international companies adhere to high standards for privacy and security.
Consolidation in the market for digital education materials and the internationalisation of the EdTech market create risks for innovation, competition and quality
The education materials market in the Netherlands is highly concentrated and dominated by a small number of publishing houses, with Malmberg, Noordhoff and ThiemeMeulenhoff accounting for more than 80% of the market (Kennisnet, 2023[13]) (see Chapter 3). Likewise, a small number of distributors have traditionally ensured that learning materials are delivered to schools. At the primary level, the only active distributors are Heutink and Rolf Groep; at the secondary level, major distributors include TLN/VanDijk, Iddink and OsingadeJong (Kennisnet, 2023[13]). The increasing use of digital education materials as well as the advent of new licensing models (LiFo) have transformed the education materials market in recent years, diminishing the role of distributors, particularly at the secondary level, and prompting publishers to expand horizontally, for example by acquiring digital learning platforms (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023[2]). These developments have raised concerns over a further concentration of market power and higher barriers to entry for smaller EdTech companies. New licensing models have also attracted criticism for “lock-in” effects that make it harder for schools to switch providers or combine learning materials.
School’s bargaining power via-a-vis suppliers has come under pressure in recent years, despite a move towards greater co-operation through SIVON
The increasing emphasis on co-operation and joint procurement, facilitated by SIVON, have strengthened the position of schools and school boards in a highly consolidated market for education materials. By its own estimation, SIVON is now the largest purchaser of digital learning materials at the secondary education level, with an expanding presence in the market for digital devices and internet services. Although the take up of SIVON’s services remains more limited among small school boards and at the primary level, it has a strong potential to give the entire sector access to economies of scale and uphold high standards for quality and security (see Chapter 3). However, despite such efforts, schools’ bargaining power is increasingly under pressure. While larger school boards may have more leverage, smaller or more isolated boards often lack the resources to negotiate competitive deals outside of joint purchasing agreements, leaving them more vulnerable to high costs and limited flexibility. As both digital platforms and learning materials become increasingly consolidated, schools risk being left with fewer choices, thus further weakening their position in the procurement process.
In interviews with the OECD review team, stakeholders expressed concerns over “lock-in” effects in the digital education materials market that limit educators to a narrow range of tools and diminish their ability to switch providers or to combine different learning materials flexibly. The hybrid LiFo model, which has come to dominate the learning materials market, has been described as inflexible. In addition to incentivising schools to engage in multi-year commitments, its package-design leaves little room for a modular approach where, for example, one publisher’s materials for one school year can be combined with those of another for a different year (Kennisnet, 2023[13]). This limits teachers’ ability to seek, experiment with and adopt new education technologies and risks limiting competition, teachers’ professional agency and, potentially, the quality of education. The entrenchment of big tech companies like Microsoft and Google in the education sector further contributes to the imbalance. Their integrated services and platforms, once adopted by schools, can create dependencies, reduce teachers’ choice of digital tools to compatible products and potentially reduce competition from smaller suppliers. Similar consolidation processes have been observed domestically with publishers expanding their businesses vertically, e.g. by acquiring student administration systems (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023[2]).
The growing presence of multinational enterprises places limits on the ability to regulate and enforce compliance with standards at a national level
The growing presence of multinational enterprises in the EdTech and education materials markets has created substantial challenges for regulators in the Netherlands. In particular, it has raised concerns about the sector's alignment with Dutch standards for quality, privacy and security, its responsiveness to the local context, as well as its ability to cater to the Netherlands’ pedagogical diversity. A lack of cultural and linguistic alignment is increasingly highlighted as an ethical concern for EdTech, particularly in relation to AI-driven products which often encode socio-cultural biases based on the regional contexts in which the products were developed (typically the United States or the United Kingdom) (Holmes and Porayska-Pomsta, 2023[38]; Porayska-Pomsta, Holmes and Nemorin, 2023[27]). These concerns are salient, not only because they raise the risks of cultural erasure, but also because their underlying content and pedagogical approaches may be more removed from Dutch learners’ experiences and socio-cultural references, thus diminishing their accessibility and efficacy (Porayska-Pomsta, Holmes and Nemorin, 2023[27]).
The emergence of major international tech companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple, alongside large education publishers, has strained the ability of Dutch authorities to enforce standards related to privacy, data security and interoperability at the national level. Agreements negotiated with Google and Zoom in 2021 have demonstrated that their compliance with national privacy standards can be achieved. Nevertheless, it will remain a challenge to balance the advantages of relying on the established and familiar global platforms and services of international providers with the need to ensure compliance with local standards and alignment with social and cultural values.
High barriers to entry in the EdTech and education materials markets may impede quality and innovation
The increasingly consolidated market for EdTech and education materials in the Netherlands as well as its unique structure present a challenge for new market entrants. Many large providers face a competitive advantage since they can draw on established relationships with schools or school boards and provide “wraparound support”, including digital infrastructure and bundled services, at scale. These bundles often include comprehensive learning platforms, digital tools and support services that schools come to rely on. Particularly in the case of multinational enterprises dominating major platforms, industry representatives interviewed by the OECD review team also raised concerns over "lock-out" effects for smaller EdTech companies. The Edu-V initiative promises to contribute to promoting a more level playing field by establishing agreements on data exchange and interoperability, which could make it easier for schools to add new and innovative products to their existing portfolios of digital resources. However, as in the majority of OECD countries, there are no binding rules on interoperability yet and the momentum of Edu-V will need to be sustained to have a meaningful effect on the Dutch EdTech market (see Figure 4.4).
In interviews with the OECD review team, industry representatives also pointed to the challenges posed by a highly fragmented demand side. Although an increasing number of schools are pooling resources and engaging in joint procurement through SIVON, the education materials market remains fragmented, with a large number of individual schools responsible for purchasing decisions, and a high degree of heterogeneity in schools’ pedagogical preferences and needs. In the absence of a central marketplace, this makes it difficult for new and smaller providers to gain a foothold without established distribution channels, or the support of distributors and private education consultancies (adviesbureaus). Emerging EdTech companies need to convince schools of their solutions’ educational value, their sustainability and adaptability, in order to merit schools’ commitment in the absence of widely recognised quality criteria or processes for testing technologies in the field. These difficulties can be exacerbated by a hesitation on the part of schools and educators to adopt new technologies. The OECD review team formed the impression that some teachers – already constrained by limited time and accountable for student outcomes – are reluctant to experiment with unfamiliar tools and opt instead for solutions that they know and trust, which poses a further barrier for new EdTech companies.
Schools and teachers face difficulties navigating the market for digital learning materials and software
Schools and teachers in the Netherlands face challenges in selecting digital learning materials and software, given the fragmented structure of the EdTech market and limited information on quality. During the OECD review visit, stakeholders in schools underlined the difficulty of identifying digital resources and EdTech products that are adapted to their needs and judging their efficacy based on reliable evaluations. In the absence of a structured overview of effective technologies and their pedagogical use, educators rely on informal networks and word of mouth, educational conferences or contacts with private providers and education consultancies to discover new digital education tools. While schools’ freedom to choose learning materials and software that are adapted to their needs is widely supported and constitutionally protected, the lack of transparent information can limit their ability to exercise this freedom and make informed pedagogical decisions in practice.
Teachers and schools can draw on public repositories such as Kennisnet’s Reference Architecture for Primary and Secondary Education (Funderend Onderwijs Referentie Architectuur, FORA) and the associated Software Catalogue (Softwarecatalogus), which contains an index of software applications fulfilling a list of specific functions relevant to education institutions. Yet, the platform is neither widely known among teachers, nor designed to facilitate their search for new resources or enter into a professional exchange on their use (see Chapter 3) (Kennisnet, 2024[39]). Instead of being used to gather information, the platform is intended to be used by schools for self-monitoring purposes. Some private providers are filling this void with platforms that provide an accessible overview of their digital learning resources. However, these platforms tend to be restricted to paying customers or provide access to a limited range of products (notably excluding OER) (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023[2]).
As discussed in Chapter 5, school boards, school leaders and teachers also vary in their capacity to navigate the EdTech market, which can exacerbate inequities in their ability to access and make effective use of digital resources. This risks widening disparities in the adoption and use of new digital resources across schools as well as the ability of suppliers to receive feedback on the practical relevance, quality and utility of their products. Some efforts have been undertaken to respond to these concerns and to strengthen schools’ capacity to select learning materials – including digital resources – that are well adapted to their needs. For example, Kennisnet hosts and maintains Edurep, a metadata repository designed to help schools search for education materials by subject, grade level and type (see Box 4.2). Edurep facilitates access to a wide range of materials, integrating both OER and commercial content, and aims to reduce fragmentation by consolidating resources from multiple sources into a single platform. Yet, there is no central, trusted platform providing teachers and schools with a comprehensive overview of learning software, including systematic information on its quality and effectiveness.
Edurep is a central metadata repository designed to streamline the discovery of educational resources in the Netherlands. Edurep is hosted and maintained by Kennisnet. As a search engine and aggregator, Edurep indexes learning materials from various repositories, platforms and publishers, providing educators and schools with a one-stop solution for finding both open and proprietary content. Unlike content-hosting and content-creation platforms such as Wikiwijs, Edurep focusses on metadata, categorising resources by subject, grade level and type, and directs users to the original platforms where the materials are hosted. Edurep’s ability to integrate with digital learning environments allows schools and developers to embed its search functionality directly into their systems. The search engine is also available to publishers, libraries, educational institutions and other content providers, all of whom can integrate it into their websites or platforms through APIs. Edurep processes over 3 million searches per month, covering 1.5 million learning objects from 60 education collections.
Source: Kennisnet (2024[40]), Edurep: De Index met Open Leermateriaal [Edurep: The Index of Open Educational Resources], https://www.kennisnet.nl/diensten/edurep/.
A lack of flexibility in digital education materials and a limited culture of open educational resources (OER) constrain teachers’ professionalism
New product structures of digital education materials and vendor lock-in could reduce teachers’ autonomy and agency
The increased demand for blended learning and a combination of digital and paper-based education materials, particularly at the secondary level, has led to the emergence of the hybrid LiFo model. As described in Chapter 3, purchasing a LiFo license gives schools full access to digital learning materials for all grade levels of a given method with the option (chosen by most schools) to pay a small additional fee for accompanying paper workbooks (Bulder and van Aarsen, 2023, p. 6[2]). Since the LiFo model provides access to all levels of a given digital teaching material, it provides teachers with greater freedom to modify students’ learning paths (e.g. by letting some students work ahead or review material from previous years) (Kennisnet, 2023[13]). At the same time, some aspects of the LiFo product design, such as the greater difficulty of mixing and matching materials of different providers across the learning pathway, are perceived as inflexible and bear the risk of reducing teachers’ ability to adapt and personalise educational resources.
The freedom to select learning materials and to design lessons is an important dimension of teacher professionalism and at the heart of Dutch teachers’ pedagogical autonomy (OECD, 2020[41]). Yet, multiple stakeholders interviewed during the OECD review visit indicated that teachers often find themselves constrained by pre-packaged digital content that leaves little space to customise and adapt materials or mix and match content of different providers according to individual students’ learning needs or specific instructional concepts. This lack of flexibility risks undermining teachers’ ability to innovate or engage in effective instruction and poses a challenge to their professional autonomy. Likewise, “lock-in” effects arising from a high cost of switching providers, a lack of interoperability between digital education resources, or limited awareness of available products can reduce teachers’ ability to exercise professional autonomy in this sense.
Several stakeholders have raised concerns about schools’ and teachers’ diminishing ability to critically evaluate and select digital learning resources – whether for a lack of time, capacity, confidence or opportunities. Teachers’ professional agency and their scope of action in response to educational challenges is an important condition for many effective teaching strategies (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[42]). It also supports collective collaboration and reflection, which can bolster teachers’ ability to innovate, to respond to external constraints and to increase their professional satisfaction (Lennert da Silva and Mølstad, 2020[43]). Although the OECD review team observed encouraging examples of teachers who were highly motivated to search for and experiment with novel digital learning resources in their practice, structural developments that cast them in a more passive role can pose a risk to their professional agency, especially when navigating complex digital ecosystems that can be prescriptive of learning paths or forms of assessments (Kennisnet, 2020[44]).
The uptake of open educational resources remains limited due to a lack of established culture and barriers to access
Significant public investment in IOL and the open educational resources (OER) platform Wikiwijs have aimed to promote teachers’ autonomy, community-based educational practices, and the co-creation of OER. Nevertheless, the use of OER remains limited in the Netherlands, in part due to the lack of a well-established culture underpinning its use. A 2021 Kennisnet survey of teachers in secondary and vocational education highlights that many teachers are unfamiliar with OER, even though they frequently use supplementary or alternative learning materials. The study highlights that 70% of teachers expect to increase their use of supplementary materials in the future. Nevertheless, the practice of sharing and reusing OER, particularly across schools, remains under-developed (Kennisnet, 2021[45]).
OER can offer a more flexible and adaptable alternative to commercial digital materials and a strong OER culture can foster pedagogical innovation as well as the ability to support learners in a more personalised manner. Compared to proprietary products, the use of OER can also generate cost savings over their lifecycle by making it easier to share, update, reuse and combine learning resources (Orr, Rimini and Van Damme, 2015, p. 56[46]). OER can also allow teachers to access additional opportunities to develop their know-how, skills and confidence, which are critical for their professional growth and their ability to use digital resources to the benefit of their students (Hilton, 2016[47]; UNESCO, 2023[48]).
Although Dutch teachers recognise the potential of OER, several factors hold back the broader adoption of open resources. Teachers cite time constraints, the difficulty of finding high-quality and suitable OER, as well as the absence of centralised resources among the reasons explaining their limited engagement with OER. During the review visit, the OECD review team also formed the impression that many teachers feel more secure using established publishers’ materials due to concerns over the variable quality of OER. Furthermore, many teachers lack training and are unfamiliar with how to access or create these resources, which creates further barriers preventing them from utilising the full potential of OER (see Chapter 5).
In an effort to communicate the teaching profession’s demands for high-quality, flexible learning materials, Kennisnet has overseen the development of a Programme of Requirements (Het Programma van Eisen, PvE), which sought to inform the development, selection and procurement of education materials (see Box 4.3). The PvE was developed by the PO-Raad and VO-raad and provides an exhaustive framework of characteristics sought in education materials. Primarily addressed to suppliers of education materials (publishers, distributors and software suppliers), the PvE also provides schools with guidelines and a checklist to use when negotiating procurement processes. The requirements highlight important values, including pedagogical and technological innovation, privacy and security, as well as the flexibility to combine “closed” with open educational resources. While the PvE thereby sends a strong signal to suppliers and underlines the sector’s commitment to the role of OER as part of the wider learning materials landscape, its impact on schools’ purchasing decisions or suppliers’ offer remains unclear. The lack of evaluations of the PvE and a systematic monitoring of digital resources and technologies used in schools makes it difficult to track progress towards greater flexibility in the learning materials market.
The Dutch Programme of Requirements (Programma van Eisen, PvE) for the learning materials market is a framework established by the PO-Raad and VO-raad to shape the development, selection and procurement of education materials and ICT services to better meet schools’ needs. The Programme of Requirements is primarily addressed to suppliers of education materials (publishers, distributors and software suppliers) but they can also serve as a checklist that schools can use when negotiating with suppliers or formulating their needs. It aims to address the evolving needs of students, teachers and schools by fostering transparency in the market, supporting personalised and adaptive learning, and ensuring compliance with technical, legal and privacy requirements. By providing schools with clear guidelines, the Programme of Requirements empowers them to make more informed choices about learning materials and digital tools in line with their educational goals.
A key focus of the Programme of Requirements is to promote greater flexibility of learning materials and modular approaches that give schools the ability to combine commercial, open or self-created materials. For ICT solutions, the framework highlights the importance of interoperability, the support for single sign-on and the adherence to open standards. Suppliers are asked to provide transparent information on licensing, pricing and privacy compliance, aligned with GDPR and Dutch privacy regulations. The Programme of Requirements also emphasises the importance of accessibility and resources catering to diverse learners’ needs, including the vocational education sector and special needs education. The framework is updated regularly to reflect advancements in technology and education.
Source: PO-Raad & VO-raad (2017[49]), Programma van Eisen Leermiddelenketen [Programme of Requirements for the Learning Materials Chain], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/Kennisnet-Programma-van-Eisen.pdf.
There is no systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of digital education resources
While the integration and innovative use of digital technologies in education has become a policy priority across Europe and OECD countries, the creation or adaptation of corresponding monitoring and evaluation frameworks has been lagging behind in many education systems (OECD, 2023[8]). The lack of a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of digital learning resources in the Netherlands poses a significant challenge for efforts to enhance their quality and promote innovation. This is evident in the difficulties that EdTech developers face when trying to test their products in a safe and regulated environment, in the challenges that schools and teachers experience in strategically trialling and evaluating new products, and in the absence of clear responsibilities for assessing the impact of digital tools in schools. Furthermore, there is no widely agreed definition of effectiveness or quality criteria for EdTech and digital education materials among stakeholders. While exam outcomes are frequently invoked as a measure of the quality of EdTech and education materials, there is no systematic approach to evaluating the impact of specific materials, products and their features on students’ learning outcomes.
A lack of consensus on quality criteria for EdTech products is holding back a systematic approach to their evaluation and quality promotion
The Dutch digital education ecosystem is characterised by a strong ethos of co-creation. Prominent initiatives (such as NOLAI and its approach to co-creation, building on the close collaboration between scientists, entrepreneurs and education professionals) serve as powerful examples of development processes aimed to ensure high quality in EdTech products and education materials. Yet, despite this broad-based commitment to quality, there is no systematic approach to evaluating and strengthening quality in the EdTech sector. One of the factors holding it back is a lack of consensus on what constitutes quality and innovation in the context of EdTech products. This is in contrast to more traditional learning materials, for which the PO-Raad and VO-raad have developed a list of criteria – the Programme of Requirements (PvE) – to guide suppliers of learning materials as well as those engaged in their selection (PO-Raad and VO-raad, 2017[49]). Furthermore, although a diverse range of methods for evaluating the quality of digital resources is used, especially in research contexts, there is no systematic framework for their evaluation. This, in turn, hinders not only the uptake of digital education resources but also prevents the development of meaningful educational standards or certifications. These challenges are not unique to the Netherlands. Education systems worldwide are confronted with the fact that the educational benefits of technology are often hard to measure due to their complexity, ubiquity and context-dependency (UNESCO, 2023[48]; OECD, 2023[8]).
While key stakeholders at all levels of the Dutch education system appear to embrace pedagogically driven innovation, the OECD review team formed the impression that there is no widely shared conception of what innovation should entail in the context of school education. Having a clear concept of innovation is critical to enable its operationalisation and evaluation as well as to guide policies and practices to promote it. Stakeholders often focus on novelty and change when reflecting on the notion of innovation, placing less emphasis on tangible improvements to teaching and learning. The process of employing new ideas, methods and products to improve or transform existing practices and problem-solving approaches is an important component of innovation, as is the creation of new value or improvements to efficiency and effectiveness (OECD/Eurostat, 2018[50]). Emphasising the importance of improvement through innovation – rather than novelty alone – typically goes hand in hand with a greater focus on evidence and evaluating the outcomes of new technologies and practices.
Schools are not equipped to strategically trial or evaluate the quality of digital resources and there is a risk that they are tested in classrooms with insufficient safeguards
A lack of regulation around EdTech and education materials can have far-reaching consequences for schools, teachers and students. In the Dutch market for digital education resources, limited regulation has resulted in large numbers of digital teaching materials entering the market – at times with little prior vetting or input from the professional community. This has exacerbated a sense of uncertainty among some teachers and drawn public scrutiny (e.g. van den Braak, Salomons & Veen (2023[51])). Even though many publishers pride themselves on working closely with experienced educators, stakeholders expressed concerns over untested learning materials being implemented directly in classrooms with little oversight. Similar challenges can be observed in the EdTech sector, where new tools are tested in classroom settings without proper safeguards or evaluations.
Teachers are trained to exercise their professional judgement in evaluating the efficacy and fit of learning resources before using them in the classroom. However, while teachers, schools and school boards are experienced in the procurement and use of traditional education materials, such as textbooks, they have significantly less capacity when it comes to EdTech products. Professional competency for the evaluation and selection of EdTech products is less developed and there are no widely accepted quality criteria to guide their evaluation, as described above. Evaluating the quality of digital learning tools is significantly more challenging, particularly if teachers have not received sufficient training or guidance on their evaluation. Although important steps have been taken to strengthen schools’ capacity for digital teaching and learning (see Chapter 5), it remains highly uneven across schools and many remain unequipped to assess whether EdTech tools are aligned with their students' educational needs, the curriculum and their schools’ pedagogical concepts. The increasing number of products incorporating AI further exacerbates this challenge, making it more difficult to evaluate the quality of digital education technologies and to define clear and easily applicable quality criteria. This challenge is shared by many other OECD countries that are yet to develop quality standards for EdTech products or processes to assess their quality and risks (Foster et al., 2023[52]), leaving teachers and students exposed to potentially low-quality products and making it difficult for schools to obtain value for money reliably.
EdTech developers face difficulties testing products in a safe and regulated environment
Closely related to concerns about the quality assurance of education technology is the difficulty that EdTech developers in the Netherlands face in testing and piloting their products within controlled and regulated environments. This lack of established structures not only raises concerns about student safety and product effectiveness. It also deprives developers of opportunities to gather feedback and refine their products prior to their wider release. While there are very encouraging examples of iterative co-design approaches, for example in the context of the NOLAI initiative, they remain the exception rather than the rule. This risks widening the distance between the EdTech industry and the challenges faced by practitioners and limits their co-operation in the development of effective and responsible EdTech, which will be critical for the success of the Netherlands’ digital transformation (OCW, 2019, p. 3[4]).
Responsibilities for evaluating the impact of digital education resources are fragmented
Although there have been important efforts to monitor the digitalisation of education in the Netherlands through the MYRA survey, there is no designated authority or agency responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of digital education resources and their impact on student learning (see Chapter 2) (Karssen et al., 2023[53]; Karssen et al., 2023[54]). While school boards are accountable to the inspectorate for ensuring the educational quality of their schools, the inspectorate’s framework – in keeping with the freedom of education principle – does not extend to evaluating the effectiveness or safety of the learning materials and resources used in schools and offers minimal guidance on the instructional use of digital resources (Inspectorate of Education, 2021[55]; Inspectorate of Education, 2021[56]).
Although teachers and other school staff are expected to assess the quality of the digital tools they use, there is limited information on how systematically and rigorously these evaluations are carried out and there is likely to be a high degree of variability across both schools and individual teachers. Furthermore, while developers of digital resources and the research community are contributing to a growing evidence base on the pedagogical efficacy of digital resources through pilots and individual evaluations, there is no central co-ordination of or systematic approach to these efforts. Finally, multiple central agencies and initiatives, including Kennisnet and the NRO’s Kennisrotonde (Knowledge Roundabout), provide trustworthy evidence on the effective use of digital resources, but there is no central repository or source that teachers could turn to for evidence on specific products’ educational value and their effective use (NRO, 2024[57]).
Without a central body overseeing the evaluation of digital education resources or a co-ordinated approach to collecting and systematising this evidence, schools and teachers are left with limited guidance when navigating the market for digital learning tools. This risks exacerbating differences in the quality of digital materials used across schools and makes it difficult for teachers to build trust in the use of high-quality digital resources to support their practice. It also limits policymakers’ ability to support the effective integration and responsible use of digital education technologies, to support a co-creative approach to the digital transformation and to identify risks to education quality where they arise.
Establish clear governance structures and responsibilities for the evaluation of digital education resources
Strong quality assurance mechanisms and structures for the evaluation of EdTech solutions are essential to ensure that the digital education resources used in schools are effective, safe and ethically sound. Although it is critical to strengthen teachers, schools and school boards in their ability to critically evaluate the quality of digital education resources and select products that are aligned with their education needs, they cannot bear the responsibility for quality assurance in a field characterised by increasing technical complexity alone (see Chapter 5). While teachers need to play a central role in evaluating the quality of digital education resources, they need to be empowered to do so through systematic processes, resources and clearly defined responsibilities across a range of public and private actors to ensure accountability. A well-designed governance framework would involve a broad range of stakeholders at the central level, school boards, independent evaluators, teachers and EdTech developers.
At the heart of this governance model would need to be a central co-ordinating body overseeing the development of a national evaluation framework for digital resources, including quality standards and ethical guidelines related to data privacy, inclusivity and accessibility (discussed in the following section). This body would also be responsible for developing adequate monitoring processes to ensure the compliance of digital tools used in educational settings and the alignment of quality standards with system-level goals. Several OECD countries have tasked independent bodies with overseeing the quality assurance process for education resources and invested in their capacity to direct independent research and evaluations and to disseminate them in an accessible way. These include the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in the United Kingdom, the Clearinghouse for Educational Research in Denmark and the Swiss Co-ordination Centre for Research in Education (OECD, 2023, p. 232[8]). Australia’s Digital Technologies Hub is another example that demonstrates how collaboration between governmental bodies and the private sector can result in the development of curated EdTech resources that are aligned with national standards (see Box 4.4).
Kennisnet’s central role in the Dutch digital education ecosystem places it in a strong position to assume further responsibilities in this area, but the process would require strategic co-ordination (see Chapter 2) and a systematic effort to involve stakeholders. It would involve co-ordinating the mapping of existing sources of evidence, identifying gaps and likely future information needs, the development of quality criteria, the evaluation of organisational capacities, agreeing on the allocation of roles and responsibilities, as well as the process of gathering, processing and disseminating evidence across the digital education ecosystem (OECD, 2023, p. 232[8]). Although the experience and know-how of Kennisnet provide a good basis for this work, delivering systematic, rigorous and independent evaluation services would require additional resources, appropriately trained staff and capacity.
The Education Endowment Foundation in the United Kingdom
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) was established in 2011 with the aim to reduce the educational achievement gap by providing schools with evidence-based guidance through its “What Works” centre. The EEF is publicly funded and has worked to create an independent evaluation system for educational tools, including EdTech. Using rigorous methods like randomised controlled trials, the EEF evaluates the effectiveness of education technologies and approaches. Additionally, EEF has developed a "Teaching and Learning Toolkit," which provides educators with summaries of research and seeks to help them make informed decisions about effective pedagogical practices.
Australia’s Digital Technologies Hub
Australia’s Digital Technologies Hub is a successful example of collaboration between government bodies and the private sector, resulting in a curated collection of EdTech resources aligned with national educational standards. Developed by Education Services Australia (ESA) and funded by the Australian Government, the Hub serves as a central repository of digital learning tools, lesson plans and professional development materials. Its resources are specifically designed to integrate technology into classrooms in alignment with the Australian curriculum, ensuring that education technologies meet national standards for both technical and pedagogical quality.
In addition to providing high-quality resources, the Hub supports teachers by offering professional development opportunities, enhancing their digital literacy and equipping them to effectively use new technologies in the classroom. This co-ordinated effort reduces the burden on schools and teachers to independently evaluate digital tools and promotes greater consistency and quality across the education system. The Hub exemplifies how public-private collaboration can promote the effective and widespread adoption of EdTech tools, supporting both innovation and national educational priorities.
Sources: EEF (2024[58]), Education Endowment Foundation, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ (accessed on 20 November 2024); Education Services Australia (ESA) (2024[59]), Digital Technologies Hub, https://www.digitaltechnologieshub.edu.au/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
School boards would play an important role in the quality assurance process by ensuring that schools select EdTech solutions and implement them in line with school’s specific needs and their educational objectives. They are also well-positioned to collect feedback on the changing needs of schools, teachers and learners, as well as the practical utility of digitally enhanced methods, digital materials and resources. Independent evaluators, such as academic institutions or specialised evaluation agencies, might be best placed to provide unbiased assessments of the tools, focussing on educational efficacy and effectiveness, ethical considerations such as privacy and inclusivity, and technological robustness. Their involvement would ensure that digital tools meet educational and ethical criteria before being widely adopted.
Public-private collaboration would remain fundamental to this evaluation process. Developers should be required to submit their products for rigorous testing under established criteria, collaborating with schools and evaluators to gather real-world performance data. This process needs to embrace and facilitate the iterative improvement of products, ensuring that they are pedagogically sound and safe for student use. The governance of the evaluation model would need to respect the constitutional freedom of education and schools’ ability to freely choose which education materials and resources to use. It could, for example, encourage, but not mandate, the adoption of certified digital resources. This approach would balance the benefits of centralised evaluation with the preservation of school autonomy, enabling educators to make informed decisions without infringing upon their independence. Clear responsibilities, accountability and transparency around quality assurance processes would also benefit EdTech providers by removing ambiguity surrounding the responsibilities of public and private entities and by fostering trust through a clear process for EdTech solutions to be rigorously tested and aligned with educational objectives.
Create a national framework for the evaluation of digital education resources and facilitate access to information on relevant products and evaluations
Create a national framework for the evaluation of digital education resources
To make evaluation efforts of digital education resources more systematic and ensure that they are aligned with quality criteria developed with the profession, the Netherlands should work to establish an evaluation framework for digital resources. The pedagogical needs and expertise of the teaching profession should be driving the development of digital education technologies (Onderwijsraad, 2022[60]). The PO-Raad and VO-raad’s Programme of Requirements (PvE) provides a good example of the profession communicating its standards and needs to suppliers of learning materials in a way that is pedagogically neutral and applicable to all schools. Extending these reflections to a broader range of digital resources – particularly those based on advanced technologies – could stimulate an important reflection within the profession concerning their expectations for issues such as adaptability, freedom from bias, and teacher-led development. The development of such quality standards would thereby provide an opportunity for the teaching profession to reflect on its changing role at the same time as it could provide the basis for systematic evaluation efforts and provide vital guidance to the industry.
The evaluation framework could also provide a basis for developing a quality certification process for providers of EdTech and education materials. Certification could ensure that education technologies meet a baseline set of standards before being adopted in schools. Quality criteria should be aligned with existing technical standards, such as the Edu-V standards on data sharing and interoperability as well as the DVO standards on information security and privacy (see Chapter 3), which would allow schools to confirm that certified products are aligned with existing standards. Yet, certification criteria should go beyond technical requirements and also include – based on broad consensus and respecting the principle of pedagogical neutrality – information about:
Educational efficacy (i.e. the potential to have positive impact on learning and other outcomes);
Effectiveness (i.e. the demonstrable impact that that a tool has already had, on whom exactly and in what contexts);
Accessibility for diverse student groups (including students with special education needs);
Ethical implications (including information on any ethical evaluations undertaken and the risk of biases, especially for tools using AI).
A certification process would give schools an important tool in appraising whether the digital tools they use are relevant, safe, effective and aligned with their educational priorities. Other OECD education systems, such as the Flemish Community of Belgium and Austria, have developed similar quality criteria for learning materials and education software to guide educators in making informed decisions on their use (see Box 4.5). These initiatives could be a starting point for developing quality criteria applicable to digital education resources in the Netherlands. While the development of an evaluation framework should be co-ordinated at the central level, its success will depend on broad stakeholder participation to ensure the buy-in of both professionals and industry representatives. The Flemish Quality Alliance, for example, includes representatives of education umbrella organisations, education scientists, parents’ associations, teacher trainers, students and publishers. The OECD review team formed the impression that stakeholders across the education system would be supportive of the development of quality criteria for learning resources and this momentum should be built on to ensure that digital education technologies are included in this process.
The Quality Alliance (Kwaliteitsalliantie) in the Flemish Community of Belgium
The Flemish Quality Alliance aimed to establish a collaborative alliance between key stakeholders, including educators, publishers, policymakers and researchers, to establish and maintain quality standards for education materials. Its framework focusses on creating comprehensive guidelines for both print and digital resources that are aligned with curriculum goals, ensure equity, and support teachers in their professional roles. The intention is not to create a set of mandatory criteria that materials need to fulfil but instead for the criteria to guide the development of learning materials and to be used by educators and schools when selecting from the many learning materials on offer. The Alliance also seeks to stimulate continuous quality improvements by providing a platform for ongoing reflections and dialogue.
Quality seal for education software in Austria
With the Learning Apps Seal of Approval (Gütesiegel Lern-Apps) the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research supports schools in the quality assurance process when acquiring digital tools as well as teaching and learning resources. The Seal is a quality certificate awarded by the ministry for digital mobile learning apps and their web versions. To obtain the certificate, applications need to meet a set of quality criteria and obtain a positive evaluation by teachers with respect to pedagogical, functional and student-oriented aspects. The certification authorises companies to display the Learning Apps Seal of Approval on their website and is intended to provide teachers, students and parents with guidance when selecting innovative products on the market (OECD, 2023, p. 309[1]).
Source: Flemish Department of Education and Training (2022[31]), Naar een Kwaliteitsalliantie [Towards a Quality Alliance], https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/51520; Reproduced from OECD (2023[1]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
In addition to quality criteria, an evaluation framework should provide guidance on methods to assess digital resources based on their technical functionality and robustness, their educational effectiveness, and their adherence to ethical standards. To address the challenges inherent in evaluating the quality of EdTech products (and learning materials more generally), it is important to draw on a spectrum of evidence and to generate different types of complementary data across different contexts and for different stakeholders (UNESCO, 2023[48]; OECD, 2023[8]). The evaluation framework would need to be sufficiently flexible to integrate different types of evidence and evaluation settings, adapted to a range of products and education contexts, e.g. in the form of evidence portfolios.
Drawing on the approaches promoted by NOLAI, the framework should encourage evaluations that are classroom-based and methodologically diverse (including both qualitative and quantitative approaches) to generate multidimensional data. They should also be grounded in continuous refinement to ensure that individual digital tools and technology-supported approaches meet the practical needs of educators and benefit students (Molenaar and Sleegers, 2023[61]). Above all, the framework should recognise that technological products for education are interventions, i.e. tools that are aimed explicitly to change users’ perception, thinking and behaviour. As such, educational technologies should be evaluated with a level of rigour comparable to that of other socio-psychological or behavioural interventions, such as autism programmes or cognitive behavioural therapy. These domains offer examples of how robust evaluation standards can be developed, shared and implemented, involving different stakeholders. This is especially critical in education, where strong causal evidence of effectiveness is hard to come by, and in EdTech, where companies often claim efficacy without sufficient proof. Box 4.6. provides an example of a rigorous, independent evaluation process of an education software.
“Stop and Think” is a computer-based educational intervention developed by the UnLocke project and designed jointly by a team from Birkbeck College, University of London and the UCL Knowledge Lab to help primary school students in the UK improve their reasoning in science and mathematics by strengthening their inhibitory control. Inhibitory control is the ability to pause and reflect before providing an answer to a problem. Delivered through a gamified interface featuring an animated character, “Stop and Think” presents counterintuitive mathematics and science problems aligned with the English national curriculum to encourage students to challenge common misconceptions. Developed with funding from the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Welcome Trust, the intervention has undergone rigorous piloting and two rounds of independent evaluations to validate its claims of educational efficacy and its potential to scale up. The project involved over 100 schools across England and included evaluator-led and exploratory cognitive assessments, including brain imaging and eye-tracking studies.
The first independent evaluation of UnLocke’s “Stop and Think” intervention was conducted in 2018/19 and involved 6 672 students across 89 primary schools. It used a randomised controlled design with three groups: a treatment group, an active control group engaged in a different computerised social training programme, and a “business-as-usual” group. Results showed a statistically significant gain of two additional months of learning progress in science and a possible one-month gain in maths, with stronger effects in the older group. Disadvantaged students (i.e. those eligible for free school meals [FMS]) in the younger group also appeared to benefit more in maths. Despite implementation challenges, teachers reported positive impacts on students’ reasoning, social skills and teaching practices. EEF rated the study 4/5 for trial reliability and considered the intervention promising, given its short duration and low cost (about GBP 5 per student over 3 years).
A second effectiveness trial of “Stop and Think” involved 14 718 students in 173 primary schools across England in 2022/23. Delivered by the Behavioural Intervention Team (BIT) and independently evaluated by NATCEN, the randomised controlled trial allocated half of the students to use “Stop and Think” and half to a business-as-usual control group. The programme led to two months of additional progress in science with one month of additional progress for children eligible for FSM. However, no measurable gains were observed in maths. Teachers reported broader classroom benefits in science, particularly for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and English as an Additional Language (EAL). EEF highlighted the short, low-cost intervention (about GBP 14 per student over 3 years) as a promising programme for science learning and assigned the trial results a “moderate to high security rating”.
Source: UnLocke (2025[62]), UnLocke - Learning Counterintuitive Concepts, https://www.unlocke.org/ (accessed on 1 October 2025).
Combining evidence derived from different methodological approaches to evaluate the educational benefits of technologies across diverse educational contexts remains a challenge. A successful framework would need to allow for the integration of both bottom-up and top-down research. Bottom-up evaluations of products include those conducted by education practitioners, which can be a valuable source of information to identify products and approaches for more in-depth analyses, such as randomised controlled trials, performed by independent evaluators to establish their effectiveness. Top-down approaches include research-based evidence designed to identify the causal effects of specific digital education products and their features.
Foster et al. (2023[52]) propose classifying different types of evidence based on the questions they address: (i) “does it work?”, which demands evidence of a causal link between an EdTech product and its outcomes, derived from experimental or quasi-experimental research designs; (ii) “how or why does it work?”, which tends to draw on qualitative evidence exploring practitioners’ experiences and case studies that illuminate digital resources’ implementation and user experience; and (iii) “will it work for us?”, which involves stakeholder perspectives and information about the context of existing research to enable prospective users to make informed judgements on the applicability of specific technologies of approaches in the context of their practice (Foster et al., 2023, p. 43[52]). Evidence portfolios can provide a structure to organise these different types of information for specific products or approaches, including clear indications concerning their limitations and areas requiring further research.
A recent report by the UK Department for Education highlights an increased international awareness of the need to strengthen efforts to evaluate EdTech, its educational quality and its potential for innovation (Foster et al., 2023[52]). A strategic approach to the evaluation of EdTech products should include efforts to assess their longer-term impact on students’ outcomes as well as differential effects on underrepresented or disadvantaged groups. This evidence is invaluable to ensure that the adoption of EdTech promotes equity in educational access and achievement rather than exacerbating existing inequalities. Insights from longer-term evaluations can also inform the refinement of existing digital education technology standards, quality criteria or certification processes.
Table 4.3 provides an overview of international approaches to the evaluation of EdTech and the types of outcomes they consider. They illustrate diverse ways of incorporating evidence with different levels of rigour that was generated in different evaluation environments, and how this evidence can be mobilised to support education practitioners working in different contexts. Examples of the frameworks and standards underpinning such evaluation strategies are presented in Box 4.7.
Evaluation methods used and outcomes considered by selected evaluation frameworks
Source: Foster et al. (2023[52]), EdTech Quality Frameworks and Standards Review: DfE Quality Characteristics Project, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6579d0ac0467eb001355f761/EdTech_quality_frameworks_and_standards_review.pdf.
The UK Department for Education’s 2023 EdTech Quality Frameworks and Standards Review, identifies the following frameworks, standards and evidence quality frameworks as pertinent to the evaluation of EdTech:
The Digital Promise Pilot Framework is designed to evaluate EdTech through pilot studies, real-world feedback loops and iterative improvements based on empirical results.
The Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) focusses on the quality of multimedia learning resources and is used for evaluating multimedia tools based on specific instructional and multimedia criteria.
The Seal of Alignment Framework (ISTE) provides a certification system to align EdTech products with educational standards, ensuring they meet critical instructional and technology standards.
The Evaluation Taxonomy (Learning Assembly) provides guidance on appropriate approaches to the evaluation of different EdTech tools in different educational contexts.
The EdSurge Product Index & Decision Guide provide a crowdsourced directory and a structured guide that helps educators evaluate and choose EdTech products based on user feedback and specific educational needs.
The WhatWorked EdTech Standards of Evidence define tiers of evidence for the evaluation of EdTech interventions and guide the selection of adequate evaluation methods for different stages of EdTech development.
These frameworks combine user-centred evaluation and evidence-informed approaches, with a focus on continuous improvement through feedback and iteration. Foster et al. (2023[52]) advocate for the use of evidence portfolios to allow for varied forms of evidence, and a broad and flexible approach to demonstrating effectiveness through continuous updates.
Source: Foster et al. (2023[52]), EdTech Quality Frameworks and Standards Review: DfE Quality Characteristics Project, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6579d0ac0467eb001355f761/EdTech_quality_frameworks_and_standards_review.pdf.
Facilitate access to information on digital education resources
Providing schools and teachers with up-to-date information on available digital education resources and their applications is critical to address the difficulties that practitioners face when navigating the market for EdTech and education materials. Only with transparent and easily accessible information can schools make informed choices and exercise their pedagogical autonomy effectively. At the moment, teachers obtain information on new products by word of mouth, via professional conferences or their contacts with private providers and education consultancies. Existing platforms, are not explicitly designed to help teachers find applications that are suited to their needs (as is the case with the Kennisnet FORA software catalogue), provide access to a limited range of products (such as the Wikiwijs platform for OER) or bear the risk of conflicts of interest, as is the case with platforms operated by commercial providers. A neutral platform that spans all types of resources and is accessible by all users could benefit both customers and providers of high-quality resources by facilitating the navigation of a highly fragmented market and help new products without established distribution networks to gain visibility. At the same time, increasing transparency about products and their licensing modalities has been suggested as a potential strategy to address the rising costs of education materials by putting schools in a stronger position to compare different offers and obtain value for money (Bisschop, van der Wel and Lubberman, 2021[14]).
This central catalogue or marketplace could be operated by Kennisnet but would need to be developed collaboratively with key stakeholders on the supply and demand side to ensure their needs are met. The platform should be integrated with existing offers for schools, such as FORA and Wikiwijs, and could provide references to collective procurement frameworks developed by SIVON or associated professional development opportunities, where available. It should also incorporate quality labels and research results developed as part of a broader digital resource evaluation strategy (see above). To incentivise providers to adhere to quality standards, certifications or quality labels (including those compliance with Edu-V standards) could be highlighted in the catalogue or, in the long term, made a pre-requisite for inclusion. A central platform for digital education resources would also provide an opportunity to disseminate results generated by a more systematic approach to the evaluation of educational resources.
Consider establishing testbeds or sandboxes for EdTech and education materials
To ensure that EdTech products and education materials are rigorously tested prior to their widespread adoption, the Netherlands should consider setting up an environment that allows EdTech developers to trial their products under safe and regulated conditions, with the involvement of schools, teachers and education researchers. Such a “testbed” or “sandbox” environment could allow for prototypes to be developed and piloted in collaboration with key stakeholders. An appropriately designed testing environment, involving testbeds, sandboxes or a combination of both, could help to align EdTech solutions with national educational goals, Edu-V standards and classroom needs. It could also promote blue-sky thinking and the development of disruptive EdTech while minimising risks associated with the introduction of untested or ineffective tools into the learning environment.
The difference between EdTech sandboxes and testbeds is sometimes blurred. Both are used to test technologies and typically involve elements of multi-stakeholder collaborations and co-development. Whereas testbeds allow for testing to take place within existing regulations and typically serve to demonstrate the practical application of specific technologies, sandboxes tend to be used for emerging technologies that may be disruptive or require a temporary suspension of current regulations or requirements for participants. Testbeds are thus more appropriate for well-developed ideas and prototypes, whereas sandboxes are more suitable to test more radical ideas for which appropriate regulations are not yet established or known a priori. Sandboxes thereby help to identify risks and benefits of innovative products while at the same time informing the adaptation of regulatory frameworks to a fast-changing technology landscape.
Ideally, such a testing environment should be developed and overseen by OCW or a designated body, such as Kennisnet, NOLAI or another agency charged with co-ordinating a systematic approach to the evaluation of digital resources, to ensure that it is integrated into the broader frameworks of national education standards, policies and evaluations. The ministry or a designated body would provide the necessary infrastructure and guidelines for developers to submit their tools for testing. This process would involve collaboration between developers and education institutions, teachers, school boards and independent researchers to allow for iterative testing and development. While the idea of a sandbox or testbed shares some similarities with the remit and working methods of NOLAI, the emphasis would be on the pre-adoption testing stage of EdTech (with or without AI) within a regulated environment (in the case of a testbed), or the exploration of experimental ideas with unknown regulatory implications (in the case of sandboxes), rather than on the co-creation of AI products.
The implementation of such a test environment could begin by designating selected schools or districts where EdTech products could be tested in a structured and monitored environment. These schools would act as living laboratories, where new ideas and technologies could be trialled in real-time while being continuously monitored for their impact on student learning, teacher usability and overall educational value. Teachers and researchers would provide feedback and guidance to developers, helping them to identify areas with the greatest need for technological support or potential for improvement in order to ensure that products are aligned with the realities of the classroom. This would provide developers with valuable insights into how their products perform under real-world conditions while giving schools an active role in the development of these products (see Figure 4.7 above). Furthermore, participation in the testing process would provide teachers with first-hand experience in the development and evaluation of education technology. Teachers’ own digital literacy, confidence and capacity to engage in the evaluation of EdTech products would be strengthened the process, along with their familiarity with in the specific EdTech solution they are evaluating. The testing environment, especially if it takes the form of a sandbox, would also serve as a secure platform to address concerns about data privacy, ethical use and inclusivity and help to inform further regulations and policies in this domain.
A number of OECD countries have developed EdTech sandboxes or testbeds, including Switzerland’s EdTech Collider, which helps companies to set up testbeds in schools to support product development and enhance their dialogue with practitioners (Molenaar and Sleegers, 2023[61]). The EdTech Hub provides another example of how the sandbox approach can be used to generate evidence on the efficacy of EdTech, to bridge the gap between developers and practitioners and to scale up effective technologies based on empirical evidence (see Box 4.8). Collaborative initiatives like the Global Edtech Testbed Network have sought to connect these various international efforts and share best practices across different sandbox initiatives (GETN, 2024[63]).
Swiss EdTech Collider Testbed
The Swiss EdTech Collider was founded in 2017 as a not-for-profit association to provide a collaborative space for EdTech entrepreneurs. The space involves both a co-working environment and a virtual membership platform where EdTech start-ups and entrepreneurs can connect, share expertise and collaborate on innovative solutions for the digital transformation of education across industries. Unlike traditional start-up incubators or accelerators, the Collider serves as a lifelong partner, offering continuous support and access to EdTech experts, schools, institutions, corporations and investors to foster sustained innovation and growth. The Collider offers a number of services, including co-working spaces, knowledge exchange opportunities, access to the wider EdTech ecosystem, including schools, demo events and workshops, as well as a testbed and test labs for proofs of concepts, pilot projects and academic validation. As part of its testbed, the Swiss Collider offers schools the opportunity to test and evaluate EdTech products. Schools can choose from technologies and products that have been submitted for testing. Team members of the Swiss EdTech Collider support the schools in their preparation for testing and throughout the evaluation period. The participating schools are not obliged to buy the products tested and they receive a certificate of participation.
EdTech Hub Sandboxes
EdTech Hub is a global research partnership conducting rigorous empirical research on digital technology in education to support evidence-based policymaking. Its sandbox approach is a dynamic method for scaling effective EdTech interventions and fostering innovation by generating real-time evidence in the field. The method addresses eight key barriers to scaling EdTech: (i) the lack of evidence of effectiveness; (ii) the gap between research and practice; (iii) the lack of funding; (iv) a focus on the majority of users to the detriment of the most marginalised; (v) a fixation on the product rather than the problem; (vi) the need for an ecosystemic EdTech-as-a-service approach; (vii) the need for late-stage implementation and deployment support; (viii) the need for support for governments to navigate change.
The method also provides a space for implementers to experiment with technology, pedagogical approaches, funding models and policy solutions in real-world environments. The method aims to enhance EdTech effectiveness, reduce costs and create scalable, evidence-based solutions. EdTech Hub’s sandboxes employ a fast-paced, iterative process with short sprints of testing and learning to refine interventions for robustness and contextual relevance. Between June 2020 and March 2021, EdTech Hub completed five sandboxes focussed on EdTech responses to COVID-19-related school closures. These experiments provided valuable insights into what works for students, teachers and schools in diverse settings. To support the implementation process, EdTech Hub also offers a handbook and tools that enable organisations to apply the sandbox method to their own projects. Through expert guidance, funding and iterative testing, the approach empowers stakeholders to scale impactful EdTech solutions efficiently and effectively.
Source: Swiss EdTech Collider (2024[64]), Swiss National EdTech Testbed Programme, https://www.edtech-collider.ch/testbed/ (accessed on 20 November 2024); EdTech Hub (2024[65]), Sandboxes: our approach to scaling impactful EdTech interventions, https://edtechhub.org/sandboxes/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
Ensure a level playing field for smaller and domestic EdTech companies and encourage competition based on education priorities
The education materials market in the Netherlands is highly consolidated and the emergence of large platforms and new product formats have heightened concerns around “vendor lock-in” that would make it more difficult for schools and educators to switch between digital tools or providers (OECD, 2023, p. 287[1]). This could make it harder for teachers to exercise their professional autonomy in combining materials of different providers and could raise the barriers for smaller EdTech companies to enter the market. The Education Council has underlined that the rise of intelligent technologies – unless it is guided by a clear vision emanating from the profession - may exacerbate these dynamics and place further pressure on teachers’ autonomy as well as the diversity and quality of education (Onderwijsraad, 2022, p. 25[60]).
Edu-V’s efforts to ensure interoperability and data sharing agreements are an important step to ensuring that innovative and small providers of digital education resources can compete on a level playing field. Nevertheless, further efforts may be needed to ensure that barriers to entry remain low and that innovative and high-quality products can emerge. To sustain its ambitions in the long term, Edu-V’s efforts to transition into a permanent structure should be sustained. In addition, ways to enhance compliance with Edu-V’s standards should be explored, based on a careful evaluation of its take-up and use by schools. This could involve, for example, collaborating with SIVON to integrate the consideration of Edu-V’s quality labels into procurement frameworks.
The Netherlands should strengthen its efforts to both incentivise and support innovation in EdTech at different stages of development, from proofs of concept and feasibility studies to commercialisation. International examples of such support for small and medium enterprises include, for example, Innovate UK, which emphasises inter-sector collaborations to drive commercial innovation (UKRI, 2024[66]). The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program in the United States, is another example, which provides funding specifically to small businesses, with a focus on research and development in areas of national priority, including education technology (SBA, 2024[67]).
A careful consideration of incentives structures such as grants, tax credits and recognition programmes for small companies can further encourage market entry and promote responsible innovation for public good, especially if this is coupled with EdTech-specific standards, certification and evaluation processes. As described above, EdTech providers should also be supported in developing their products through co-creation in partnership with schools and researchers, for example, through testing sandboxes. Authorities should also ensure that all providers of high-quality education resources are supported in navigating important standards, such as the Edu-V and the DVO standards on information security and privacy, as well as future quality criteria.
Mission-driven and innovation-oriented procurement plays a prominent role in the Dutch public sector (Werkgroep Innovatiegericht Inkopen, 2022[68]). The importance of an ecosystemic approach to the development of EdTech is also widely recognised and exemplified by initiatives like NOLAI, which place a strong emphasis on co-creation. Further efforts should be undertaken to promote these forms of development across the digital education technology sector, for example by encouraging procurement processes to prioritise pedagogical value, innovation and alignment with educational goals (European Commission, 2021[69]). International initiatives, such as Norway’s Innovation Partnerships procurement programme, provide further examples of how tendering processes in the public sector can be designed to promote innovation and encourage competition to address challenges that are identified through a bottom-up process (see Box 4.9) (OECD, 2017[70]). SIVON could explore incorporating such approaches in its procurement processes. This would encourage a mission-led development of EdTech that is determined by the needs identified in the field and that empowers educators to use their professional knowledge and expertise to shape digital tools that are tailored to their specific contexts (Mazzucato, 2021[71]).
Norway’s Supplier Development Programme (Leverandørutviklingsprogrammet, LUP) aims to empower public agencies, including municipalities and counties responsible for public schools, to identify specific challenges and issue open calls for innovative solutions through its Innovation Partnerships (IP) programme. Innovation Partnerships are a procurement procedure that combine both the development and subsequent acquisition of a product in a single competitive process. Public agencies engaging in an IP process are encouraged to precisely identify and map their needs and to engage in a dialogue with suppliers to set expectations before issuing an open call and inviting private providers to co-create and pilot innovative solutions. The goal of this process is to empower public actors to take a proactive role in defining their needs and to develop solutions that are sure to respond to their specific contexts while stimulating and creating a market for innovative solutions.
LUP is a collaboration of public and private entities including the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS), the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), Innovation Norway, the Norwegian Research Council and a group of 26 public partners, including the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management (Direktoratet for Forvaltning og Økonomistyring, DFØ) and various other government agencies, counties and municipalities. Since 2010, LUP has assisted public agencies in over 200 procurement processes, including a range of projects related to education infrastructure.
Since the IP programme’s launch in 2017, 29 Innovation Partnerships have been initiated with support from Innovation Norway. As of August 2023, 13 of these partnerships had been completed, 11 of which led to a purchase of the developed solution. The Innovation Partnerships programme has been supported by government funding and an evaluation has shown that the opportunity to follow IP processes has increased the expertise of public actors, with several of them expressing the desire to continue using this process to tackle challenges they face. The Innovation partnerships also allowed participating enterprises to gain experience. Although, most of the projects cited as examples of successful Innovation Partnerships under the IP programme focus on environmental challenges, innovative procurement in Norway forms an explicit part of the digital agenda for the public sector, including for education.
Source: LUP (2024[72]), Leverandørutviklingsprogrammet: Innovative Anskaffelser [Supplier Development Programme: Innovative Procurement] , https://innovativeanskaffelser.no/about/; Oslo Economics (2023[73]), Updated Evaluation of Innovation Partnerships: Experiences from Public Contracting Authorities and the Public Funding Apparatus, https://innovativeanskaffelser.no/content/uploads/2023/10/updated-evaluation-of-innovation-partnership-oe-report-2023-64.pdf.
As described above, the market dominance of international technology firms and the affordances provided by their digital platforms and services have strengthened their presence in Dutch schools and the digital education technology market. The Netherlands is not alone in seeking to ensure this development does not impinge on the ability to ensure compliance with local standards as well as social and cultural values. The Netherlands should build on its previous success in leveraging national and European data protection laws to ensure that international companies adhere to the same high standards as domestic ones. International education systems like Korea provide further instructive examples, demonstrating successful strategies to ensure the compliance of international players while stimulating competition and creating a level playing field for domestic technology companies (see Box 4.10).
Korea's regulatory approach to the technology sector in general and EdTech in particular places a strong emphasis on data protection and support for local tech solutions. The Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) imposes stringent rules for handling personal data, compelling international tech companies like Google and Microsoft to align their services and comply with Korean privacy standards. The national data protection and privacy rules of PIPA are complemented by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which regulates the use and sharing of education data and prohibits data to be shared without the informed consent of data owners (i.e. students and parents).
Korea also requires sensitive student data to be stored domestically, ensuring national control over data and foreign platforms’ use thereof. The application of these laws was exemplified in 2022 when the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) imposed fines on Google and Meta for collecting and using personal information without users’ consent. Although the fines were imposed in the context of targeted advertising rather than education, they illustrate the PIPC’s active role in auditing data protection compliance in the tech sector and its powers of enforcement. Korea’s Ministry of Education uses its own school administration and learning management platforms to ensure the local storage and handling of educational data and to protect against their misuse. The use of the publicly owned system and school management tools (e.g. NEIS, K-EduFine) is mandated across education institutions (except for higher education and a few small alternative schools), ensuing the tools’ universal use and making their operation more efficient from the central perspective.
Korea also offers incentives to encourage innovation in EdTech, especially related to AI-driven approaches to personalised learning. By supporting local platforms such as Classting and Riiid, the government incentivises competition and reduces reliance on foreign providers while also creating internationally exportable solutions. This strategy has been effective in maintaining digital sovereignty while ensuring that international tech companies adhere to local standards. A key strength of this model is that it balances strict regulatory enforcement with support for local innovation, promoting a healthy EdTech ecosystem, which remains one of Korea’s priorities. Nevertheless, a potential downside of this approach is that the heavy regulatory burden on international providers may limit the introduction of EdTech innovations as companies weigh the costs of compliance against potential market entry.
Sources: OECD (2023[5]), Country Digital Education Ecosystems and Governance: A Companion to Digital Education Outlook 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/906134d4-en; Jung, Y. et al. (2024[74]), South Korea: Amended law integrates regulations for data controllers and online service providers, GCR, 17 May 2024: https://globalcompetitionreview.com/guide/data-antitrust-guide/first-edition/article/south-korea-amended-law-integrates-regulations-data-controllers-and-online-service-providers; Seo, J. (2023[75]), Digital Transformation of Education: The Case of South Korea, UNESCO, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387833.
Foster a culture of open educational resources (OER) that encourages their development and use
Despite a widespread recognition of the importance of OER and public support for initiatives like IOL and Wikiwijs, the uptake of OER in the Netherlands remains limited, hindered by inconsistent teacher preparedness, insufficient incentives, and a lack of support for integrating OER into their professional routines. In interviews conducted during the OECD review visit, the time needed to access and select OER as well as the difficulty of evaluating their variable quality were mentioned as barrier to teachers’ engagement with OER. As a result, many teachers rely on resources shared by word of mouth or turn to conventional learning materials produced by publishers by default, which are often more familiar and accessible. Research suggests that fostering a culture of open educational resources (OER) that encourages and empowers teachers to successfully contribute to their development and use requires efforts in multiple areas (UNESCO, 2019[35]). This includes incorporating the use and development of OER into teachers’ professional learning, underpinning OER with research evidence to increase teachers’ trust in the resources, and incentivising teachers to use OER. This can involve increasing teachers’ awareness of OER’s ability to support continuing professional learning (CPL), enabling teachers to share effective practices, and cultivating their professional engagement with learning materials.
Incorporate the use of OER into teachers’ initial education and continuing professional learning
Incorporating the engagement with open educational resources (OER) into initial teacher education (ITE) programmes will be vital to promote teachers’ digital literacy and enhance the adaptability of learning materials in the Dutch education system. Teachers should be equipped with the skills needed to create, navigate, share and use OER, as well as to innovate with these resources to advance the broader objectives for digital education in the Netherlands. Placing a greater emphasis on OER in teacher education programmes could help to foster a culture of OER among teachers from the beginning of their careers by establishing its use as a habitual element of teaching practice (see Chapter 5). This approach would be aligned with the Dutch system's emphasis on teacher autonomy, empowering educators to select, adapt and share resources tailored to their students' needs. Training programmes should prioritise the pedagogical and technical skills required to identify, evaluate and create high-quality OER to foster a bottom-up and goal-driven approach to the development of learning materials. This would not only enhance teachers’ professional agency, but also better prepare teachers to address context-specific educational challenges. Box 4.11 provides an example of incorporating OER training into teacher education programmes.
The public New York State (United States) universities – State University of New York (SUNY) and City University of New York (CUNY) – received funding for teacher education programmes to integrate open educational resources (OER). Beyond simply using OER, these programmes often embrace "open pedagogy", where teacher candidates create and adapt OER as part of their coursework. For example, a teacher education programme might require pre-service teachers to develop and openly license a series of K-12 lesson plans aligned with state standards, or to adapt an existing open textbook chapter to be more culturally relevant for a specific student demographic. This transforms "disposable assignments" (e.g. essays for grading) into "renewable assignments" (e.g. openly licensed lesson plans, teaching modules or adapted OER). This approach not only equips future teachers with essential digital literacy and OER skills but also fosters a culture of sharing and innovation from the start of their careers.
Source: van Allen, J & Katz, S. (2019[76]). Developing open practices in teacher education: An example of integrating OER and developing renewable assignments, Open Praxis, Vol. 11/3, pp. 311-319, https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.972.
To strengthen the integration of OER in teachers’ continuing professional learning (CPL), existing platforms like Wikiwijs and Edurep should be leveraged and consolidated. These platforms provide a robust infrastructure for accessing and sharing OER but remain underutilised. A unified strategy that increases the platforms’ visibility, offers guidance on their use and connects them to CPL programmes could help to address this. Furthermore, the ongoing efforts under the National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (NAPL) (see Chapter 5) should cover OER-related competencies, aligned with the broader goals of promoting students’ digital literacy.
Given the significant teacher shortage experienced in the Netherlands, it will be important to explore ways to carve out dedicated time for teachers to participate in OER-related learning activities. Financial incentives, recognition mechanisms or flexible learning opportunities, such as online modules and micro-credentials, could be introduced to help mitigate the barriers posed by workload pressures. Collaborative professional learning communities, both within and across schools, should also be encouraged to enhance peer learning and the co-creation of resources.
Cultivate OER as a community of practice and an opportunity for teachers to strengthen their ability to evaluate, select and use EdTech and digital education materials
Using and contributing to OER has the potential to create a valuable community of practice (CoP). To raise teachers’ awareness of the strong connection between OER and the CoP approach, it will be important to communicate evidence on its effectiveness and relevance for educational practice to teachers. Research over the past 30 years has shown that CoPs bring unique value to teachers' professional learning through collective knowledge sharing (Stoll et al., 2006[77]; Lave and Wenger, 1991[78]). Teachers’ engagement in CoPs has the potential to boost their confidence in the use of digital tools, provided that they are built on supportive leadership and trust among its members (Vangrieken et al., 2017[79]). It can also support teachers’ engagement in inquiry, their reflective practice, and the development of their metacognitive skills (Lin, Schwartz and Hatano, 2005[80]; Porayska-Pomsta, 2016[26]). To make collaborative practices effective, they need to be supported by evidence-based structures, dedicated and shared time in teachers’ schedules, teacher leadership, protocols and attention to culture (Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2018[81]; OECD, 2019, p. 302[82]).
Working with EdTech presents unique challenges and CoPs can help teachers to stay in command of their professional expertise and decisions in this context. The highly dynamic technological landscape, the diversity of EdTech tools entering the market, and the need for continuous updates can be overwhelming for individual teachers, especially in the absence of robust independent evidence on the effectiveness of specific EdTech tools. A critical aspect of CoPs and, by extension, OER is their open and flexible nature, which aligns with the iterative process of EdTech design and adoption. Real-time feedback and peer support are central to successfully navigating new platforms, troubleshooting issues and evaluating their educational value (Baran and Cagiltay, 2010[83]). Such an approach could also inform sandbox testing and help to create a repository of practical needs for the EdTech industry to address, especially if it is combined with mechanisms for teachers to record the challenges they experience and to appraise available approaches to addressing these challenges.
Strengthen the evidence base on OER with rigorous studies to increase trust
While there is substantial international evidence for the effectiveness of teachers’ engagement in CoPs to strengthen educational practice, robust evidence on the efficacy of specific OER is generally lacking. In line with the recommendation to establish a systematic and consolidated evaluation framework for EdTech, there will be a need to strengthen the evidence base on OER. Independent research evidence is critical to foster trust and accountability in high-stakes contexts such as education. There are international examples of how OER and related processes can be underpinned with research evidence, such as the ASSISTments platform in the United States (see Box 4.12). In the Netherlands, further strengthening the relationships between Wikiwijs, IOL and initiatives such as NOLAI and Kennisnet could help to advance this goal.
ASSISTments, an open educational resource platform developed at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in the United States, focusses on formative assessment in K-12 education. It offers teachers free tools to assign homework and classwork, to provide timely feedback and to analyse student performance. Teachers can create, modify and share assignments, allowing for real-time tracking of student progress and the ability to adjust instruction based on performance data. In addition to customisable content, ASSISTments offers pre-made quizzes and assessments, integrated with Google Classroom and aligned with common core standards, making it widely accessible across different educational systems. While primarily used for mathematics, the platform supports various subjects.
A key strength of ASSISTments is its foundation of rigorous evaluations. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated its positive impact on student outcomes, particularly in mathematics (Feng, Huang and Collins, 2023[84]; Murphy et al., 2020[85]). Teachers report that the platform helps them better understand individual learning patterns and tailor instruction accordingly (Gillespie, Winn and Faber, 2021[86]). Moreover, ASSISTments has been recognised as a cost-effective solution for schools, with widespread adoption across the United States. It also fosters professional development by providing a collaborative network where teachers can share resources and strategies for effective formative assessment.
ASSISTments is funded through a mix of federal grants, such as those from the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and SBIR programmes, philanthropic support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and institutional backing from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This funding allows the platform to remain free for teachers and schools. At the partnership level, ASSISTments integrates with EdTech tools like Google Classroom to streamline classroom management and provides open access to its data via APIs, enabling collaboration with other EdTech developers. This model enhances its formative assessment capabilities and creates a more integrated digital learning ecosystem.
Source: Heffernan and Heffernan (2014[87]), “The ASSISTments Ecosystem: Building a Platform that Brings Scientists and Teachers Together for Minimally Invasive Research on Human Learning and Teaching”, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 470–497, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0024-x; Feng et al. (2023[84]). Technology-based support shows promising long-term impact on math learning: Initial results from a randomised controlled trial in middle schools; ASSISTments (2024[88]), https://new.assistments.org/; Gillespie, J. et al. (2021[86]), ASSISTments Use During In-Person and Remote Instruction: A Case Study, https://www-data.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/19121429/FINAL-ASSISTments-Case-Study-Report-2.pdf.
Consider other ways to incentivise the use and development of OER
Teachers in the Netherlands have limited incentives to adopt OER in practice. Offering grants, subsidies or other incentives (such as recognition in their evaluations or additional time for collaborative work on OER) to teachers who create, adapt or contribute to OER could stimulate their use and development. Establishing recognition programmes, such as awards for excellence in OER development, should be considered as another way to motivate educators to engage with and promote these resources. Aligning OER engagement with professional development credits and career progression frameworks, such as those being developed through NAPL (see Chapter 5), might further strengthen its uptake and sustainability.
References
[88] ASSISTments (2024), ASSISTments Free Education Tool for Teachers & Students, https://new.assistments.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2024).
[83] Baran, B. and K. Cagiltay (2010), “The dynamics of online communities in the activity theory framework”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 4/13, pp. 155-166, http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.13.4.155 (accessed on 1 December 2024).
[14] Bisschop, P., J. van der Wel and J. Lubberman (2021), Evaluatie Wet Gratis Schoolboeken: Syntheserapport [Free Textbooks Act Evaluation: Synthesis Report], Regioplan, commissioned by OCW.
[19] Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en.
[2] Bulder, E. and E. van Aarsen (2023), De Gevolgen van Digitalisering op de Leermiddelenmarkt [The Consequences of Digitalisation for the Learning Materials Market], OCW, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2023/01/11/de-gevolgen-van-digitalisering-op-de-leermiddelenmarkt (accessed on 11 September 2024).
[6] BZK (2024), Geactualiseerde Werkagenda Waardengedreven Digitaliseren 2024 [2024 Update to the Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda], Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, The Hague, https://www.nldigitalgovernment.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2024/02/2024-Update-to-the-Values-Driven-Digitalisation-Work-Agenda_EN-TG.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2024).
[30] Cramer, H., K. Holstein and J. Vaughan (2019), Challenges of Incorporating Algorithmic ‘Fairness’ into Practice. Tutorial at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UicKZv93SOY (accessed on 4 December 2024).
[25] Cukurova, M., R. Luckin and A. Clark-Wilson (2018), “Creating the golden triangle of evidence-informed education technology with EDUCATE”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 50/2, pp. 490-504, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12727.
[9] Dutch EdTech (2024), The State of the Dutch Edtech Ecosystem 2024, https://dutchedtech.com/ (accessed on 9 October 2025).
[10] Dutch EdTech (2021), The State of the Dutch Edtech Ecosystem 2021, https://dutchedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-State-of-the-Dutch-Edtech-Ecosystem-2021-Created-by-Dutch-Edtech-Dealroom_V3.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2024).
[65] EdTech Hub (2024), Sandboxes to Scale Impactful EdTech Interventions, https://edtechhub.org/sandboxes/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
[59] Education Services Australia (ESA) (2024), Digital Technologies Hub, https://www.digitaltechnologieshub.edu.au/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
[21] Edu-V (2024), Edu-V, https://www.edu-v.org/ (accessed on 14 October 2024).
[22] Edu-V (2023), Implementatieplan 2024 [Implementation Plan 2024].
[58] EEF (2024), Education Endowment Foundation, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
[69] European Commission (2021), The Strategic Use of Public Procurement for Innovation in the Digital Economy: Final Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2759/936544.
[37] European Commission (2020), Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027), https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan (accessed on 5 December 2024).
[20] European Commission (2017), New European Interoperability Framework: Promoting Seamless Services and Data Flows for European Public Administrations, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2799/78681.
[11] European Edtech Alliance (2023), The European Edtech Map: Insight Report, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fac2fdb0da84a28cc76b714/t/63bfda44de4b365544ae4b45/1673517650701/EEA+Edtech+Map+Insights+Report+2022.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[7] EZK (2019), Strategic Action Plan for Artificial Intelligence, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, The Hague, https://wp.oecd.ai/app/uploads/2021/12/Netherlands_Strategic_Action_Plan_for_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2024).
[84] Feng, M., C. Huang and K. Collins (2023), Technology-based support shows promising long-term impact on math learning: Initial results from a randomized controlled trial in middle schools, WestEd, https://www.wested.org/resource/technology-based-support-shows-promising-long-term-impact-on-math-learning-2/#hs-vQqh1bt05S9LyHUYFJ7-B/view (accessed on 1 December 2024).
[29] FinCEED (2025), Collaboration, Finnish National Agency for Education, Helsinki, https://www.oph.fi/en/exploring-finnish-digital-education/collaboration (accessed on 10 October 2025).
[31] Flemish Department of Education and Training (2022), Naar een Kwaliteitsalliantie [Towards a Quality Alliance], https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/51520 (accessed on 2 July 2024).
[52] Foster, D. et al. (2023), EdTech Quality Frameworks and Standards Review: DfE Quality Characteristics Project, Department for Education, London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6579d0ac0467eb001355f761/EdTech_quality_frameworks_and_standards_review.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2024).
[63] GETN (2024), Global Edtech Testbed Network, https://globaledtech.org/about/ (accessed on 9 December 2024).
[86] Gillespie, J., K. Winn and M. Faber (2021), ASSISTments Use During In-Person and Remote Instruction: A Case Study, The William and Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, Raleigh, https://www-data.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/19121429/FINAL-ASSISTments-Case-Study-Report-2.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2024).
[3] Government of the Netherlands (2021), The Dutch Digitalisation Strategy 2021, https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/english/the-dutch-digitalisation-strategy-2021 (accessed on 8 June 2024).
[81] Hargreaves, A. and M. O’Connor (2018), “Solidarity with solidity: The case for collaborative professionalism”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 100/1, pp. 20-24, https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718797116.
[71] Harper Business (ed.) (2021), Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism.
[87] Heffernan, N. and C. Heffernan (2014), “The ASSISTments ecosystem: Building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together for minimally invasive research on human learning and teaching”, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 24/4, pp. 470-497, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40593-014-0024-X/FIGURES/7.
[47] Hilton, J. (2016), “Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 64/4, pp. 573-590, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9.
[38] Holmes, W. and K. Porayska-Pomsta (eds.) (2023), The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Practices, Challenges, and Debates, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethics-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Education-Practices-Challenges-and-Debates/Holmes-Porayska-Pomsta/p/book/9780367349721 (accessed on 4 December 2024).
[12] HolonIQ (2024), “2025 Global Education Outlook”, https://www.holoniq.com/notes/2025-global-education-outlook (accessed on 10 October 2025).
[33] Impuls Open Leermateriaal (2023), Open Samen de Toekomst: Werkplan Impuls Open Leermateriaal 2023-2024 [Open the Future Together: Impulse Open Learning Materials Work Plan 2023-2024].
[55] Inspectorate of Education (2021), Inspection Framework 2021 for the Supervision of Preschool Education and Primary Education, https://english.onderwijsinspectie.nl/inspection/documents/publications/2023/11/10/inspection-framework-primary-education-2021 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
[56] Inspectorate of Education (2021), Inspection Framework 2021 for the Supervision of Secondary Education, https://english.onderwijsinspectie.nl/inspection/documents/publications/2023/11/10/inspection-framework-secondary-education-2021 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
[32] Janssen, B., R. Schuwer and D. Orr (2023), Key Policy Issues in Open Educational Resources, UNESCO, Paris, https://doi.org/10.54676/PLDD8708.
[74] Jung, Y. et al. (2024), South Korea: Amended law integrates regulations for data controllers and online service providers, https://globalcompetitionreview.com/guide/data-antitrust-guide/first-edition/article/south-korea-amended-law-integrates-regulations-data-controllers-and-online-service-providers (accessed on 19 December 2024).
[53] Karssen, M. et al. (2023), Monitor Digitalisering Funderend Onderwijs - Onderzoeksrapport Primair Onderwijs MYRA 2023 [School Education Digitalisation Monitor - Primary Education Research Report MYRA 2023], Kohnstamm Instituut, Amsterdam, https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/MYRA-monitor-digitalisering-funderend-onderwijs-rapportage-primair-onderwijs-2023.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[54] Karssen, M. et al. (2023), Monitor Digitalisering Funderend Onderwijs - Onderzoeksrapport Voortgezet (Speciaal) Onderwijs MYRA 2023 [School Education Digitalisation Monitor - (Special) Secondary Education Research Report MYRA 2023], Kohnstamm, Amsterdam, https://kohnstamminstituut.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1112-MYRA-monitor-digitalisering-funderend-onderwijs-rapportage-voortgezet-onderwijs-2023.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[40] Kennisnet (2024), Edurep: De Index met Open Leermateriaal [Edurep: The Index of Open Educational Resources], https://www.kennisnet.nl/diensten/edurep/ (accessed on 29 November 2024).
[39] Kennisnet (2024), FORA Softwarecatalogus [FORA Software Catalogue], https://kennisnet.sw-catalogus.nl/ (accessed on 21 October 2024).
[17] Kennisnet (2024), Wikiwijs, https://www.wikiwijs.nl/ (accessed on 5 December 2024).
[13] Kennisnet (2023), De leermiddelenmarkt in het vo verandert fundamenteel door LiFo [The teaching materials market in secondary education is changing fundamentally due to LiFo], https://www.kennisnet.nl/leermiddelen/de-leermiddelenmarkt-in-het-vo-verandert-fundamenteel-door-lifo/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[45] Kennisnet (2021), Open Leermiddelen in het VO en MBO: Het Gebruikersperspectief op Huidig en Toekomstig Gebruik [Open Educational Resources in Secondary and Vocational Education: The User Perspective on Current and Future Use], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/rapport-open-leermiddelen.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2024).
[44] Kennisnet (2020), Waarden Wegen: Een Ethisch Perspectief op Digitalisering in het Onderwijs [Weighing Values: An Ethical Perspective on Digitalization in Education], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/Kennisnet-Ethiekkompas-Waardenwegen.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2024).
[28] Kerssens, N. and J. Dijck (2021), “The platformization of primary education in the Netherlands”, Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 46/3, pp. 250-263, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725.
[16] LAKS (2024), LAKS Monitor 2023, National Action Committee for School Students, Utrecht, https://www.laks.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/LAKS-Monitor-2023.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2024).
[78] Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.com/books/about/Situated_Learning.html?id=CAVIOrW3vYAC (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[43] Lennert da Silva, A. and C. Mølstad (2020), “Teacher autonomy and teacher agency: A comparative study in Brazilian and Norwegian lower secondary education”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 31/1, pp. 115-131, https://doi.org/10.1002/CURJ.3.
[80] Lin, X., D. Schwartz and G. Hatano (2005), “Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 40/4, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_6.
[72] LUP (2024), Leverandørutviklingsprogrammet: Innovative Anskaffelser [Supplier Development Programme: Innovative Procurement], https://innovativeanskaffelser.no/om-oss/ (accessed on 29 November 2024).
[24] Molenaar, I. (2021), “Personalisation of learning: Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies”, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2cc25e37-en.
[61] Molenaar, I. and P. Sleegers (2023), “Multi-stakeholder collaboration and co-creation: towards responsible application of AI in education”, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/75b34acc-en.
[85] Murphy, R. et al. (2020), “Investigating efficacy, moderators and mediators for an online mathematics homework intervention”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 13/2, pp. 235-270, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1710885.
[23] NOLAI (2024), NOLAI (National Education Lab AI), https://www.ru.nl/en/nolai (accessed on 3 December 2024).
[57] NRO (2024), Kennisrotonde [Knowledge Roundabout], https://www.kennisrotonde.nl/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
[18] OCW (2024), OECD Review of Digital Education in the Netherlands: Country Background Report, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
[4] OCW (2019), Digitaliseringsagenda Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs [Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/11/19/digitalisation-agenda-for-primary-and-secondary-education (accessed on 3 June 2024).
[5] OECD (2023), Country Digital Education Ecosystems and Governance: A Companion to Digital Education Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/906134d4-en.
[1] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[8] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[41] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[82] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[70] OECD (2017), Public Procurement for Innovation: Good Practices and Strategies, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265820-en.
[50] OECD/Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
[60] Onderwijsraad (2022), Inzet van Intelligente Technologie [Use of Intelligent Technology], Education Council of the Netherlands, The Hague, https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/publicaties/adviezen/2022/09/28/inzet-van-intelligente-technologie (accessed on 8 June 2024).
[46] Orr, D., M. Rimini and D. Van Damme (2015), Open Educational Resources: A Catalyst for Innovation, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247543-en.
[73] Oslo Economics (2023), Updated Evaluation of Innovation Partnerships: Experiences from Public Contracting Authorities and the Public Funding Apparatus, https://innovativeanskaffelser.no/content/uploads/2023/10/updated-evaluation-of-innovation-partnership-oe-report-2023-64.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2024).
[15] Ouders & Onderwijs (2024), Ouders over Digitale Leermiddelen [Parents on Digital Learning Resources], https://oudersenonderwijs.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/202406-Rapportage-digitale-leermiddelen-website.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2024).
[42] Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.
[49] PO-Raad and VO-raad (2017), Programma van Eisen Leermiddelenketen [Program of Requirements for the Learning Materials Chain], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/Kennisnet-Programma-van-Eisen.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2024).
[26] Porayska-Pomsta, K. (2016), “AI as a methodology for supporting educational praxis and teacher metacognition”, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 26/2, pp. 679-700, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40593-016-0101-4/METRICS.
[27] Porayska-Pomsta, K., W. Holmes and S. Nemorin (2023), “The Ethics of AI in Education”, in du Boulay, B., A. Mitrovic and K. Yacef (eds.), Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413.00038.
[67] SBA (2024), Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, https://www.sbir.gov/ (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[75] Seo, J. (2023), Digital Transformation of Education: The Case of South Korea, UNESCO, Paris, https://doi.org/10.54676/EWYN3601.
[77] Stoll, L. et al. (2006), “Professional learning communities: A review of the literature”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 7/4, pp. 221–258, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
[36] SURF (2023), SURF, SIVON en Google bereiken overeenkomst Terms of Service Google Chrome [SURF, SIVON and Google reach agreement on Google Chrome Terms of Service], https://www.surf.nl/surf-sivon-en-google-bereiken-overeenkomst-terms-of-service-google-chrome (accessed on 5 December 2024).
[64] Swiss EdTech Collider (2024), Swiss National EdTech Testbed Programme, https://www.edtech-collider.ch/testbed/ (accessed on 19 December 2024).
[66] UKRI (2024), Innovate UK, https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/ (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[48] UNESCO (2023), Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education: A Tool on whose Terms?, https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501.
[34] UNESCO (2019), Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373755/PDF/373755eng.pdf.multi.page=3 (accessed on 5 December 2024).
[35] UNESCO (2019), Understanding the Impact of OER: Achievements and Challenges, UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE), Moscow, https://iite.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Understanding_the_impact_of_OER_2019_final.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2024).
[62] UnLocke (2025), UnLocke - Learning Counterintuitive Concepts, https://www.unlocke.org/ (accessed on 10 October 2025).
[76] Van Allen, J. and S. Katz (2019), “Developing open practices in teacher education: An example of integrating OER and developing renewable assignments”, Open Praxis, Vol. 11/3, p. 319, https://doi.org/10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.11.3.972.
[51] van den Braak, S., M. Salomons and M. Veen (2023), ““Wie is hier nou de baas?” De Onderwijsmarkt Gijzelt ons Leesonderwijs [“Who’s the boss here?” The Education Market is Holding our Reading Education Hostage]”, De Groene Amsterdammer, https://www.groene.nl/artikel/wie-is-hier-nou-de-baas (accessed on 7 December 2024).
[79] Vangrieken, K. et al. (2017), “Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 61, pp. 47-59, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2016.10.001.
[68] Werkgroep Innovatiegericht Inkopen (2022), Innovatie Inkopen in de Publieke Sector [Innovation Procurement in the Public Sector], Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, The Hague, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-009ddda56c88027b7b04bf1dfe1bd1ac248834f1/pdf (accessed on 29 November 2024).
← 1. In this chapter, EdTech refers to education technology products aimed to support learning and teaching across different educational contexts, which are mainly developed by commercial actors, including EdTech start-ups, small and medium enterprises, multinational enterprises and, increasingly, publishers of education materials. Education materials refer to traditional folio textbooks and physical learning resources as well as digital products and resources, such as digitalised textbooks, subject-specific training programmes, educational games etc. The report distinguishes between digital education materials, i.e. learning resources that are presented and used in a digital form, and resources for digital education (be they traditional or digitalised) that specifically focus on supporting digital competencies. The report is specifically concerned with EdTech and digital education materials.