







































 
 

23 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

Asian Business Research Journal 
Vol. 10, No. 9, 23-34, 2025 
ISSN: 2576-6759 
DOI: 10.55220/2576-6759.563 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 
 

 

 
The Digital Divide and Learning Inequality: A Cross-Regional Study of E-Learning 
Access and Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa 

 
Akomolehin, Francis Olugbenga1

 
Aluko, Olufemi Rufus2 
 

 
 

1,2Dept of Finance, College of Social and Management Sciences, Afe Babalola University, Ado - Ekiti, Nigeria. 
Email: akomolehinfrancis@pg.abuard.edu.ng  
Email: femaluko16@yahoo.com  
(Corresponding Author) 

 

 
Abstract 

TIn Sub-Saharan Africa digital inequality is another thorn in the flesh of education equity, as 
unequal access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) worsen perennial learning 
opportunities disparities. Policy attention for digital transformation is increasing globally, but it is 
not yet clear to what extent national e-learning strategies are committed to questions of access, 
quality and inclusion. Between the years 2010–2025, this study will evaluate and compare e-
learning policies in five Sub-Saharan African countries; Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda and South 
Africa. Based on a qualitative comparative policy analysis method, the research includes national 
policy documents, international agency reports and strategic frameworks (UNESCO; The World 
Bank Group; UNICEF). Evaluation of policy content, the way in which policy is implemented and 
the extent to which legislation engages with stakeholders can be guided by various analytical 
models such as Walt and Gilson's Policy Triangle (25), Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework 
(26) or Bardach's Eightfold Path (27). As the analysis suggests, the extent of policy maturity and 
implementation varies significantly across the region. Though Rwanda and Kenya have succeeded 
intranslating policy design into implementation, in Nigeria and Ghana there remain too many 
missing links — resources for infrastructure, prepared teachers, monitoring capacity etc. These 
include low engagement with rural and peri-urban areas, lack of coordination among institutions 
and low funding. This emphasizes the need of digital education policies which are inclusive and 
context sensitive and in order to strengthen infrastructure, monitoring system to motivate 
regional policy harmonization. The key will be for them to scale these efforts sustainably and 
systematically to address the global learning crisis and labor market mismatches in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. 

 
Keywords: Digital divide, Education policy, Education reform, E-learning, ICT access, Learning inequality, Sub-Saharan Africa. 

 
1. Introduction 

One of the top ranked challenges in vitiating for equitable education outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa is a 
stubborn and unyielding digital divide it continues to grapple with. The digital divide, defined as the separation 
between people with adequate access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and those without, is 
apparent in both infrastructure and skills domains and restrict learners' ability to be fully engaged members of the 
digital learning economy. This gap has been widening with the onset of global catastrophes such as a pandemic 
(COVID-19) that demonstrated system failure in most educational sectors and digital infrastructure emerged as a 
critical aspect for ensuring learning Storms, 2015; UNESCO, 2023), It also hastens the pace at which growth is 
occurring in electronics and telecommunications. millions of schoolchildren in africa, especially in 
remote/underserved areas still excluded from access to virtual learning platforms due lack of devices, unreliable 
internet connectivity & low digital literacy—further compounding prior educational disparities (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 
2022). 

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) the intersection of high population growth, relatively low levels of technological 
development and uneven policy implementation create a particular challenge. These disparities in e-learning access 
and quality have persisted despite substantial investments in educational technology and multiple strategic 
frameworks rolled out across the region. Countries like Kenya and Rwanda have made great strides in 
implementing ICTs in education, with others lagging far behind, hampered by financial constraints, weak 
institutional frameworks and political instability (Asunka, 2021; Eze et al., 2024). That these challenges are 
unevenly distributed across regions leads to a fragmented learning ecosystem in which the potential of digital 
transformation is not achieving inclusive benefits for all learners. 

In this respect, there is now a pressing need for taking up e-learning policies and developing accessibility and 
quality dynamics. From national ICT strategies to international development partnerships, policy instruments 
feature large in configuring the educational experience in a digital age. Nevertheless, their efficacy varies and is 
generally poorly documented or evaluated. This effort to understand how countries think about, resource, and 

mailto:akomolehinfrancis@pg.abuard.edu.ng
mailto:femaluko16@yahoo.com
https://doi.org/10.55220/2576-6759.563


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

24 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

implement digital learning reforms — now taking place with a policy-based approach relying on methodological 
principles — can be applied systematically across all nations by others who draw on these experiences with equity, 
gender, infrastructure, and pedagogy. This is important for generating evidence to inform policy recommendations 
tailor-made to support policy design and implementation (Mtebe and Raphael, 2023; Teye and Boakye, 2021). 

This study aims to call attention to the concern for furthering education inequality in Sub-Sahara Africa such 
as it is intensified by splinted digital infrastructure and dispersed policy responses. A few governments have put in 
place more forward-looking digital learning strategies, but the selective implementation of these policies has 
limited their reach, particularly among disadvantaged populations. In the case of digital education, a range of 
obstacles have prevented “digital divide” from being transformed to a more equitable “across-the-board access and 
use”, such as the inability or unwillingness to collaborate across sectors, along with under investment in teacher 
capacity building and frail mechanisms for monitoring (Dlamini & Ndwandwe 2020; World Bank 2022). The policy 
frameworks themselves that are intended to act as conduits towards inclusion stand to perpetuate systemic divides. 
The study seeks to answer the following research questions 

(1) How have Sub-Saharan African countries conceptualized and implemented e-learning policies between 2010 
and 2025? 

(2)  (2) What are the key similarities and differences in policy design and execution across regions?  
(3)  To what extent have these policies addressed issues of access, quality, and equity in digital education?  
(4) What policy gaps and best practices can be identified for future reforms? 
The study is thus neither comprehensive, focusing on a cross-regional analysis of national digital education 

policies across diverse Sub-Saharan African countries chosen for their linguistic, economic and technological 
diversity. A qualitative policy analysis approach was taken to analyze the written content, strategic priorities and 
pathways of implementation in selected key policy documents. This approach is important because context-specific 
barriers and enablers are understood in the collective system rather than individually. It also facilitates a 
comparative examination of policy impact, leading to the discovery of place-based reform that can help shape 
regional cooperation and global education agendas. The point of this argument, however, is that in a global 
economy marked by digitality the imperative is for education policies to not merely digitize inequality but to be 
transformative (Olaniyan et al., 2023; Uleanya & Gamede, 2023; UNICEF, 2024). 
 

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Review 
2.1. Conceptual Review 
2.1.1. Access to E-Learning 

Access in the context of e-learning, however broadens again beyond just physical connectivity or possession of 
devices to encompass more that global opportunity of usefully utilizing the digital learning platforms. These 
include access to electricity, digital devices and internet infrastructure as well as relevant learning content and 
digital literacy (UNESCO, 2023). In sub-Saharan Africa, access to the internet is a complex issue that has kept all 
of us in this pattern: more learners from rural/low income areas are left out of digital learning ecosystems due to 
infrastructure and socio-economic challenges too (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2022). This means that any policies aimed at 
bridging the educational digital divide should be designed within equitable access frameworks which account for 
technologies and contexts. 

 

 
 

Figure 1. Timeline of Digital Education Policy Milestones in Sub-Saharan Africa (2010–2025). 

 
This timeline highlights key digital education policy events across Sub-Saharan Africa, including national e-

learning strategy launches, ICT policy reforms, COVID-19 emergency interventions, and donor-supported digital 
inclusion initiatives. The visualization captures how policy momentum has evolved over time and underscores the 
pivotal role of crisis response and international collaboration in shaping digital education landscapes ess2.1.2 
Quality of E-Learning 

The most common standards related to quality in digital learning include content relevance, pedagogical 
effectiveness, learner engagement and measurable learning outcomes. This comprises the readiness of teachers, 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

25 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

relevance of digital tools that are used, and the matching of e-learning content with national curricula and learner 
needs (Mtebe & Raphael 2023). Regrettably, some territories have struggled with a rush to digitize curricula in 
Sub-Saharan Africa..offsetWidth:100%;#endif (innovAfrica, 2023). Quality assurance would necessitate investment 
in technology, and simultaneous efforts at designing and delivering instruction purposefully combined with strong 
teacher training policies. 
 

2.1.2. Equity in Digital Education 
Equity is a step beyond equality of access, to suit the needs of learners by gender, disability, social economic 

status and geographical location. The creation of an equitable e-learning landscape that empowers and guarantees 
targeted support for disadvantaged groups there by ensuring non exclusion ( Africans, particularly girls, learners 
with disabilities from the rural areas Ugwu, 2020; Uleanya & Gamede, 2023 ) ~. Policies should promote access 
and resource allocation as if everyone benefits college education and career development as well, when in reality 
there is widespread utilization across the middle class that would be sufficient to sustain such targeted 
accountability measures. Left unaddressed, digitization could simply entrench the continued exclusion from 
education under its digital mask (World Bank, 2022). 

 

2.1.3. ICT in Education 
ICT in education is the use of digital technology and communication platforms to teach, learn and support 

educational institutions. ICT is an enabler as well as a disruptor in the educational world. Although the benefits of 
ICTs are widely recognised for promoting learner engagement, increasing equity and improving performance 
(Asunka, 2021; Teye & Boakye, 2021), real implementation in several African countries faces infrastructure-related 
challenges, lack of teacher preparedness as well as policy fragmentation. While hardware and basic connectivity are 
necessary, successful ICT integration in education necessitates systemic planning and policy coherence. 

 

2.1.4. E-Learning Governance 
According to the conceptual framework, E-learning governance inherently reflects the rules, policies, and 

institutions by which digital learning systems are meant to operate. This includes national ICT strategies, 
education technology plans (ETPs), data protection legislation, funding, and stakeholder coordination schemes. An 
effective and reliable digital learning system interfaces political will, technical capacity, and institutional oversight 
(Dlamini & Ndwandwe, 2020) — all of which are anchored on strong e-learning governance. For instance, in Sub-
Saharan Africa, governance challenges, including bureaucratic inefficiencies, overlapping mandates and weak policy 
enforcement impede the success of e-learning initiatives (Eze et al. 2024). Governance through capacities : this is an 
important concept that must be mulled over; you can devise the most cunning digital education strategies; they will 
only boil down to meaningful outcomes if you have a clear governance model that reflects coherence and 
inclusiveness. 

 

2.1.5. Conceptual Model Linking Policy, Digital Access, and Educational Outcomes 
In this study, the paths from educational policies to digital equity are conceptualized using a policy–access–

outcome framework. At the centre of the model is the suggestion that good digital education policy design has a 
direct impact on access to digital learning infrastructure and on the quality of learning experience, leading to 
educational outcomes. It combos the following relationships into a framework: 

Policy Inputs: National e-learning strategies, funding allocations for e-learning, digital transformation of 
curriculum, teacher training for online delivery pedagogy and regulatory frameworks. 

Access Enablers: Devices, internet coverage, centric digital literacy programmes for 70% of rural learning with 
focus on disabled and female learners. 

Quality and Equity Drivers: Curriculum relevance, pedagogical innovation, learner engagement metrics, and 
differentiated inclusion strategies. 

Impact: Better learning outcomes, higher rates of enrollment and retention, decreasing educational gaps, and 
creating digital resilience for the long term. 

The conceptual model thus highlighted that it is not the short of policy design but the implementation, 
monitoring and inclusiveness of those policies through which they are able to either reduce or reproduce inequality 
(Adu et al., 2021; Mtebe & Raphael, 2023). Furthermore, the lack of strong institutions or poor accountability can 
result in even well-designed policies not being able to overcome the digital divide. 

Based on this framework, the study developed a focused perspective in which it could determine how Sub-
Saharan African countries have mobilized policy instruments to address learning dis-parity during the digital era 
and what implications can be drawn from such experience in shaping future educational reforms both within and 
outside the region. 

 

2.2. Theoretical Framework 
A comprehensive theoretical background is required to understand the ever-existing digital divide and its 

impact on learning inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. It then makes use of three primary theoretical perspectives 
(Sen's Capability Approach, Policy Implementation Theory and the Digital Capital Theory) to elucidate how these 
policy dynamics influence the digital access problems as well as educational outcomes that continue to define the e-
learning landscape in the region. 

Amartya Sen's The Capability Approach seeks to provide a normative framework for the follow-up of 
individual well-being and social arrangements in terms of process evolution rather than as mathematic function 
that defines some people or groups as good, while other bad. In the field of digital education, this strategy reframes 
discussion from getting technology in hand and enables students to take advantage of ICTs for learning how to 
expand their skill together with future liberation. Mere access to devices or the Internet does not suffice; learners 
must have as well the skills and support systems, devoted within institutional environments in order to translate 
digital resources into meaningful educational achievements (Robeyns, 2017). The E-capability set of disadvantaged 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

26 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

learners in rural Sub-Saharan regions is limited as they lack such enabling conditions, which reduces the impact of 
policies geared towards integrating technology and exacerbates educational inequality. If the scope of the 
Capability Approach is applied, this mandates a focus on equity in policy making so that digital education systems 
might not only enable access but also extend substantial freedoms for learning and succeeding to all learners. 

Policy Implementation Theory adds a depth to this, which takes an insight into the process, actors and 
institutional dynamics that facilitate policy practicability. Since good policy will not always be able to implement in 
a proposed way their circumstances, real-life policies have required high administrative capacity) and adaptiveness), 
political commitment), resourcing, feedback quality (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980; O'Toole, 2019). A large number 
of Sub-Saharan African countries have well-written policies for e-learning, these do not translate into concrete 
actions due to fragmented approach and weak inter-agency coordination related to policies and monitoring 
mechanisms that check whether the policy goals were accomplished (Mtebe & Raphael, 2023). Our article in 
particular uses this theory as a critical tool to examine why much-touted digital education policies stumble on their 
ambitious accessibility and quality goals, especially in the marginalized geographies. This paper underscores the 
significance in planning around governance, institutional readiness, and stakeholder alignment to successfully 
implement digital learning initiatives. 

Indeed, The Digital Capital Theory extends this analysis to a more sociological perspective, by viewing digital 
access as one of many capitals (along with economic capital, social capital and cultural capital) that interact 
together to affect educational trajectories (Ragnedda et al., 2019). Digital capital refers to the digital assets (e.g., 
devices, connectivity) and resources (e.g., digital skills, online participation) that people have access to in order to 
thrive within the world of the internet. These individuals will also be more able to effectively participate in e-
learning programs, accomplish digital coursework, and migrate into knowledge-based economies — all of which 
are critical in learning how to use computer tools. On the other hand, these graduates mostly struggle and busy 
off-line in terms of both education and job opportunities. This theory underlines the multiplication of gaps in 
digital capital by learning inequality and intergenerational handicap (Van Deursen & Helsper, 2020) that arises 
from digital exclusion, based on structural inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores the importance of 
digital resilience-building policies, especially for vulnerable groups. 

When combined, these theories provide a broader lens to look through when examining educational and 
learning outcomes relative digital access related policy. Theories offer the mechanisms through which the policies 
alter and shape access with respect to real freedoms: Capabilities Approach provides a normative goal — what is 
worth having, Policy Implementation Theory addresses how policy goals actually get realized, while Digital 
Capital Theory explains unequal educational experiences through inequalities in resources and competences 
available. This study takes an integrative theoretical approach since the digital divide as well as education 
governance in Sub-Saharan Africa are complex and multifaceted. Yet, the Capability Approach and Policy 
Implementation Theory are selected as the core theoretical frameworks on the grounds that they resonate best 
with aspects of equity, policy design and implementation, institutional capacity to influence e-learning outcomes so 
evident in the study. 

 

2.3. Empirical Review 
Over the past few years, but particularly in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic and related global disruptions, a 

new and substantial body of empirical research on digital learning, policy implementation, and educational 
inequality has been developed. There is a large amount of research carried out both in developed and developing 
contexts that have investigated the intersections of e-learning access, quality and equity, which has informed 
policies formulation and review. Digital learning in developed countries has emerged until integrated within the 
mainstream education system but digital disparity are still facing by social-economical disadvantages class. For 
instance Green et al.[14] in UK built an ecosystem of interest. (2020) investigated the capacity of students to 
transition into remote learning as thermodynamic status. While digital infrastructure was generally available, it 
was reported that students from low-income families found it difficult to access digital tools and lacked the skills 
for online learning and facilities for quiet learning spaces away from other family members, as well as in some cases 
parental support leading to widening gaps in learning between different social groups. Likewise, researchers in the 
United States (Reich et al. Barber (2021) conducted a large-scale multi-district investigation into remote learning 
outcomes, finding that while digital access could—or could not—translate into equitable outcomes without 
effective pedagogical and socio-emotional support. 

In Scandinavia, where internet access and familiarity with the ICT are among the highest in the world, digital 
citizenship has been integrated into national curriculum strategies. Proactive teacher preparation reinforced with 
inclusive basics on e-learning have proven helpful during COVID-19 online education shift: The force of Finnish 
evidence — case Sahlberg & Brown 2021. Nevertheless, even in these well-resourced contexts issues were 
encountered, predominantly among students with special needs within gaining student interest and motivation 
(Karlsson & Rehn, 2022). Baroutsis and Lingard (2020) found in Australia, that their regional participants 
continued to experience connectivity challenges combined with the on-going problem of engagement confirming 
that geographical disparity does not disappear even within more digital indigenous education systems. 

In the developing world, that intractable problem is more basic. The digital inequality is the reflection of large 
socio-economic, infrastructural deficits. Choudhury and Pattnaik (2021) examined the use of the DIKSHA platform 
in India, in response to which they observed pronounced inequalities between rural and urban consumption of 
digital content. The importance of contextualised digital content and teacher support systems was highlighted by 
the study. In Indonesia, Kusuma and Rosyada (2022) pointed out that the implementation of e-learning suffered 
from a lack of national policy integration and digital readiness at school level which produced diverse outcomes 
between provinces. In Brazil, Almeida and Silva (2020) also reported that though the nation has national strategies 
to deploy digital learning but its fragmented bureaucratic structure and political instability restricted deployment 
in an organized manner. 

Findings from a comparative study covering South Asia and Latin America by Bano & Taylor, 2021 reveal that 
while the policies of most nations under analysis (South Asia +Latin Am) called for digital extension — they had 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

27 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

weak monitoring and evaluation provisions. In the final analysis, they argued that policy success is not only a 
matter of intent but also operational clarity and adaptive governance. Genc and Ozturk (2021) in Turkey reported 
that high level of predictability was positively correlated with the successful adoption of e-learning, indicating that 
by devolving authority on decision making, schools might increase responsiveness and innovation. 

Empirical studies show a consistent pattern in Sub-Saharan Africa: high ambition but low practice parties. In 
general, a study by Mtebe and Raphael (2023) revealed that while ICT policies are common in the region, most 
countries suffer from limited funding, poor teacher preparation and an unreliable supply of electricity. In Nigeria, 
Eze et al. (2024) studied the implementation of National Digital Education Policy and found much needs to be done 
in setting-up infrastructure adequately and establishment monitoring mechanisms. Likewise, Asunka (2021) 
studied policy implementation in Ghana, and found that its digital platforms were being used by few only in street 
schools for the most part shunned high and urban school members. 

Njenga and Ngugi (2020) reveal a summary of a research in Kenya where the success of mobile learning 
projects such as Eneza Education faces challenges related to long-run scalability owing to high costs of data and 
limited policy support. A mixed-method study in South Africa (Uleanya & Gamede 2023) points to the misfit of 
national e-learning ambitions with school-level practices. Activist scholars and researchers sounding the alarm 
over pandemic inequities found evidence of the institutional capacity and contextual responsiveness necessary to 
make learning outcomes more equitable. In Rwanda, Musafiri and Habiyaremye (2022) conducted a related study 
where some progress was noted in the integration of digital learning via national policy though gender disparities 
in digital literacy were said to be a hindrance for girls aspiring to participate into STEM online courses. 

Adu-Gyamfi et al. conducted a multi-country study and eco-taxonomic exploration in 2017 [10]. In Nigeria, 
Ghana and Ethiopia, a study comparing e-learning policies found that most strategies concentrated on building the 
appropriate infrastructure across institutions with no plans to ensure access for all stakeholders (Atata et al., 2022). 
They suggested the adoption of disability- and conflict-sensitive policy designs that formalize access to these 
groups. Olaniyan et al. This was echoed by LenkaBula and Bajenoban (2023) in their paper on digital 
transformation in African education: "If expanding digital inclusion is more than just providing access to devices, 
but also requires; training, the clustering of local content, and inclusive governance to tailor the use of technology 
for catalytic social change. 

These are affirmed by reports from UNICEF (2024) and UNESCO (2023), who also add that only 40% of Sub-
Saharan African schoolchildren have Internet access, or even any form of exposure to online or broadcast learning 
on a set schedule, the rural poor being the most affected. Such agencies would advocate for a multi-sectoral 
response that combines infrastructure, teacher training programs, curriculum design and monitoring frameworks. 
In addition to this, as stipulated by World Bank (2022): although the introduction of funded digital education 
projects have added cost-effective solutions for enhancing accessibility, sustainability and scalability still remains 
an enormous challenge due weak local ownership and policy continuity. 

Together, these research based studies exemplify the nuanced dimensions of digital education reform in 
resource-rich and resource-constrained contextsandelucidatethe synergies between effective planning and 
pedagogical inputs for a sustainable transformation in classroom practice. Too, they spotlight others — including 
the insufficiency of infrastructure in ensuring equitable ends on its own… the centrality of teacher capacity and 
institutional readiness … and finally a call for comprehensive, inclusive, contextually appropriate policy design. 
The research suggests — especially for Sub-Saharan Africa — a glaring chasm between policy and implementation, 
the implications of which are significant in terms of digital equity, learning continuity, and sustainability of human 
capital development over time. Conclusion This empirical evidence therefore strengthens the case for policy 
analysis methods examining not only what policies are but also how and where they work or for whom. 
 

2.4. Conceptual Framework 
 

 
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Linking E-Learning Policies, Digital Access, and Educational Outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa. 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

28 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 3. Simplified Conceptual Model of Policy–Access–Outcome Relationships in Digital Learning. 

 

2.4.1. Explanatory Note on the Conceptual Framework 
This study is guided by the following conceptual model and underscores the structured way through which 

policy, access and outcomes are connected in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) within digital educational context. The 
framework is predicated on the Capability Approach, Policy Implementation Theory, and Digital Capital Theory 
and explains how e-learning policy frameworks as independent variables work through digital access 
infrastructure, to affect learning equality and educational outcomes (mediated) at the individual level but are 
moderated at higher level of analysis by digital literacy and institutional capacity. 

One of the key tenets in this framework is the idea that national policy frameworks, including e-learning 
strategies, budgetary allocations and institutional governance arrangements are paramount for moulding a digital 
education ecosystem. However, merely having the rules in place is not enough. The impact of these projects mostly 
hinges on the availability and quality of digital infrastructure, such as internet connectivity, device distribution and 
electricity access in schools. The mediating variable of the framework is these infrastructural components, that 
serve to translate policy intent into actual embodied learnable places. 

Learning equality and educational outcomes (dependent variable): Learning equality is estimated as a direct 
relationship with digital participation rates, through student retention rates or literacy & numeracy performance 
and gender-parity in digital learning engagement. These two measures of attainment offer a basis for comparing 
outcomes that is, themselves, linked to equity—a fundamental dimension consistent with Sen's (1999) Capability 
Approach which is so concerned with broadening real liberties and opportunities for all citizens. 

Critically, the framework acknowledges that any interaction between policy and outcome is conditional on the 
presence of moderating variables, especially in relation to digital literacy and institutional capacity. These measures 
may encompass teacher willingness to implement ICT based learning, digital literacy of students or even the 
availability of technical personnel and overall institutional readiness via a standardized global indicator (some 
example include international benchmarks like UNESCOWayFinders for ICT competencies). These measures 
incorporate findings from the Digital Capital Theory, which posits that access to digital tools is only as strong or 
weak as users' ability to effectively employ them, and from Policy Implementation Theory, which underscores the 
importance of administrative capacity in turning policy into practice. 

Graphically, the framework presents a flow in which e-learning policies and digital infrastructure drive digital 
access (which is then linked to educational equity and outcomes). The intermediary position of digital literacy and 
institutional capacity dictates the intensity and direction of this nexus resulting in a policy that reinforces, or 
constrains, overall progress. 

In conclusion, this conceptual framework offers an indepth and complex model that puts forwards a holistic 
view of all aspects of the digital divide in education. This highlights the need to facilitate a policy for development 
steered by infrastructural realities and institutional capacity, which would lead Sub-Saharan Africa towards 
inclusive and quality digital education outcomes. The framework will help steer policy analysis through delineating 
multiple evaluative pathways and ensuring a more nuanced understanding of digital education inequalities in the 
region. 

 

3. Methodology (Policy Analysis Design) 
Using a study, we adopt this QCPA to investigate how e-learning policies in certain Sub-Saharan African 

countries between 2010 and 2025 addressed the issues of access, quality and equity in formulation processes at 
primary level digital education. It fits nicely with respect to unpacking various aspects of policy formulation and 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

29 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

context-specific adaptability in the implementation process across governance systems. As such, QPCA provides a 
rich comparison in terms of policy content, actors and outcomes which allows for a deeper context-based 
comprehension of the digital education policy world in the region. 

An extensive range of unpublished and published primary and secondary policy sources were utilised to ensure 
analytical robustness in this study. These comprised official government education ICT policies, national e-learning 
strategies and sectoral digital transformation plans accessible through public sources and institutional repositories. 
The study also incorporates international agency reports (UNESCO, the World Bank, UNICEF and ITU) that offer 
regionally aggregated data & policy benchmarks for learning-purposes of individual countries based on diagnostic 
insights into ICT integration in education systems. These sources made it possible to triangulate and strengthen the 
comparative nature of the analysis. 

The choice of countries in this study is orchestrated by certain criterions, which requires a range subject from 
many matters. Within that context, five Sub-Saharan African countries (Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda and South 
Africa) were purposively selected on the basis of their having documented histories of digital education policy 
development within a 2010–2025 temporal range; regional representation across East, West and Southern Africa; 
levels of ICT infrastructure coverage; and publicly accessible written policy documents with implementation data. 
This cross-sectional approach makes it possible to compare policy pathways in relatively more advanced and 
resource-rich settings, against those in less-developed and developing settings, as well as to observe best practices 
and ongoing challenges. 

The study combines three policy evaluation models within a single analytical framework (a hybrid approach). In 
order to analyze context, content, actors and processes of each policy — which should provide insights into how 
such a policy is developed and implemented Walt´s and Gilson´s (1994) Policy Triangle Framework were used as 
the first step. Using Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework, the study explores how different configurations of 
advocacy coalitions (coalitions of government actors, donors, NGOs and educators with contrasting belief systems 
and resources) interact to influence policy overtime. This is especially the case for Sub-Saharan African contexts 
where external development partners are major players in shaping national education agendas. Third, Bardach's 
Eightfold Path structures the analysis to judge the effectiveness, feasibility, fairness and cost-effectiveness of policies 
selected in order to move out from lockdowns towards normal learning redistributing digital divide and learning 
inequality. 

When it comes to analysis tools, the study applies a structured document review method for policy text, 
implementation reports as well as institutional evaluations. Documents are analysed thematically and coded 
according to content using thematic coding techniques, providing a key policy topics/opportunities, redundancies 
and contradictions within the statements. The actual modes of articulating these policy dimensions -- funding, 
teacher training, infrastructure targets, and monitoring mechanisms -- across countries are aligned using a 
comparative matrix. Then, stakeholder mapping is performed to visualize the power and role of actors throughout 
an actor at all policy stages from design to implementation and evaluation. 

Ethical considerations consideration are at the core of this policy analysis. The source documents reviewed in 
this study are from the literature (in the public domain) or ac-quired with institutional permissions to ensure 
transparency, as is required by open-source research norms. The study does not involve human subjects, and 
therefore is exempt from formal ethical review. However, strict citations and references to data sources as well as the 
use of validated institutional documents ensure academic integrity. The analysis also displays political and policy 
discretion on the part of the interpretation of what was intended through different policies along with their 
outcomes by not showing an overly politicised or biased view of specific country challenges. 

Ultimately, this methodology offers a robust and context-specific to understanding how digital education 
policies in Sub-Saharan Africa navigate the complex interplay of access, quality and equity issues. It is expected to 
generate insights that may inform theoretically-grounded, empirically-based and practically-driven 
recommendations regarding more inclusive, effective and sustainable digital learning policy reforms throughout the 
region through a comparative analysis across well-established policy evaluation frameworks. 
 

4. Results and Findings 
Setting up a base for e-learning in schools is an advisable solution to salvage the situation, however, the question 

remains — how can this make e-learning resilient during crisis-like contexts of public health and natural disasters? 
]; Effective Policy Frameworks We analyse effective policy designs with comparative insights across five Sub-
Saharan African countries Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa on their strategies for e-learning from 
year 2010 to 2025. The discussion of the findings is divided into five sections according to these major thematic 
areas (Table 1) and reflect the structural and functional elements of digital education policy in SSA. 

E-Learning Policy Landscape in Sub-Saharan Africa: from the other themes, the E-learning theme has been a 
subject of review and evolution through out the past decade. Within all five countries, national ICT-in-education 
strategies have been institutionalized as part of wider education sector plans or digital economy frameworks. 
Programmes such as Kenya 2019 Digital Literacy Programme and Rwanda Smart Education Blueprint (2021) had 
structured alignment with long-term national visions, namely Vision 2030 and Vision 2050 in their respective 
countries. South Africa has incorporated e-learning provisions into its White Paper on e-Education (augmented 
through provincial e-strategies), and Nigeria and Ghana have more diversified yet nascent policy frameworks. But 
however robust the intentions behind a policy, their articulation frequently ranges from the specific and 
operationally detailed (path-breaking) to aspirational or still under review. 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

30 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 4. Digital Literacy Levels by Country in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

 
This bar chart compares digital literacy across selected countries, disaggregating data by teacher ICT readiness, 

student digital skills, and rural–urban disparities. It reveals significant variation in readiness levels and highlights 
where digital inclusion programs are needed most. The visual emphasizes the digital divide in rural areas and 
underlines the importance of targeted policy interventions for capacity building. 

A critical dimension of these policies pertains to Access and Infrastructure. Rwanda and Kenya stand out for 
their emphasis on last-mile digital access, including investment in device distribution, solar-powered connectivity for 
rural schools, and public-private partnerships to reduce internet costs. In contrast, Nigeria and Ghana, despite 
substantial policy ambitions, continue to experience infrastructural bottlenecks—marked by unreliable electricity, 
low broadband penetration in rural areas, and limited device availability. South Africa exhibits a dual reality: urban 
centers boast advanced ICT integration, while many rural and township schools remain digitally underserved. 
Across all countries, policy documents frequently underscore the importance of “universal access,” yet they often 
lack concrete financing mechanisms or roll-out timelines to realize this goal at scale. 
 

 
Figure 5. E-Learning Infrastructure Access in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

 
This map presents a comparative visualization of digital learning infrastructure across Sub-Saharan Africa, 

highlighting disparities in internet penetration, rural–urban ICT access, and device availability. Countries are color-
coded by access level—ranging from high to very low—emphasizing the structural inequalities that influence policy 
effectiveness and the urgency of targeted interventions for underserved regions. 

When reflecting on the themes, it is clear that the third theme of Equity and Inclusion despite being rhetorically 
prioritized in most policy frameworks continues to be one of the major challenges. Girl's inclusiveness in STEM and 
digital literacy programs remains an issue with limited initiatives to address gender disparities other than broad 
commitments to "gender mainstreaming". Rwanda stands out for defining gender-sensitive indicators into its ICT 
policies and for recommending digital skills training specifically directed at girls. In Nigeria and Ghana on the other 
hand, policies are more generalist: they are less disaggregated by sex, rural or disabled victims of VAWG The 
biggest impediments to digital access remain structural poverty, language exclusion in digital content and low 
teacher deployment in marginalized rural areas. These findings also confirm the empirical literature, that national 
resources in absence of specific inclusion frameworks perpetuate educational disparity Adu-Gyamfi et al. (2022); 
Uleanya & Gamede, 2023). 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

31 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 6. Equity Indices in E-Learning by Demographic Group and Location 

 
This clustered column chart visualizes disparities in e-learning participation across gender, geographic location, 

and socio-economic status. Equity index scores indicate that urban and high-income learners exhibit significantly 
greater digital learning inclusion than their rural and low-income counterparts. The figure emphasizes the need for 
targeted equity strategies to close persistent digital education gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Across all five countries, Implementation Gaps was a cross-cutting issue. Weaknesses in budgeting, teacher 
training, and monitoring & evaluation (M&E) were consistently detected — even though the country did possess 
robust national policy frameworks. In Nigeria, the National Digital Education Policy articulates grand objectives 
but its budget allocation is far from steady and procurement processes are often slow. In turn, Ghana suffers the 
same problem (implementation lag) but that is worsened with limited capacity among its ministries and agencies to 
work around the interim processes. Kenya and Rwanda on the other hand, have implemented with greater fidelity, 
generally led by national digital governance bodies and donor-funded implementation agents. Solid teacher training 
mechanisms have historically been lacking, thereby compromising the effectiveness of e-learning delivery in rural 
schools, where teachers often do not possess either digital devices or instructional competencies. In addition, 
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms do not exist or are nascent, preventing a measure of policy success 
and feedback to quickly modify strategies. 

Comparative Analysis of high and low performing countries show significant differences in both: policy 
maturity; delivery. Rwanda emerges as a regional leader for its coordination, political willingness, and huristics in 
monitoring digital literacy rates, school connectivity and capacity building of teachers. There is strong institutional 
readiness and innovation in Kenya as well, particularly around mobile learning solutions like Eneza and Tusome. 
Having well-articulated policy frameworks, Nigeria and Ghana are yet not fully effective in their implementation. 
South Africa typifies the above hybrid model, with provincial policy implementation determining performance — 
highlighting intra-national inequalities in digital readiness. The matrix above summarizes key characteristics of 
policies in the five countries: 
 

Table 1. Equity Indices in E-Learning by Demographic Group and Location. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Country Policy 
Strength 

Access 
Provision 

Equity Focus Implementation 
Capacity 

Monitoring & 
Evaluation 

Performan
ce Level 

Rwanda High Strong rural 
reach & device 
rollout 

Strong 
(gender/disability 
inclusive) 

High (centralized 
execution) 

Advanced 
(national M&E 
dashboards) 

High 

Kenya High Broad digital 
coverage, 
mobile-based 
access 

Moderate (gender-
focused pilots) 

High (public-
private execution) 

Moderate (digital 
literacy surveys) 

High 

South 
Africa 

Moderate–
High 

Strong urban; 
weak rural 

Moderate 
(provincial 
disparities) 

Moderate 
(provincial 
implementation 
gaps) 

Varies by region Moderate 

Ghana Moderate Urban-centered, 
low rural 
coverage 

Weak (minimal 
targeting) 

Low–Moderate 
(donor-driven 
execution) 

Weak (no 
centralized M&E 
system) 

Low–
Moderate 

Nigeria Moderate Patchy coverage; 
major rural 
deficits 

Weak (generic 
inclusion rhetoric) 

Low (bureaucratic 
fragmentation) 

Weak (limited 
monitoring) 

Low 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

32 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

These findings suggest that while digital education is a strategic priority across Sub-Saharan Africa, success 
depends not only on the presence of national policies but on the coherence of implementation strategies, 
infrastructure readiness, and the intentionality of equity-focused interventions. Countries that perform better in 
digital learning outcomes tend to exhibit strong institutional coordination, well-resourced execution frameworks, 
and inclusive design principles that prioritize marginalized learners. These insights form the basis for the study’s 
forthcoming discussion and policy recommendations, aimed at informing more context-sensitive and sustainable 
digital education reforms in the region. 
 

5. Discussion 
This comparative policy analysis of digital education policies across five Sub-Saharan African countries provides 

essential insights worked form a detailed understanding of the finely balanced processes and mechanisms that unfold 
a complex governance landscape while acting as states operate in resource-constrained environments. This makes it 
possible to demonstrate that the region has come a long way in recognizing digital transformation as a key issue for 
education policy but also to show how differently these responses have been implemented and carried out given 
existing structures, institutions, and conditions. 

The fact that policy intent is inadequate is one of the most noticeable findings. Almost all countries reviewed 
have either formulated a national ICT-in-education policy or integrated digital elements into broader education 
sector plans, translating these achievements into practice has proven difficult. However, in Rwanda and Kenya have 
direct decision-making lines, clear executive leadership and digital governance are centralized. As such policies will 
translate into the desired outcomes within their enforcement windows of infrastructure deployment, teacher 
readiness as well as learner access. In Nigeria and Ghana, on the other hand, scattered institutional arrangements; 
unstable funding; and limited monitoring, evaluation exacerbate policy-practice synergies and prevent a move 
toward digital education access equilibrium! 

One success factor reached by high-performing countries is utilization of international support and public-
private partnerships (PPPs). In places like Rwanda, partnerships with UNICEF, Microsoft or the World Bank have 
enabled distribution and digital literacy training to be amplified across a wider part of the country, particularly in 
rural areas. Those of us working in Kenya have seen the same, agile collaboration between public and private sector 
helping organizations like mobile service providers and ed-tech startups tech innovate on their platforms and get 
low-cost data access to the last mile. But this engagement is not always uniformly high yielding. In low-performing 
settings, international support may accidentally promote donor dependence, and especially so when the design, 
implementation and monitoring of projects are externally driven with little local buy-in. PPPs that do not align with 
national strategies, are not integrated into local capacity building initiatives will lack the sustainability and 
relatability of interventions. 

This is a topic that has long been inseparable from the questions of equity and digital exclusion. While policies 
rightly often commit to inclusivity, the truth is that who takes digital learning initiatives' advantages are closest to a 
best fit-wise urban, high-income boys — especially in WASH (water and sanitation health) burdened nations where 
infrastructure gap is the most wide-spread. Poor internet penetration, scarce device availability, linguistic exclusion 
and poor digital literacy mean many marginalized groups including rural learners, girls, students with disabilities 
are still struggling to get quality education. These truths mirror the basic concerns of the Capability Approach: the 
notion that Amartya Sen provided us with, that equal use of technology is worthless if it does not imply universal 
freedom to turn digital applicable approaches into educational results as well. By neglecting context-specific 
barriers, e-learning policies could thus reproduce digital inequalities in the guise of bolstered modernity. 

Aca:* this article Read more: 5 lessons from regional best practices The Smart Education Blueprint of Rwanda, 
for instance is characterized by metrics-oriented implementation targets, principles for ubiquitous design and strong 
stakeholder channels. The decentralized mobile learning model from Kenya serves as an inoculable example of what 
can happen when innovation meets rural access, especially if coupled with effective public policy support. From these 
cases, we can see that the type of policy change that gains traction is one that is contextually responsive; equity-
centered and institutionally embedded. We emphasize the importance of validation of the policy triangle framework 
(Walt & Gilson, 1994) that a successful outcome depends on context, content, actors and process — not just whether 
a policy document is well-crafted. 

Returning to the original framework developed in this study, we substantiated the relationship between policy 
inputs, supported with digital access infrastructure and educational outcomes (c•°), contingent on facilitating or 
inhibiting conditions — namely, digital literacy and institutional capacity. Digital learning can support inclusion and 
improve learning outcomes when policies are supported by adequate technical, financial and human resources; are 
coherent; and can be monitored. But in places where those pieces of the infrastructure really are not present or well-
coordinated, progress on paper falls far short in practice—leaving the digital divide largely unaddressed and, even 
worse, potentially worsened. The importance of Policy Implementation Theory reminds us that policy success is not 
in the design phase, but occurs through the processes of delivery, adaptations, and accountability over time. 

And finally, the use of Digital Capital Theory is supported by a further indication of why not all benefit equally 
from digital learning initiatives due to differences in the accumulation of digital assets and competencies. The 
challenge is that in areas where digital capital concentrates, this leads to a higher likelihood of already-privileged 
social groups while e-learning reforms can end up aggravating the disparities they are supposed to reduce. This will 
necessitate a planned equalization of digital opportunity — through policies that ensure inclusive infrastructure 
development, region-specific content creation and systemic teacher development programmes. 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

33 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 7. Presents a SWOT overview, emphasizing both internal system gaps and external risk factors. 

 
AtiIn conclusion, this discussion demonstrates that the future of equitable digital education in Sub-Saharan 

Africa hinges not only on crafting forward-looking policies but also on ensuring that such policies are inclusive in 
design, context-sensitive in implementation, and supported by strong governance mechanisms and partnerships. 
Lessons drawn from both successes and failures within the region offer valuable guidance for shaping the next 
generation of digital learning reforms—ones that truly bridge the gap between aspiration and access, and between 
connectivity and capability. 
 

6. D Conclusion 
This study sought to investigate how e-learning policies in eleven Sub-Saharan African countries have 

addressed the needs of access, quality and equity in digital education from 2010-2025. It was found that as the policy 
formulation has shifted, however the outcomes have been disparate mainly because of crucial implementation gaps. 
They show that coherent strategies, institution-building, and results-oriented public-private partnership can 
operationalize policy intent into tangible changes to the education outcome. On the other hand, systems in countries 
like Nigeria and Ghana are well-articulated but this have been downgraded by fragmented governance, poor 
financing and weak monitoring systems. 

These findings should be taken into account in the drafting of education policy since, as has been observed with 
this sample, access to resources must also be supplemented by structural support in the same way that strategies 
should not only accommodate local circumstances, but be robust enough that they cater to inclusive practices so 
they do not entrench existing disparities. Grounding this with the Capability Approach, Policy Implementation 
Theory, and Digital Capital Theory, it is clear that organising requires structural change. 

Three central policy recommendations to support greater inclusivity and sustainability in digital education 
throughout the region are provided. Ensure a strong digital infrastructure and that no one is likely to be left behind, 
particularly in rural, poor and marginalized communities. The second is to set solid monitoring and evaluation 
systems that can identify progress and ensure accountability. Establish mechanisms to coordinate regional policy 
standards and reforms, facilitating knowledge exchange and coordinated progress across Sub-Saharan Africa. 
Together, these steps can narrow the chasm between policy promise and practice, making digital learning a more 
effective equalizer in Africa's education future. 
 

References 
Adu, E. O., Akinyemi, A. F., & Olatunji, S. O. (2021). Digital divide and educational inequality in Africa: Issues and implications. Education 

and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3753–3770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10484-3 
Adu-Gyamfi, S., Ampofo, E. T., & Frempong, G. (2022). Digital learning and policy implementation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities 

and constraints. International Journal of Educational Development, 92, 102611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102611 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10484-3


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(9): 23-34 

34 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Almeida, L., & Silva, C. (2020). Governance and equity in Brazil’s digital education policy: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Comparative 
Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(5), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1768369 

Asunka, S. (2021). E-learning and policy landscapes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance 
and e-Learning, 36(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1743174 

Bano, M., & Taylor, R. (2021). Education in emergencies: E-learning policies in South Asia and Latin America. Development in Practice, 31(4), 
489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1892790 

Baroutsis, A., & Lingard, B. (2020). Regional inequality and digital learning in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 47(3), 487–503. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00377-2 

Choudhury, P., & Pattnaik, J. K. (2021). Evaluating digital learning implementation in India’s public schools: Challenges and solutions. 
International Journal of Educational Policy, 37(2), 103–122. [No DOI found] 

Dlamini, Z., & Ndwandwe, A. (2020). Bridging the digital divide in Southern Africa: Policy strategies and their implications for equity. 
Journal of African Educational Research, 15(2), 135–149. [No DOI found] 

Eze, S. C., Chinedu-Eze, V. C., & Bello, A. O. (2024). Policy frameworks for digital education in West Africa: Evaluating readiness and 
inclusion. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 32(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.32.8240 

Genc, H., & Ozturk, H. (2021). Leadership and digital education reform in Turkey: An institutional analysis. Educational Management 
Administration & Leadership, 49(6), 872–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220951199 

Green, F., Anders, J., Henderson, M., & Henseke, G. (2020). Schoolwork in lockdown: New evidence on the epidemic of educational inequality 
(CEPEO Briefing Note). University College London. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2020.1620 

Karlsson, M., & Rehn, J. (2022). Digital inclusion and special education: Policy responses in Sweden and Finland. European Journal of Special 
Needs Education, 37(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1926985 

Kusuma, A., & Rosyada, D. (2022). Digital readiness and education equity in Indonesia’s post-COVID response. Asia Pacific Journal of 
Education, 42(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2052269 

Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2023). The role of policy in shaping the digital learning landscape in East Africa. International Review of Research 
in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6712 

Musafiri, J., & Habiyaremye, C. (2022). Gender and digital learning in Rwanda: Policy advances and persistent gaps. African Journal of Gender 
and Development, 14(3), 211–228. [No DOI found] 

Njenga, K., & Ngugi, B. (2020). Mobile learning innovations and policy constraints in Kenya. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 615–
628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09959-0 

Olaniyan, O., Ibrahim, M., & Adepoju, A. (2023). Inclusive digital transformation in African education: Policy responses to the COVID-19 
pandemic. Development Policy Review, 41(1), e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12586 

Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Fang, A., Hillaire, G., Hirsch, K., Larke, L. R., & Slama, R. (2021). Remote learning guidance from state education 
agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A first look. Educational Policy, 35(1), 135–157. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820987856 

Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers. 
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0130 

Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2019). Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media & Society, 22(5), 793–816. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819869604 

Sahlberg, P., & Brown, G. (2021). Learning from the pandemic: What policymakers need to know (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 256). 
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9d90e63f-en 

Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. A. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–
560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. 
Teye, J. K., & Boakye, E. A. (2021). Regional variations in ICT policy implementation in African education systems. African Journal of 

Educational Management, 19(3), 45–63. [No DOI found] 
Uleanya, C., & Gamede, B. T. (2023). Towards digitally inclusive education policies in Africa: A critical review. Journal of Education and 

Practice, 14(4), 12–23. [No DOI found] 
UNESCO. (2023). Education in a post-COVID world: Nine ideas for public action. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373717 
UNICEF. (2024). State of the world’s children report: Children and digital connectivity. United Nations Children’s Fund. 

https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2024 
Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2020). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and 

Information Technologies Annual (Vol. 14, pp. 29–52). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020200000014002 
Walt, G., & Gilson, L. (1994). Reforming the health sector in developing countries: The central role of policy analysis. Health Policy and 

Planning, 9(4), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/9.4.353 
World Bank. (2022). Digital transformation and inclusive education in Africa. 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/publication/digital-learning-africa 

 
 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819869604
https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020200000014002
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/publication/digital-learning-africa

