Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This Perspective argues that teaching technology to agricultural science students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) who face persistent constraints in access to devices, electricity, connectivity, prior digital preparation, and mentorship should be organized around building durable capabilities for agricultural problem-solving rather than short-lived training in specific tools. We argue that technology education is most effective when it is mobile-first and offline-tolerant, grounded in local agroecological and market realities, assessed through authentic performance tasks, and oriented toward student agency in shaping digital agricultural transitions. We further define critical data literacy as the ability to collect, interpret, manage, and communicate agricultural data while questioning the power relations, exclusions, and ethical risks embedded in data systems. Drawing on recent empirical evidence from sub-Saharan Africa and other Global South settings, we outline a practical curriculum architecture that integrates data practices, geospatial reasoning, advisory communication, and critical data literacy across the agricultural degree, and we conclude with implementation and governance pathways for departments, universities, and policymakers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferruzola-Gomez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: