From the market to the classroom: how ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors
School districts are adopting educational technology products at an increasing rate over the years. As more and more products become available, school districts face the challenge of identifying and evaluating programs to meet students’ needs, while ed-tech providers compete for access to decision makers. The present mixed methods study sought to document the process by which school districts discover, evaluate, and acquire ed-tech products and how vendors market and work through this process with districts. Participants included district stakeholders representing 54 school districts and vendors from 47 ed-tech companies. Results indicated that, in contrast to best practices, needs assessments were rarely, if at all conducted, districts and vendors lack a central source of information for product information and evidence of effectiveness, and decisions are often made on small-scale pilot tryouts, peer references, and less often by examining rigorous evaluation evidence. Based on these findings, we offer recommendations for both district and vendor stakeholders to encourage successful procurement of ed-tech products.
KeywordsEducational technology Technology integration Procurement Diffusion
This study was funded by a contract from Digital Promise.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Adkins, S. S. (2018). Global edtech investment surges to a record $9.5 billion in 2017. Retrieved from Metaari website: http://metaari.com/whitepapers.html.
- Bork, A. (1987). Learning with personal computers. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Cavanagh, S. (2018). New ‘Education Exchange’ will pay teachers for reviews of ed-tech products. Edweek Market Brief. Retrieved from https://marketbrief.edweek.org/.
- Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing mathmatics achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/tech/tech.html.
- Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing reading achievement in k-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/tech_read_April_25_2012.pdf.
- Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org.
- Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org.
- Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). (2015). Framework of essential skills of the K-12 CTO. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/Framework.
- Dagenais, C., Lysenko, L., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Ramde, J., & Janosz, M. (2012). Use of research-based information by school practitioners and determinants of use: A review of empirical research. The Policy Press, 8(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412X654031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Dyrli, O. E. (2007). District buying power 2007. District Administration. Retrieved from https://www.districtadministration.com.
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
- Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CS: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- Fullan, M. (1985). Curriculum implementation. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 1208–1215). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Herold, B. (2016). Technology in education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org.
- Hulleman, C. S., Burke, R. A., May, M., Charania, M., & Daniel, D. B. (2017). Merit or marketing?: Evidence and quality of efficacy research in educational technology companies. White paper produced by Working Group D for the EdTech Academic Efficacy Symposium. University of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA.Google Scholar
- Kaufman, R., Rojas, A. M., & Mayer, H. (1993). Needs assessment: A user’s guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
- Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Knowlton, J. Q. (1964). A conceptual scheme for the audiovisual field. Bulletin of the School of Education Indiana University, 40(3), 1–44.Google Scholar
- Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- Levy, H. (2013). Why schools make bad buying decisions: What needs to be done to fix procurement. Retrieved from edSurge website: https://www.edsurge.com.
- Morrison, J. R., & Ross, S. M. (2015). Results of the cohort 2 short-cycle evaluation challenge. Towson, MD: Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
- Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. R., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (in press). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Newman, D., Jaciw, A. P., & Lazarev, V. (2017). Guidelines for conducting and reporting EdTech impact research in U.S. K-12 schools. Report produced by Empirical Education for the Education Technology Industry Network of The Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from Empirical Education website: https://www.empiricaleducation.com/pdfs/guidelines.pdf.
- Owusu, T. (2016). Ed tech: Schools face challenges in procuring the future. Real Money. Retrieved from https://realmoney.thestreet.com/.
- Penuel, W. R., Briggs, D. C., Davidson, K. L., Herlihy, C., Sherer, D., Hill, H. C., … Allen, A.-R. (2016). Findings from a national study on research use among school and district leaders (Technical Report No. 1). Retrieved from the National Center for Research in Policy and Practice website: http://ncrpp.org/assets/documents/NCRPP_Technical-Report-1_National-Survey-of-Research-Use.pdf.
- Radlick, M. S. (1998). Hardware, software, vaporware, and wetware: A cautionary tale for superintendents (pp. 237–266). In R. R. Spillane & P. Regnier (Eds.), The superintendent of the future: Strategy and actions for achieving academic excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Guidance on Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed Tech) Program Funds Made Available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/edtech/guidance-arra.doc.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology: National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512681.pdf.