From the market to the classroom: how ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors

  • Jennifer R. MorrisonEmail author
  • Steven M. Ross
  • Alan C. K. Cheung
Development Article


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.


Educational 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.


  1. Adkins, S. S. (2018). Global edtech investment surges to a record $9.5 billion in 2017. Retrieved from Metaari website:
  2. Anthony, A. B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley, S. R. (2009). Innovation diffusion: Implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 24, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bork, A. (1987). Learning with personal computers. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  5. Burch, P., & Good, A. (2015). More important than the contract is the relationship. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 35–39. Scholar
  6. Cavanagh, S. (2018). New ‘Education Exchange’ will pay teachers for reviews of ed-tech products. Edweek Market Brief. Retrieved from
  7. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing mathmatics achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from
  8. 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
  9. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  13. Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). (2015). Framework of essential skills of the K-12 CTO. Retrieved from
  14. 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. Scholar
  15. Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 543–554). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyrli, O. E. (2007). District buying power 2007. District Administration. Retrieved from
  19. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305. Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  21. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of or alternative to validation of qualitative data. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 22, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CS: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Fullan, M. (1985). Curriculum implementation. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 1208–1215). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Gowdy, J. M., & Mayumi, K. (2001). Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 223–237. Scholar
  27. Herold, B. (2016). Technology in education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved from
  28. 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
  29. Kaufman, R., Rojas, A. M., & Mayer, H. (1993). Needs assessment: A user’s guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, H. (2013). Why schools make bad buying decisions: What needs to be done to fix procurement. Retrieved from edSurge website:
  35. Morrison, G. (1994). The media effects question: “Unresolvable” or asking the right question. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44. Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. R., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (in press). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. 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:
  39. Owusu, T. (2016). Ed tech: Schools face challenges in procuring the future. Real Money. Retrieved from
  40. 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:
  41. Rackham, N. (1973). Recent thoughts on evaluation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 5(10), 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Salomon, G., & Clark, R. E. (1977). Reexamining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 99–120. Scholar
  46. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60. Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research and Reform in EducationJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Administration and PolicyThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations