Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  • Adkins, S. S. (2018). Global edtech investment surges to a record $9.5 billion in 2017. Retrieved from Metaari website:

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, S. R. (2009). Innovation diffusion: Implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 24, 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bork, A. (1987). Learning with personal computers. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, P., & Good, A. (2015). More important than the contract is the relationship. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, S. (2018). New ‘Education Exchange’ will pay teachers for reviews of ed-tech products. Edweek Market Brief. Retrieved from

  • Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing mathmatics achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from

  • 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

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from

  • Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). (2015). Framework of essential skills of the K-12 CTO. Retrieved from

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dyrli, O. E. (2007). District buying power 2007. District Administration. Retrieved from

  • Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of or alternative to validation of qualitative data. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 22, 175–197.

    Article  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 

  • Gowdy, J. M., & Mayumi, K. (2001). Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold, B. (2016). Technology in education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved from

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.

    Article  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:

  • Morrison, G. (1994). The media effects question: “Unresolvable” or asking the right question. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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:

  • Owusu, T. (2016). Ed tech: Schools face challenges in procuring the future. Real Money. Retrieved from

  • 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:

  • Rackham, N. (1973). Recent thoughts on evaluation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 5(10), 454–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.

    Article  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

  • 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

Download references


This study was funded by a contract from Digital Promise.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer R. Morrison.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



See Table 2.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for survey items

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morrison, J.R., Ross, S.M. & Cheung, A.C.K. From the market to the classroom: how ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 389–421 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: