Most educators believe educational technology companies are not qualified to conduct valid research about their products, a new survey finds.
Yet the survey also found they rarely consult the What Works Clearinghouse鈥攃onsidered the 鈥済old standard鈥� by academic researchers鈥攖o determine the effectiveness of such products.
That puts them in a difficult spot, having to make decisions about the products without really knowing their efficacy.
Those are among the key findings and insights from the Education Research Perspectives Survey, recently released by the International Society for Technology in Education and the Jefferson Education Exchange, a nonprofit that aims to help educators and education leaders make better informed decisions about ed-tech.
In the nationally representative survey of 1,124 teachers, principals, district administrators, and technology leaders鈥�60 percent of whom are ISTE members鈥�76 percent felt that ed-tech vendors were not qualified to conduct valid research about their products, yet 48 percent still look at vendors鈥� sites to get information about those tools.
When he reviews research sponsored by companies, 鈥淚 take it with a grain of salt,鈥� said David Quinn, the director of technology integration for the 2,400-student Mendon-Upton Regional school district in Massachusetts. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not that it鈥檚 invalid, but I understand that sometimes it is advocacy research.鈥�
Natalie Makulski, a 3rd grade teacher at Botsford Elementary School in Livonia, Mich., who is finishing a Ph.D. in educational technology, considers vendor-provided research but wants to know whether the company鈥檚 study has been conducted by an independent researcher.
鈥淚 really want to know what the teacher does with it in their classroom, because that鈥檚 the real jungle,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut I do enjoy the company perspective as well.鈥�
What Clearinghouse?
Makulski searches for studies on GoogleScholar. Yet she and Quinn do not regularly consult the What Works Clearinghouse, a repository of federally funded research under the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences.
They鈥檙e not alone: 81 percent of this largely 鈥減lugged-in鈥� group of educators does not regularly review research from the clearinghouse.
That isn鈥檛 news to Mark Schneider, the first permanent director of the IES in four years, who was confirmed in March.
鈥淚鈥檓 not surprised by this information because I think the What Works Clearinghouse needs a serious face-lift, which we are in the process of doing,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he people we need to talk to are not researchers but practitioners.鈥�
To make its findings more accessible, the organization is working on translating its contents into 鈥減lain language鈥� and improving the search functionality on its website, he said.
鈥淔or companies, what passes as research is self-serving, and our goal is to figure out how to change that,鈥� Schneider said.
Earlier this year, the Education Technology Industry Network, a division of the Software & Information Industry Association, released updated guidelines in an attempt to make its research more relevant to educators and other K-12 decisionmakers.
鈥淢ost research ends up not really benefiting anybody,鈥� Mitch Weisburgh, the president of the industry association, and the managing partner of Academic Business Advisors, said when the ed-tech industry released new guidelines earlier this year. 鈥淲e鈥檝e been caught up with the same type of research pharmaceutical companies use. That research doesn鈥檛 work for education. It鈥檚 too big, too expensive, and it takes too long.鈥�
So ETIN updated its best-practices document about conducting research to include considerations about usage, implementation issues, and findings for subgroups of students.
Purchasing Decisions
Despite the challenges, some research is making its way into ed-tech purchasing decisions with this largely tech-savvy group.
The survey respondents were asked about their involvement with procurement. Of those who are involved, 65 percent said that they discuss ed-tech research with colleagues when working on a committee that makes procurement decisions, and 57 percent discuss such research with colleagues when seeking approval to use a new tool or product.
That group is more likely to be involved with ed-tech procurement than a general group of educators would be鈥攑ossibly because more than half of those who answered the survey are from ISTE, and 28 percent from ASCD, said Brandon Olszewski, ISTE鈥檚 director of research. The universe of K-12 educators is less likely to be involved with researching and buying ed-tech products.
Makulski, the Michigan teacher, said most of her education colleagues rely on word-of-mouth, not research of any kind, to choose products.
They 鈥渨ill buy these wonderful products, but when they get them, they don鈥檛 know what to do with them,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the sparkle and glitter we have to get away from. They need to know the purpose behind what they鈥檙e buying.鈥�
Quinn from Massachusetts tells a similar tale. Most teachers in his district rely on peer recommendations to make their own choices, he said.
His quest with researching products is to identify ones that drive achievement and also engage students. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want a tool that will increase scores but make students hate to read,鈥� he said.
Finding a trusted resource for useful and accessible research is an ongoing challenge.
鈥淲e continue to spend billions on these products without the information we need to make good decisions,鈥� said Bart Epstein, the president and CEO of the Jefferson Education Exchange.
鈥楾here Is No Research鈥�
Joseph South, the chief learning officer for ISTE, said he wants to change the dynamic in which ed-tech products are 鈥渃hosen based on popularity, not efficacy.鈥�
The co-sponsors of the Education Research survey are both working to address the issues raised in their research. For one, they are collaborating with other groups, like Digital Promise, a nonprofit that promotes the effective use of research and technology in education, to elevate the issue of sharing reliable information about ed-tech products.
ISTE also opened a community-driven review platform called the ISTE Edtech Advisor earlier this year. That resource is designed to give members of ISTE insight into which tools, technology, and apps are most likely to best meet their learning objectives.
And the Jefferson Education Exchange, launched in February, is a nonprofit organization working to improve how schools choose, procure, and implement educational technology. It plans to pay teachers for reviews of ed-tech products.
Epstein said further research is needed to understand more about how often educators consult peer-reviewed research, and what percentage of them do, to inform decisionmaking, too.
Quinn said he values both qualitative and quantitative aspects of research on digital products, but finds the quantitative metrics are often around very narrow aspects of usage. When those narrow measures are applied more broadly, 鈥渢he conclusions can be a little exaggerated,鈥� he said.
He has his own strategy for evaluating any ed-tech tool or app. First, he looks at 鈥渢he most critical piece of feedback鈥� about it, he said, then works backward from that point in establishing its potential value to teachers and students.
For Makulski, who sometimes wants to check out a recently released ed-tech tool, there鈥檚 another issue. 鈥淲ith a lot of the newer ones, you just have to take a risk,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ecause there is no research.鈥�
