The Jefferson Education Exchange is accepting applications through September 15, 2019 to join The EdTech Genome Steering Committee. View this deck and contact Dan Brown at firstname.lastname@example.org to learn more.
The EdTech Genome Steering Commitee deck for practitioners
The EdTech Genome Project
A sector-wide effort tounderstand why education technology performs
differently in various contexts
Our schools have been hit by atechnological
explosion they were not readyfor.
In many ways, they’re still NOT
Every year, nearly14,000 school districts spend more than
$13.2 billion (and growing) on 6,000+ edtech tools.
Thedecision makers (administrators and teachers)who purchase
these tools largely rely on personal networks and internet searchesto
decide how tospend their edtechbudgets.
Thisis aninefficient, fragmented way for educatorsto spend
so muchtime and money,and it leads toenormouswaste.
…is spent on tools that are a GOODFIT
and IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY.
…is spent on tools that could be a GOOD
FIT but are NOTIMPLEMENTED
…is spent on tools that are DOOMED
TO FAIL because they are a POORFIT.
15% 30% 55%
In multiple surveys of thousands of educators, the view from the
groundis that edtechpurchasingandimplementationare a mess:
Educators estimate more than 85% of our $13.2B
edtech investment is wasted every year.
This is an EQUITY
Squandered resources harm vulnerable students the most, with
disproportionate impacts feltby students of color.
Dataabout this problem is finallybeing discovered and reported.
Unfortunately, there are
no easy answers. 7
Why are students and educators not using the
technologies purchased for them?
As a result, well-intentionededucators (administrators andteachers)
select ill-fitting products; and or
are unable to implement products properly.
The root cause appearsto be that educatorslackaccessto
informationabout how edtech tools performin different
contexts, and why.
Every edtech decision-maker wouldbenefit from
accessing the wisdom,experiences, and
perspectives of peers in similar contexts.
Yet no educator is in a position to make that
level of documentation andsharing a reality.
Economists callthis a
The Jefferson EducationExchangehas been
exploringthis since it convened the first EdTech
EfficacyResearch Symposium in 2017.
First EdTech Efficacy Research
• Convenednearly 300leading investors, academics,educators,
researchers, philanthropists,and entrepreneurs.
• Tencross-functionalparticipantworking groups,eachsupported by
a professional researcher, presented white papers at the
First EdTech Efficacy Research
• Thelackof contextuallyrelevant informationaboutedtech
implementations is ahuge “collectiveaction”problem.
• Everyoneagrees onwhosefaultitis.
• “Somebody”needs to lead.
The key takeawayfrom the Symposium:
“Somebody” needs to tackle these collective
action problems or nothing will improve.
The Jefferson Education Exchange
is stepping forwardto be
“the somebody” to facilitate the collectivetacklingof
The missionof the Jefferson Education Exchange is to help educators tomake
better-informed decisions about educationtechnology.
The Jefferson Education Exchange is structured as a public charity that is
supported exclusivelyby grants,philanthropy, and support froma growing list of
funders including the Universityof VirginiaCurry School of Education, Strada
Education Network, Billand Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, and The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
What does it mean
to “Map The EdTech
• Throughresearch andcollaboration,we candecode which
implementationcontexts are suited for whichedtechtools,andwhy.
• For a first step,theJefferson EducationExchangeresearch partners atthe
University ofVirginia haveidentified morethan70 contextualvariables
maybe associatedwith edtechimplementationsuccess orfailure. This
list of70+variables mustbe winnowed into amanageablepackagefor
• Collaboratively,across-sectionof educationpractitioners, experts, and
stakeholders must decidewhichcontextualvariables are“most
important”whenit comesto defining acontext for edtech
implementation.This includes achievingconsensuson measurement
instruments anddefinitions foreachvariable.
The EdTech GenomeProject
Properusage of edtechtools
Billions of dollarsaresaved and
Educatorsuse dataandanalysis to
increase qualityof toolselection and
Industryuses dataandanalysis tobetter
success and failureof their
Build “Exchange” platformthatallows
expertscollaboratetodecide which “edtech
implementationvariables”should be studied
Adozenworkingand technical groupsbuild
consensus onhow bestto define andmeasure
each variablein thefield.
Why does one implementan edtech tool
successfully, while the other fails?
School A School B
FAILSto implement the
Which variablesare different in the school
School A School B
Maybe the teachers in School A were more
involved in the purchasing decision, and felt
more ownership over the implementation.
Maybe School B overloaded its teachers
with too many new tools or practices in the
Maybe School A uses a learning management
system (LMS) and student information
system (SIS) that integrates with the edtech
Maybe School B had no way to
measure the outcome this new tool
was working to improve.
Maybe the students in School A have
more access to broadband-enabled
devices after school.
Maybe School B was trying to
replace a tool that its teachers
3. Age of Tech
4. Measurable Outcomes
9. Ease of Use
1. Leaders’ Involvement in Tech
3. Teacher Agency
4. Student/Family Agency
5. Contextual Awareness
1. Implementation Plan
2. Implementation Time
3. Fidelity of Implementation
4. Monitoring Tech Use
5. Digital Safety Processes/Protocol
6. Professional Acknowledgement
7. Tech Alignment with Curriculum, Content, &
8. Added Value
1. Teacher Demographics
2. School Demographics
3. Financial Resources
4. Classroom Structure
5. General Student Abilities
6. Staff Retention/Tenure
1. Home Access to Devices,
Products, & Reliable Internet
2. Family Buy-in/Beliefs about
2. Student Tech Abilities
4. Experience Level of Ed Tech Director
5. Previous Tech Use/Success
2. Professional Learning/Support
3. Professional Learning Time
4. Instructional Tech Support
5. Operational Tech Support
6. Educator Effort & Planning/Prep Time
7. Planning & Instructional Prep Support
1. School Vision for Tech
2. Competing Priorities
3. Tech Turnover
1. Teacher Self-Efficacy/Beliefs About
2. Teacher Tech Readiness
3. Teacher Openness to Change
4. Leader Self-Efficacy/Beliefs About
5. Leader Pedagogical Beliefs
6. Leader Openness to
1. Student Behavior
2. Student Engagement &
2. Social Capital
3. Research Champions
4. Tech Champions
5. Communication Processes
6. School-Home Connection/Communication
7. Collaborative Environment
1. Tech Resources
3. Scheduling & Time
JEX researchhas identified more than70
contextual variables that may be associated
with edtechimplementation success.
Stakeholders, practitioners, andexperts who participateasmembers ofthe Genome
Steering Committee,AdvisoryBoard,VariableWorking Groups,or IndustryCouncil:
• Selecting anddefining ten contextual variables associated with edtech implementation success
• Identifying, modifying, orcreating measurement instruments for
• Achieving cross-sector consensus for variable definitions andmeasures
Jefferson EducationExchange/ University ofVirginia CurrySchoolofEducationResearch
• Performing academic literaturereview (in progress)
• Conducting originalfield research with schools nationwide (in progress)
• Organizingandsupporting EdTech Genome Project participants andnational stakeholders
Who will be
involved in The
We are inviting a
diverse group of
Stakeholders AdvisoryBoard IndustryCouncil
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
[JEX coordinatesandsupports allparticipants]
Composition and Size
Makekeydecisions to form national consensus on topcontextual variables for edtech
Two meetings in Washington, DC (Oct. 28-30, 2019, beginning at 1 p.m.ET on Oct. 28 and concluding
by1 p.m.ET on Oct. 30; dates TBD summer 2020)
Occasional virtual engagement through Framework publication December 2020
Achieve consensus on selecting top contextual variables for edtechimplementation
Approve definitions andmeasurement instruments for each variable
Approximately 24 members; a diverse cross-section of perspectives andbackgrounds from
practitioners, researchers, stakeholders, andexperts.
1. Selecting 10 variables
AdvisoryBoard IndustryCouncil Stakeholder
2. Approving definitions and
from working groups
Contact Dan Brown
Director of National Engagement,
Jefferson Education Exchange