Four regulatory tracks framework for edtech efficacy studies¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 2 studies (1 review, 1 theoretical), q1 · 0 of 2 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The guide organizes edtech study planning around four broad regulatory pathways determined chiefly by whether the research team can ascertain student identity. As a practical planning framework, most edtech studies fall into internal product development (no IRB), Not Human Subjects Research, Exempt Research, or Expedited/Full Board Review. The pivotal planning question is whether the team can readily ascertain individual student identities, because identity access drives both review tier and parental-permission burden.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Teams must determine whether direct and indirect identifiers are permanently removed, suppressed, or firewalled before reaching the research team

Constraints¶

• Individual IRBs retain discretion, and two IRBs reviewing the same protocol may legitimately reach different conclusions

Target Learners¶

• K-12 students participating in edtech efficacy studies

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Generating external evidence of edtech efficacy for district leaders, grantors, and buyers

Claims¶

• Small additions of research-specific procedures can shift a study out of exempt review [+W]
• Survey item sensitivity determines the parental permission pathway, from full waiver to active opt-in [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Use an operationally separate honest broker to perform linkage and de-identification

Key Sources¶

• Younger, J. (2026, September). Navigating research approvals for edtech research and evaluation: A practical guide. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/318