This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
With the large increase in online instruction, including remote instruction with online materials during the COVID-19 pandemic, there also was an increase in the use of instructional materials that were made to be displayed online or were digitized for online use. However, teachers have not had access to guidance about how to select and evaluate online instructional materials for classroom use. The lack of guidance has the potential to harm historically excluded populations of students and could frustrate teachers as they learn to teach with digital materials. The purpose of this paper is to share the 4A Framework for evaluating online instructional materials. The framework is organized around the premise that quality online instructional materials are accessible, promote active engagement, advocate for inclusion, and are accountable for their relationships to standards and data privacy. Each feature is discussed and examples of teacher work in applying the framework are shared.
Keywords: Online instructional materials, Online accessibility, Online learning curriculum, Students with disabilities in online learning, Teacher thinking about online instruction
Instructional materials that are developed for and hosted in online spaces are distinct from traditional materials (Choppin & Borys, 2017). Digital instructional materials have the potential for increased individual interactivity (Choppin & Borys, 2017). Also, digital instructional materials contain a broader array of adaptivity and personalization features, and they have more potential to be accessible to students with disabilities (Choppin & Borys, 2017). Finally, digital instructional materials have a greater occurrence of built-in assessment programs (Choppin & Borys, 2017).
The mere fact of being a digital material does not guarantee these perceived benefits (Greer et al., 2014; Rice, 2018). Even so, teachers are expected to use these digital materials in teaching, even when most instruction occurs in person (Kalolo, 2019; Selwyn, 2007; United States [U.S.] Department of Education, 2016). With the increased pressure to acquire and use them, digital and digitized instructional materials are a rapidly expanding market within the educational technologies sector. This market is expected to grow from $85.5 billion (USD) in 2020 to $181.3 billion in 2025 (Markets Insider, 2020). Examples of digital instructional materials include videos, content presentations, animations, educational games, online articles, and educational materials from traditional print texts that have been scanned and uploaded. The increased awareness and availability of such materials was likely aided by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which closed school buildings in the United States and abroad (Education Week, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). During this time, remote online learning replaced in-person learning in many schools. Teachers who may have been infrequent or non-users of digital instructional materials suddenly had to gather and use them for their lessons.
As students and teachers return to in-person learning, the educational technology sector is unlikely to relinquish their profits or decrease their product offerings. Some schools will continue to use fully online learning, but many more will use forms of blended learning—where instruction can be provided through both traditional and online modalities in ratios that meet the needs of the students and match the resources in the school (see Martin et al., 2020).
The surge in popularity and availability of online educational resources and the necessity to use them during the pandemic required teachers to make quick decisions about what digital instructional materials to use to teach their students (Gallagher et al., 2019). Selecting materials off the internet simply because they are inexpensive or even free is unlikely to result in materials that embody the benefits of using digital materials (Reidenberg & Schaub, 2018). Moreover, it could encourage content developers and vendors to make materials that meet corporate ends without considering what teachers and students need to have educative experiences together. Using digital materials with deliberation and agency requires teachers to ask very basic but very important questions, such as what materials will I teach with? And why these materials?
Before the pandemic, much growth in digital learning came from traditional public schools who had technology integration initiatives (Digital Content Goes to School, 2016; Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). In many cases, teachers made decisions about digital materials for online teaching with little to no guidance from initial teacher preparation programs or professional learning (Crouse et al., 2018; Gallagher et al., 2019). Teachers in these studies described the stress involved in not knowing how to find digital instructional materials or make them (Kundu & Rice, 2019; Kundu et al., 2021). In such contexts, teachers made decisions based on a few factors such as compatibility with current software, the perceived technological simplicity of the materials, or faith in a recommendation from a colleague (Fang et al., 2010). While none of those reasons are inherently problematic, teachers deserve stronger guidance for informing their decision-making about the quality of instructional materials. Moreover, this guidance should be efficacious without being too complex to remember and apply (Cheon & Grant, 2008; Chiu & Churchill, 2015; Kim et al., 2017).
In response to the need for practical guidance about choosing instructional materials, the authors of this paper developed a conceptual tool based on implications from research and policy guidance for high quality digital instructional materials in K-12 settings. This tool is called the 4A Online Instructional Material Evaluation Framework. It is abbreviated in this document as the 4A Framework (see Fig. 1 ). The 4A Framework consists of four elements:
Accessibility addresses whether users can open, view, and interact with the materials according to applicable laws.
Active Engagement addresses whether learners are invited to invest effort into learning from behavioral, cognitive, and emotional perspectives.
Advocacy for Inclusion addresses whether diverse peoples are represented with contextual nuance, compassion, and respect.
Accountability addresses whether the materials share their origins and purposes, are based on standards or principles, and are open about personal information and user data collection processes.