New research from USC Rossier shows a lack of quality in materials downloaded from popular sites
Many teachers supplement their curricular materials with lessons they find online. But new research shows that teachers ought to be wary of the quality of online goods, free or otherwise.
In a study of supplemental materials gathered from three popular lesson-sharing sites, USC Rossier associate professor Morgan Polikoff found that many available lessons are weak and unaligned with state standards. Educational consultant Jennifer Dean co-authored the study.
"Clearly teachers are on the hunt for particular materials to supplement their core curriculum," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, some of the websites they are using are providing numerous subpar offerings."
The study, published in December 2019 by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank, examines curricular materials available from the websites ReadWriteThink, Share My Lesson and Teachers Pay Teachers.
Teachers often turn to these sites for materials. Following the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards, such sites flourished as districts struggled to create their own materials, pushing teachers to turn elsewhere—especially to other educators. The market isn't slowing down, either: Amazon recently announced it would enter the supplemental curricular materials business.
Material facts
To conduct the review, the authors trained five expert raters with previous experience in test-item development, alignment studies and item review . Evaluation criteria included 11 main factors, including standards alignment, text complexity, quality and usability.
Reviewers evaluated 328 materials in total. The team conducted additional analysis for items on which reviewers disagreed. In addition, the authors interviewed five current or recent English/language arts teachers to understand why, how and how often they accessed supplemental materials.
In all, reviewers found two reasons for optimism, and seven areas of concern.
The materials rated were generally error-free and well organized, reviewers found, and the quality of texts chosen for lessons was "excellent."
However, reviewers also found that:
- Many of the materials' education value was mediocre;
- The materials were at best only in moderate alignment with the standards they claimed alignment with;
- Accompanying assessments were of low quality, often failing to cover key content;
- Lessons often lacked significant cognitive demand; and
- Eighty-six percent of materials failed to provide support for teaching lessons to English-learners or students with disabilities.
"It is incredibly difficult to navigate the plethora of supplemental materials, astutely evaluate what is out there and ultimately make informed decisions about what to use," the authors concluded. "There is clearly a role to be played for individuals or organizations to sift through what's on these sites and separate the wheat from the chaff."
Read: “The Supplemental Curriculum Bazaar: Is What's Online Any Good?”
