57 - Reviewing Human Subjects Research Involving K-12 Digital Learning Platforms: A Survey

Background: : Digital Learning Platforms (DLPs; e.g., online tutoring systems) are increasingly adopted for K-12 education practice and education research. Therefore, it is critical that research protocols involving DLPs are reviewed in a manner that is knowledgeable about this type of research and consistent across institutions in the U.S.

Methods: : We surveyed IRB representatives about a sample IRB application proposing online experiments for elementary students using a DLP. For 414 of 451 universities classified as R1, R2, or Doctoral/Professional Universities (Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2025), we were able to find an email address for the human subjects research or IRB office, or completed a contact form, to recruit participants via a survey link. Ninety-three individuals consented and made a determination on the sample application. Participants spanned 42 states representing private (n=37) and public (n=56) institutions, and accredited (n=30) and non-accredited status (n=60) by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP). Participants self-reported their institution as R1 (n=33), R2, (n=24), or other institutions (n=35).

The Qualtrics survey included instructions, a sample project application, questions related to participants’ review and determination, then questions about the institution. The sample application was an abbreviated version of a real project that received three different determinations across two universities and the funding agency.

Results: : Determinations ranged across “exempt approval” (n=57), “expedited approval” (n=30), “not human subjects research” (n=3), “no approval” (n=2), and “full approval” (n=1). Chi-squared tests indicated no associations between determination and university research activity (R1, R2, or other-classified institution; 𝜒2 (16)= 21.79, 𝑝=.15). There was no association between the determination and the university’s AAHRPP accreditation status (𝜒2 (4)= 2.25, 𝑝=.69), or whether the participant had reviewed similar protocols (𝜒2 (4)= 3.19, 𝑝=.53).

Participants’ rationales for their determination highlighted common themes. Forty participants who determined exemption or expedited review noted the importance of parent, student, and/or school district consent. Participants who deemed the study unethical or selected “No Approval” referenced the necessity of collecting both parental consent and student assent. Several participants questioned the project’s alignment with normal classroom practice (e.g., timing, duration, curriculum alignment).

Limitations:: We only invited representatives from three types of higher education institutions in the U.S. rather than all organizations that conduct this type of research (e.g., industry organizations). Further, we provided an abbreviated application of just one project to be respectful of participants’ time. These decisions limit our ability to generalize the findings across all organizations that conduct human subjects research and do not reflect the full scope of research involving DLPs.

Discussion: : A majority of participants considered the application to be exempt and in alignment with normal educational practices. However, determinations varied widely and participants reviewed alignment with the exemption categories differently. Participants’ rationales commonly involved consent but varied in expectations for consent as well as other concerns, suggesting that IRBs may be attending to different information in protocols and definitions of exemption categories. Researchers, IRBs, and education stakeholders should work together to increase understanding about this type of research and set standards to protect the rights and interests of all parties involved.