Literacy & Digital Media Tools

I am required to use NoRedInk as part of our district’s ELA curriculum. Every few years, however, we are handed a new digital platform, one that the district may or may not renew the following year. This constant turnover creates a steep learning curve for teachers and students alike, forcing us to spend valuable instructional time relearning interfaces instead of deepening literacy skills. Until recently, I accepted this pattern as part of modern teaching. But this module’s readings, along with my comparison of NoRedInk and Quill, pushed me to question the assumption that frequent tech adoption equals progress.

Hodges et al. (2020) reminded me that true online learning requires planning and learner support, not just access to digital tools. Similarly, Green (2021) warned that “instructionally sound” design is not about novelty but about purpose, while Tutt (2025) exposed how unchecked enthusiasm for technology can overshadow pedagogy. Comparing NoRedInk and Quill revealed a deeper ideological divide; NoRedInk’s behaviorist, compliance-driven model contrasts sharply with Quill’s constructivist, reflective design grounded in Universal Design for Learning principles.

Emotionally, I felt both frustration and clarity. Frustration that mandated compliance often eclipses creativity and inclusivity; clarity in realizing that I can meet district requirements and design better learning experiences. Going forward, I will continue to use NoRedInk to satisfy required district diagnostics but will intentionally integrate Quill to foster authentic writing, equity, and metacognition. Using Anstey and Watson’s (2018) Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation as a framework will allow me to justify these decisions professionally and advocate for more sustainable, learner-centered technology use in my school community.