easel.ly
The most exciting startups for me are mostly ones that didn't make it on the list. The startups that are creating open ended tools like Easel.ly (above) or that are looking at education from a very different perspective are the ones that I like learning about. I'm concerned about startups like Knewton that seem to be trying to remove human beings from being a part of the learning experience with the student. And I'm disappointed by startups like ClassDojo that are based almost entirely on poor pedagogy (anyone there read Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn?).
I don't have a clear idea for a startup. I've thought about a few iPad apps that I think would make the classroom a better place. Those aren't big ideas like Knewton or Dreambox, more like Goalbook in scope. What I'd really like to do is start a zero tuition private school that leveraged all these new ideas and created something very different than a public K-12 school of today. However, what I see in the startup examples is that the most successful may also be what is most familiar. Even when the ideas are new they still work within the comfortable boundaries of what we expect from education.
The problem with different/disruptive ideas in education is that the experiment always takes many years to evaluate. And then we have to decide how to evaluate it-- happier people, more productive people, more money, more success (and by what measure?). When it comes to disruptive innovations in education, no one except those who have been utterly failed by the current system wants to be experimented on. I think the disruptive innovations are going to happen on the edges of education among homeschoolers and among students with very different learning needs.
And what about the other "edges" of the on-line educational world -- the billions coming on-line for the first time via mobile devices?
ReplyDelete@Heddi, I love your diagram and am so glad to learn about Easel.ly. When we've all made our IDEA posts, let's talk some more. I think you're exactly right about where disruptive innovations will happen (at the margins and "edges," among folks who aren't being served by the existing systems), and like you, I'm very interested in alternatively funded school designs.
ReplyDelete@John, I think you're right, too, about that other "edge." Figuring out a way to REACH the "edges" – and a way to pay the bills while serving them – will be a big, but worthwhile challenge.
John, you are right that there is a huge population in other countries that had no access to higher education before who will be looking for educational opportunities. Don't you think those students will first be accessing all the free resources out there?
ReplyDeleteJustin, I am very curious as to what your IDEA will be!
I'm also glad to learn about Easel.ly. I think some of the best tools are those that help learners break out of structure, and process what's in their minds, as well as looking at the world in new ways. Storify also falls into that category... although you can use Illustrator or other programs, or scraps of paper and markers, the web tools do make it easier to lay out and share information in context.
ReplyDelete"The problem with different/disruptive ideas in education is that the experiment always takes many years to evaluate" -> I'd argue the same problem applies any educational methods or content, old or new. For those facing adverse life outcomes without the tools to cope, their education, in retrospect, can be viewed as a failed experiment (or as a successful evil plan!)
When I discuss how the specifics of what people experience during education is related to people's life outcomes, I often hear the claim that education has nothing to do with life outcomes -- people more frequently cite parenting, genes, the credentials themselves, or the situations people happen to encounter, above specific classroom (or other learning) experiences. It's certainly hard to tease those apart, but that's something I'm working on and would like to advocate.
"And then we have to decide how to evaluate it-- happier people, more productive people, more money, more success (and by what measure?)." This is, indeed, a major roadblock. That question can be asked with respect to the many parties Audrey Watters cited in her intro post, and for each party, they may frame the questions differently depending on who they're talking to or what "hat" they're wearing.
For example, one factor I've noticed is that many people don't necessarily want a huge amount of well-trained competition for whatever role they're trying to play -- and on the flip-side, a common (even simultaneous) view is that no amount of education could make a difference in the broken state they see many other people's lives in. These are rough examples, but it's worth considering the personal bias people often bring to their cognitive evaluations what would be "good" for others.
Two short TED talks from decision scientist Dan Ariely are relevant to that line of thinking:
Dan Ariely: Beware conflicts of interest [5 min]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Y8FK8gonc
TEDxBlackRockCity - Dan Ariely - Money Changes Everything [8 min]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV0cbCFGAtU
[ Part 2 -- went over the character limit! ]
DeleteMy perspective is heavily influenced by my own experience of school as a relatively disengaging place with a lot of wasted time -- conditions which, overall, add up to a world with more crime, mental illness, and misery than there might otherwise be with better education. As Nikhil Goyal writes,
"So many kids are trying to escape from the Alcatraz-like school system, but many drown trying." Nikhil Goyal (@nikhilgoya_l) September 10, 2012
This viewpoint can be seen on sites like School Survival -- http://www.school-survival.net/index.php -- which shows a side of education that is often not really recognized, the many floundering and unhappy students whose interests aren't directly addressed by any eduction startup I've seen. There are many individuals working on this problem from various angles -- Dale Stephens' Uncollege.org provides an alternative viewpoint, as do Emily Wapnick of Puttylike.com and Jonathan Fields's http://goodlifeproject.com -- all provide examples and help creating alternative life paths, but how does this tie back around to the question of curriculum and education on a larger scale?
"When it comes to disruptive innovations in education, no one except those who have been utterly failed by the current system wants to be experimented on. I think the disruptive innovations are going to happen on the edges of education among homeschoolers and among students with very different learning needs." -- I agree with this, and I think these populations (and their parents, educators, psychiatrists, and the criminal justice system that many non-traditional learners fall into) represent a large potential market for an education startup, especially one oriented around making sense of their needs at a more fine-grained level than just pipelining them through college.
On that note, I think that something is needed along the lines of a television show, web series, or a kind of meta-MOOC -- that addresses the varied needs of these non-traditonal learners, and dramatizes the conflicts that often occur -- in schools, with parents, and with personal decision-making. Too often, people get and absorb labels and identities based on not fitting in with established systems, that stick with people for a long time. As Ken Robinson puts it, education should be about lighting a fire and helping people find their element -- but to a struggling student hearing those words, the tools are rarely in front of them to put that into practice.
Brenden, when you ask, "but how do you tie this back around to the question of curriculum and education on a larger scale?" I think you are pointing to the key question in regards to creating an alternative school or education system. Many people have found paths that work for an individual, but creating a school that can scale to a whole district or a whole state is more difficult.
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI loved your graphic too and I agree that there are a lot of "innovations" that uses the same old poor pedagogy decorated with new technology.
I would not be concerned about initiatives like Newton, they are trying to teach those skills than can be learned by yourself, for elevated skills human interaction will be always needed (these blogs and comments are a proof).
I am more concerned about the bad pedagogy and the lack of access to the open resources. I am here, because I am interested in that population in other countries (I am Costa Rican) that had no access to higher education, or has no access to free resources because a language barrier.
I have been very impressed by ideas like TED, OCW and Coursera. The big question is How they do that? How do you survive while giving free resources?