Why edtech is doomed and how we can fix it
Transforming education through avatars, meta-learning, and meta-collaboration
The market potential for the edtech industry is huge and forecasted to grow 17 percent year-on-year to become worth $252 billion by 2020. While still in its infancy, the edtech market already exceeds the $200m digital advertising sector and is growing at a faster rate. It’s not unfeasible to assume an edtech giant of the same scale and influence of Google or Facebook will soon emerge from this space. But before we get too taken in by the hype, investors and technologists would do well to examine the many obstacles currently preventing edtech from reaching its full potential.
Current obstacles
Edtech holds promise — but current tools reduce learning to ‘behaviourism on a screen’, breaking ideas into parts and providing extrinsic rewards when students pass defined goals [1]; Edtech attracts investors — but business plans need sustainable models that drive customer value and profitability more than just MVPs; Edtech is rapidly evolving — but learning tools take years to test and improve in order to changes students’ education for the better; Edtech appears neutral — but most data-driven learning tools embed subtle ethical and moral biases about an idealized self [2].
The above four obstacles are compounded by institutional challenges that hinder edtech’s development and delivery:
- Lack of staff engagement and ineffective personalized learning materials has led to weak evidence supporting its use [9];
- Personalized learning has not been not well defined [10];
- Decontextualized materials are not linked to real life skills [1];
- University staff privilege research over teaching [11]; and
- Students are not engaged in course design [12].
Industry recommendations
- Quantify students’ expectations and instructions;
- Develop more engaging and effective learning materials;
- Reward teachers for ongoing support of programmes;
- Improve teacher recruitment, retention, and autonomy; and
- Improve teachers’ ability to use data [9].
How to rescue edtech
- Edtech must shift its focus from technology to people — Designers are now using human-centred methods to boost engagement [3].
- This new focus is about shaping narrative identity — Why? Because our narrative identity (which is shaped by our genetic traits, attitudes, and context) influences how we think and act [4].
- Cultivating narrative identity matters for edtech because — Unlike IQ, traits are malleable and can be changed with targeted intervention, transforming narratives and life outcomes [5].
- Acquiring creative traits is what determines life success — In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, the no 1 trait for adaptive success is creativity [6].
The role of creative meta-learning
- Edtech has the potential to grow creativity — Instead of metrics that quantify consumption, new tools could quantify growth in meta-learning (i.e., the process of thinking about thinking and the belief our abilities can be developed through sustained work).
- Creative meta-learning is beneficial for everyone — Creative meta-learning can engage students in the art of self-reflection. This useful skill enables them to critique their own position, future goals, potential strategies, and results [7].
- Avatar features can help support meta-learning — Evidence shows avatar-based customisation features help people develop meta-cognitive traits related to self-efficacy, identity, and trust [8].
Next steps to influence change
- Students need to be at the centre of the design process if educators hope to create meaningful graduate opportunities and experiences;
- Student/staff co-creation of curricula is key if courses remain flexible (i.e., agile) in periods of increased uncertainty and change [12], [13].
Two possible routes
Evolutionary route: integrate co-design into your current service
At a time when personalized learning apps are being deployed in multiple contexts, it’s vital to be clear about what works and what route you’re taking to address the current shortfall;
One solution is to the keep your existing brand and reframe your company mission, principles, and values around the idea of:
“empowering learning through co-creation”
Revolutionary route: create a new service that disrupts your rivals
A more radical solution would be to differentiate your edtech service from previous technology-centric products and introduce a more student-centric narrative that stands out from rivals.
One student-centric proposition could be developed around the idea of “meta-collaboration” — the idea being that the more collaboration connects with others and feeds back to shared foundations, the more we all benefit.
Meta-collaboration could also ensure tools are flexible enough to adapt to disruptive contexts and changes over time. The more radical brand proposition may sound something like:
“empowering a growth mindset, together”
Meta-collaboration in the field
UK-based examples
- Students at the University of Southampton collaborate with staff to embed digital literacy and employability skills into curricula;
- Students at the University of Glasgow collaborate with staff to co-create academic course materials;
- Students at the University of Lincoln collaborate with staff via redesign workshops to co-create programmes;
- Students at the University of South Wales collaborate with staff to ensure learning assessments are relevant; and
- Students at Coventry University collaborate with staff to review the curriculum twice annually [12].
Meta-collaboration benefits
- Student/staff co-creation drives motivation because academic staff tend to get more feedback about students’ learning experience;
- Student/staff co-creation boosts metacognitive awareness and learning because experiences are more of a shared endeavour; and
- Student/staff co-creation fuels communication because parties are more open to features that are usually hidden [13].
References
[1] A. Kohn, Schooling beyond measure & other unorthodox essays about education. Heinemann, 2015.
[2] C. O’Neil, Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books, 2016.
[3] G. A. Boy, “From STEM to STEAM: toward a human-centred education, creativity & learning thinking,” in Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, 2013, p. 3: ACM.
[4] D. P. McAdams and J. L. Pals, “A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality,” The American psychologist, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 204–217, 2006.
[5] B. W. Roberts, J. Luo, D. A. Briley, P. I. Chow, R. Su, and P. L. Hill, “A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 143, no. 2, p. 117, 2017.
[6] S. Tomasco, “IBM 2010 global CEO study: creativity selected as most crucial factor for future success,” IBM2010, vol. 19.
[7] M. Bialik and C. Fadel, “Meta-learning for the 21st century: what should students learn?,” Center of Curriculum Redesign2015.
[8] S. Turkay and C. K. Kinzer, “The effects of avatar-based customization on player identification,” International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2014.
[9] E. D. Steiner, L. S. Hamilton, L. Stelitano, and M. Rudnick, “Early insights on designing innovative high schools,” RAND Corporation2017.
[10] S. H. Fiedler and T. Väljataga, “Personal learning environments: concept or technology?,” International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2011.
[11] D. Willetts, A university education. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[12] C. Bovill, “An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 15–25, 2014.
[13] C. Bovill, A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard, and N. Moore-Cherry, “Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships,” Higher Education, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 195–208, 2016.
