[davisr]

I currently work at an ad agency (we call ourselves a "boutique data-driven marketing company") in Milwaukee. My official title is Developer, but I do a lot of things: I manage servers, code applications (HTML/CSS/Javascript, but also C, R, and loads of shell scripting), research new concepts, automate existing workflows, and so much more.

Before I did this, I worked as a freelancer doing one-off website jobs for small businesses. Finding clients was easy, but I started dreading the same work everyday. I'm much happier doing what I do now, but in a while I want to start a non-profit with some co-worker friends.

I'd want that non-profit to be education-related. Education is a really important space to improve, but adding "technology" to an already-bloated space is useless. I feel too many organizations try to add tech for tech's sake, when it's already impossible to get a class into a computer lab and make effective use of that time. Educational software needs to be thought of differently. Another crap webapp that tests students is a detriment to every student that has to suffer through it. Educational software needs to allow students to explore nature and the world around them.

[benbreen]

Just wanted to say that I totally agree with your third paragraph and (as an educator) have a suggestion - the current grade management tools like Canvas feel like they're about 10-15 years old. Making a better one that's open source would not only cut down on the ballooning administrative costs that are contributing to the problems with education right now, but could also contribute to making classes more hands on (by allowing the teacher to branch out beyond tests into more creative forms of assessment).

[germinalphrase]

I teach in k12 in the Madison area. If you're developing concepts and want 'end-user' feedback I would enjoy taking part.

[davisr]

Thank you for your willingness to participate. Could I talk to you privately about it?

[germinalphrase]

Please do. Contact info is in profile.

[csharpminor]

I've been working for a b-corporation that is in the ed-tech space. There are a lot of problems to solve here.

After two years, I feel that educational software is more about production quality/entertainment value than about solving technological challenges. Poorly designed content that is not engaging can't compete with other resources on the web.

Building a platform to facilitate learning is difficult, because the user experience will only ever be as good as the effort the instructor puts into the course. At the same time, training/education requires a hugely diverse set of features. You're pretty much developing a content-management system, plus a lot of extensions for client-specific needs. Different school districts/companies can have hugely different needs and standards that they need to satisfy, so apps become bloated and dysfunctional. I don't think anyone starts out thinking that they'll build a "crap webapp", but education is a really tough problem for computers to solve.

At the end of the day, organizations choose the most "comprehensive" system, which usually means Blackboard or one of their competitors. Established vendors make integration difficult, and will try to scare their clients from working with you. Also, school districts are also notorious for procurement processes that are incredibly painful.

If you go the content route and become an eLearning development firm, you're looking at a race to the bottom for lowest price for acceptable quality. You'll also be going up against big companies (e.g. Relias) that already have thousands of stock trainings on-hand that they can adapt slightly to individual clients.

All of this said, the online learning space is ripe for disruption. Articulate Storyline (the industry-standard eLearning authoring tool) is still heavily dependent on flash and has numerous glitches. xAPI is almost completely meaningless as an LRS standard. I also get the sense that many organizations are beginning to re-think their commitments to Blackboard and the like. It's a great cause and I wish you the best!

[davisr]

Thanks for your insight. I think the problem with a lot of educational programs (not all, though) is that they intend to replace live instruction. In my ideal world, computers would always remain _supplementary_ to the instructor.

The idea of what a 'computer' is to most people is disappointing to me. More people should see computers as thinking machines, as machines that allow us to extend the reach and complexity of our own thoughts. They are not word processors or spreadsheets, and they certainly aren't multiple-choice answer facilitators. While they prove useful in those regards, the real power is in the mind of the bit manipulator: the student.

I think that if we start using computers as facilitators to learning, rather than replacements for instruction, we'll see a lot of students become more interested in learning. Concepts are very difficult to understand from a book, so blackboards were invented. However, blackboards are very static, so it takes a lively animator to control it. However, it's foolish to believe that every teacher wants to be outstanding. Computers offer us a chance to go one step further than the blackboard, without much additional effort from the instructor.

Visualization is a key problem. There needs to be a way to visualize things on a computer with almost zero learning curve. Blackboards are so much simpler than learning the syntax of a programming language. Bret Victor's work on Drawing Dynamic Visualizations is a step in the right direction.

Students should be using computers to explore the nature, and the best way to do that is by having them build models and simulations. Live classroom instruction should be supplemented with these tasks, to allow students to figure things out on their own. That builds a deeper understanding of problems, and allows students to see connections between things.

I agree, it's a matter of content. However, it's not that the content isn't entertaining enough, it's that it isn't participatory enough.

[csharpminor]

More people should see computers as thinking machines, as machines that allow us to extend the reach and complexity of our own thoughts.

This is already a well established instructional strategy called Blended Learning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_learning). Blackboard even has a product page devoted to using technology to supplement face-to-face training (http://www.blackboard.com/k12/blended-learning.aspx).

Concepts are very difficult to understand from a book, so blackboards were invented.

This is not really the reason blackboards were invented: http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/reference-material/the.... Many classrooms could still benefit hugely from low-tech solutions like leveled readers.

Computers offer us a chance to go one step further than the blackboard, without much additional effort from the instructor.

I disagree – creating effective blended learning is incredibly time consuming. It nearly doubles the effort of teaching a lecture-based class because teachers must also prepare digital content.

Introducing computers is also a huge logistical hassle (e.g. getting every student logged in, getting them all doing the same exercise/simulation, etc).

I have friends who are teachers at schools with well-equipped computer labs, and they claim that they regularly have to spend 20-40 minutes of their instructional time doing IT to get students up and running. This also echoes what I've found in my professional experience: most blended learnings require an additional instructor to help troubleshoot IT problems.

I agree, it's a matter of content. However, it's not that the content isn't entertaining enough, it's that it isn't participatory enough.

Agree to disagree, but the way I see it, if content is not entertaining (maybe intellectually stimulating is a better phrase), students will not participate in a productive way.

[jqm]

"You'll also be going up against big companies (e.g. Relias) that already have thousands of stock trainings on-hand that they can adapt slightly to individual clients."

And thousands of public sector IT people who are making very little money and are very hard to fire.....

Not usually where you find the most forward thinking progress oriented tech advocates in my experience.

[pbbakkum]

Hey davisr,

I work at an ed-tech company in the Bay Area - We're a for-profit company but we've found success in building study tools targeted at students and teachers rather than top-down school district procurement. If you're interested in working in this space, or just chatting, feel free to message me. Same to others!

[pen2l]

How will the non-profit be funded? Do you think you'll be able to sustain yourself working at a non-profit?

(serious question. A lot of us want to work at non-profits, but find it to be not a realistic choice since it doesn't pay enough to survive, wondering how others are able to do it)

[davisr]

I haven't really figured that part out, which is why it'll happen in "a while." Getting Grants and private investment from the demos I can build after work are the most likely scenario.

Even if I can't do it full time, I can do it when I can. Right now, I'm working on these ideas about one night per week.

[cdcarter]

Many non-profits pay perfectly fine living wages.

[markism]

I've spent some time thinking about what education should look like and how technology fits into that, I'd love to chat and bounce some ideas around.

[davisr]

Sure, I love to chat. What's the best way to get in touch?

[markism]

I've put my email in my profile, shoot me a message!