Educational Technology and Venture Capital in Arizona

Central networking hub at ASU GSV

I’ve spent the last two days here in Scottsdale, Arizona, at the fifth annual ASU GSV summit, which likes to call itself “Davos in the Desert.” It brings together ed tech entrepreneurs looking for funding, and venture capitalists looking for the next new thing. Quite often, they meet and do deals. Based on my experience here, I would say the organizers have accomplished their goal of “bringing together the world’s most visionary, passionate, and energetic players in the education innovation space”. I’m a bit fuzzier on their mission statement, which is “to become the fulcrum of activity and influence on the current and future states of global education. We’re creating a platform for advancement.” That’s a bit too mission-speak to mean much.

So what really happens here in Scottsdale?

What I saw was a lot of very serious people primarily interested in making money. They are all super-smart, connected, and knowledgeable. Michael Lewis would call them “the smartest guys in the room.” Five years ago the event began as an investor gathering with about 40 venture capitalists. The GSV in the title refers to Global Silicon Valley Advisors, a VC firm playing in the education space. In subsequent years, entrepreneurs followed the money and started to come here to pitch their new venture ideas.

Since taking my new professorship in educational innovation at UNC Chapel Hill in August 2013, I’ve seen a lot of ed tech startups and nonprofits, and I can attest that the organizations pitching here are working at the very highest level. They know their target market, they can tell you their value proposition in their sleep, their founders are connected and experienced. I have no doubt that millions of dollars of deals took place in the last two days. It is wonderful to be surrounded by people who share my mission: to improve education and learning.

L to R: Dan Greenstein, Andrew Ng, Arthur Levine, Ben Nelson, Nicholas Zeppos

But. As a learning scientist–an expert in the science of how people learn–I was disappointed at how little of what I saw here is grounded in the science of learning. I only saw one presentation that made any reference to this forty-year body of research–by Professor Jim Stigler of UCLA (who has done very important research, and also founded multiple ed tech startups, and worked for Pearson for 4 years during a leave of absence from UCLA). At the many reception events, when I described my own mission at UNC Chapel Hill–to create new programs that will help educational innovators understand how to ground their ideas in the science of learning–a few people got it right away, but many people seemed confused about why they would need to know anything about the science of learning. And these are really smart people. So I’m trying to figure this out: Why wouldn’t educational innovators want to ground their ventures in the science of learning? Why wouldn’t venture capitalists want to be assured that what they’re funding is based on solid science?

Here’s my tentative answer, and I’d be interested to hear what you think in the comments on this post.

  • First: Everyone here is in a big hurry. They want to be first to market, they want to get to Series A, B, and C funding, they want their exit strategy (e.g. selling out to a big corporation like Pearson) to repay their investors. The problem with learning sciences research is that we know it takes time, two to three years minimum, to develop an innovation that works. The entrepreneurs and investors here don’t want to hear that.
  • Second: People here think we don’t need research, because they think markets will naturally work towards the optimal solution. Their belief in markets is so strong that they think markets essentially remove the need for scientific education research. Of course, no one would make this argument when it comes to medical innovations. You don’t start selling a bunch of new heart valves, and then wait to see which people die and which people live, to figure out which heart valve works best. We have a body of research, and a community of researchers, who can tell you that BEFORE you put the heart valve on the market. The analogy with learning sciences research is fairly direct: We have a large body of scientific knowledge that can guide the development of more effective educational innovations. So why wouldn’t you want to know about that BEFORE you go and design an ineffective app or curriculum?
  • Third: Learning sciences researchers largely stay inside the Ivory Tower, and do academic research. They generally don’t know how to commercialize their innovations, and the incentive systems at universities don’t reward that anyway. They don’t have backgrounds in business and they don’t have the skills to create entrepreneurial ventures. There are exceptions, of course, but overall the learning sciences community hasn’t done an effective job of making the case for the value and relevance of this research.
  • Fourth: People in the finance and technology space generally think they are smarter than people who work in education. I can say this because I used to be one of them: My undergrad degree is in computer science, and I worked in two high-tech startups back in the 1980s. We always referred to squishy social scientists as making “hand wavy” arguments (that’s pejorative and means “arguments full of holes with no scientific backing”). But after editing two editions of the Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, I can attest that this body of research is solid and rigorous and has powerful implications for how to design educational innovations. Smart people generally are good at paying attention to solid scientific evidence, but I think there’s a cultural blindness among the finance and technology people here that makes them tend to discount education research.

The good news is that lots of people get it right away. Among them are my colleagues, working at several top universities, who are also creating programs for educational leaders, including at Johns Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Southern California. And of course, there’s my own new MA program at UNC in educational innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship. I’m confident we’ll get there eventually, to a cross-fertilization of learning sciences research with the innovative energy of the entrepreneurship and VC community. Then we’ll move more quickly toward the goal we all share: to improve education for everyone.

3 thoughts on “Educational Technology and Venture Capital in Arizona

  1. The basis of this article actually highlights the reason I switched from computer science to educational technology in grad school. As a CS masters student, I was a part of a research team that was building multitouch table card apps to teach elementary school students certain concepts. We didn’t really have any evidence-based reasons for why using card games would lead to learning. We just though it was a cool technology and tried to find a use for it. I finally had to take the initiative to seek out a learning theories class on campus. Once I was introduced to EdTech and the learning sciences I felt that it was a better fit for my goals. I think universities that have strong CS and education departments (or through cross university collaboration) have the opportunity to produce strong EdTech companies.

  2. As a learning tech geek (for the past 35+ years with a cog psych phd after programming experience), I’ve been out in the real world for the past decade and more trying to get people developing learning technology to pay attention to what is known, and it’s surprisingly (and disappointingly) hard. Try to find an edtech company with someone who really understands learning on the executive team, and you’ll be hard pressed. The biggest problem I see is that they don’t want to pay for good insight. They hope to get it for free, or throw inexpensive (but inexperienced) resources at it. There’s this belief that “we’ve been to school, we know what learning is”. And similarly, as Gregory suggests, “we have a tech, let’s throw it at learning as a market, since what we have is way cooler than what they’re doing” without understanding the implementation issues. I wish you luck.

  3. The comparison to medical technology and research is apt, and telling. I don’t think educational technology is seen as actually having an impact on the human beings that not only use it, but in many cases grow up with it. Yet what are the consequences of getting it wrong? A lot more than Darwinian failure in the marketplace. Getting educational technology wrong could influence an entire generation, not just in failure to attain measurable learning goals, but in shaping their cognitive and experiential relationship to the world.

    Similar issues arise with development of highly sensorily immersive gaming technologies, which are now being explored for educational purposes. Not only do we neglect learning research in developing the initial technology, we do insufficient research later on effects of the technology itself. It’s as if we’re quite comfortable using our own schoolchildren as—sorry for the harsh analogy—lab animals.

    I spent my time in the technology sector as well, and am all too familiar with the adrenaline and hubris in those rooms full of the smartest people in the room—the rooms that thus count themselves the smartest rooms in the hotel. But I feel some trepidation leaving the future entirely in their hands. Good luck in your mission!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s