Market penetration via a grassroots/ground-level approach
Teachers who have been working in a classroom are the best people to judge how an EdTech tool will be implemented in the classroom and whether it will be successful or not. Many tools claim to have strong pedagogy that fits in the modern classroom, yet a teacher can spot its weaknesses a mile off and simply won’t use it, as it cannot fit inside their classroom. The more complex the pedagogy, the more planning it takes to integrate into the classroom. For example, a Kahoot style quiz can be used in the classroom at any moment, whereas pedagogies that foster critical thinking and collaboration must be carefully planned before being used. Nevertheless, products are delivered to teachers without any ideas or plans on how to use it in the classroom. Though AR and VR in schools are seen as the next big trend, only 11 per cent of respondents to the EDTRENDS report for educators are seeing this. This is mainly because it takes much more preparation in using these products in the classroom and the teachers’ material for these tools are not up to scratch. Although students are the most common end-users, teachers should be seen as ‘user coordinators’, not merely someone to consult with. They know so much about your end-users; cognitive development by age group, learning preferences, level of conceptual understanding, tech skillset, interests etc. We should listen to them when designing EdTech products and make sure we supply professional development to implement them.
In short, by prioritising the day-to-day problems that teachers need to be solved at ground-level, we identify the market for our product. Instead of assuming a certain technology can be scaled across educational institutions, find out what educational solutions can be scaled via technology. Education is a human interaction profession, so human-factors engineering must drive product design. Marketers shouldn’t have to persuade schools to use a product if its design is based upon ‘walking the corridors’, so use up shoe leather before productisation, not after…
Interrupt, rather than disrupt
Too many non-teachers think Solution A solves Problem B, however, teachers understand this isn’t the case. One tool won’t fix a problem, just like a math book won’t help all students to be great at math. Also, too many solutions created by non-teachers are passive learning tools. This is mainly because the creators aren’t usually teachers. They may refer to educators yet the educator isn’t involved when the tool is being created. Therefore, many EdTech tools don’t allow students to collaborate, discuss or think critically, all of which promote deeper learning. As a result, these EdTech tools remain passive, meaning students merely answer questions or don’t interact with other classmates when learning. This leaves students unmotivated and disengaged as there’s no real learning of the topic. Referring back to Dragonbox and Kide Science, they promote active learning, which corresponds more closely to how classrooms work today.
Thus, when building an EdTech solution our greatest ally is systems-thinking. For a majority of teachers, disruption conjures up the image of someone throwing a spanner in the works. EdTech is not like FinTech, AgriTech or any other area of technology: education is based upon centuries of interaction between human beings. So, in product design think about how an EdTech product integrates with existing practices and tools; planning, teaching, assessing, textbooks, manipulatives, equipment. How does the EdTech become part of what already happens every day?
