The Bay Area in California recently hosted a vibrant week for the education sector, marked by events like the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, the NewSchools Venture Fund Summit, and the GreatSchools 2013 Summit. These gatherings brought together a diverse group of educators, investors, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and researchers, sparking numerous critical conversations. One particularly insightful discussion, initiated by Bror Saxberg, chief learning officer at Kaplan, centered on a perplexing issue: the infrequent collaboration between Learning Scientists and educational entrepreneurs. This panel at the AERA meeting, featuring experts like Dick Clark, Kenneth Koedinger, Michael Moe, Stacey Childress, and Nadya Dabby, delved into the reasons behind this disconnect and its implications for the future of education.
Saxberg and others have observed a concerning trend: educational products and services often enter the market without incorporating established principles of learning science. This results in new educational offerings that fail to leverage decades of research into how people learn effectively and how to design optimal learning experiences. Despite the significant advancements made by learning scientists, many educational ventures seem to start from scratch, overlooking a wealth of valuable knowledge. While learning scientists themselves acknowledge that there is still much to discover, particularly in real-world educational settings alongside the rise of adaptive learning technologies, the consistent oversight of existing research is a significant disadvantage for students.
A prime example of this issue can be seen in the approaches taken by Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms like Coursera. While these platforms tout the advantages of A/B testing and big data to refine their offerings, the questions they often test are surprisingly basic. The example of a professor testing whether showing his face improves learning highlights a disconnect. Decades of research by learning scientists have already explored such fundamental questions of instructional design. The fact that such basic questions are still being tested in isolation suggests a lack of integration of established learning science principles into the development of these platforms.
Furthermore, a concerning pattern emerges in the education market: often, the most financially successful business plans in education exhibit the weakest grounding in learning science, while those deeply rooted in robust learning science principles struggle to gain traction. Kenneth Koedinger, co-founder of Carnegie Learning, a company built on learning science research, confirmed this during the panel. He noted that market pressures often incentivize companies to prioritize factors other than learning effectiveness once a product is launched, hindering continuous improvement based on learning science.
This market dynamic points to a core issue: the existing incentive structures in public education often fail to encourage educational entrepreneurs to seek out and apply the findings of learning scientists. In the K-12 sector, policies frequently prioritize input-based metrics, such as seat time and compliance, over demonstrable student learning outcomes. Consequently, educational products that prioritize adherence to these metrics, rather than maximizing learning, often find more success in the market. To rectify this, a fundamental shift in demand is necessary. Moving towards a competency-based learning environment that emphasizes student outcomes, rather than mere inputs, is crucial to fostering a demand for research-informed educational solutions developed in collaboration with learning scientists.
Another significant barrier to collaboration stems from what might be termed the “We went to school, therefore we are experts” mentality among some entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs, drawing on their personal experiences as students, may overestimate their understanding of learning processes. This can lead to the assumption that they can either intuitively solve complex, system-wide educational challenges or rely solely on a lean startup, trial-and-error approach to product development. While iterative, discovery-driven methodologies are valuable, ignoring the existing body of knowledge accumulated by learning scientists is a critical misstep. A truly effective discovery process in education should leverage established research to formulate informed hypotheses and accelerate learning and development cycles.
Finally, the learning science research community itself bears some responsibility for the communication gap. The sheer volume and complexity of education research, exemplified by the overwhelming AERA conference program, can make it difficult for entrepreneurs and educators to navigate and identify relevant findings. There is a pressing need for learning scientists to focus on research questions that directly address practical challenges in education and are relevant to teachers and students in real-world classrooms. Moreover, effective translation of complex research findings into accessible formats for a broader audience is essential. In an era where every company seems to produce research “validating” their product, it is crucial to develop clearer mechanisms for discerning high-quality, impactful research. Furthermore, the field needs to embrace faster, more agile research methodologies that capitalize on the vast amounts of data generated by digital learning environments.
The panel discussion also highlighted other contributing factors to the limited interaction between learning scientists and entrepreneurs, including the lack of effective professional networks, underutilization of edtech incubators to foster these connections, the structure of federal research funding, and the inherent time lag between research and tangible educational impact. Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders in the education ecosystem. As we seek to bridge this crucial gap, what other observations can you share about the factors holding back collaboration between learning scientists and educational entrepreneurs? The future of effective learning for students depends on finding the answers.
