Those of us in education technology have been chasing disruptive innovation for decades. But the opportunity many of us saw in the early days of the internet still appears unfulfilled, and even with massive amounts of investment in the education space, we can still point to a poor graduation rate from higher education, poor statistics related to knowledge acquisition, and a general morosity surrounding outcomes, assessment, and achievement. I tackle this topic in my recent article on UX Magazine:

The fit between problem and solution is sometimes called a value proposition—a promise a brand makes about the ability of a product to help someone achieve a specific goal. I use the label payoffs to describe the successful outcome of that promise, and to describe when the value proposition has been achieved.

The reason education has not been disrupted by technology is because we’ve confused the forgivable attribute with the payoff attribute. The value proposition of educational technology should be better education; this should be the promised payoff. Pragmatist educators like John Dewey made it clear that better education is inextricably tied to better experience; this is validated by cognitive psychology research indicating that experiential learning (through problem-based learning, for example) leads to increased retention of knowledge, intrinsic interest in the subject matter, and enhances self-directed learning skills. But in most disruptive innovations, the quality of the experience is a forgivable attribute, not the payoff attribute.

You can view the whole article here. I would love to know what you think.

Related Posts

Share This Article

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Pinterest Email