remote learning
Auto Added by WPeMatico
Auto Added by WPeMatico
In 2009, Udemy co-founder Gagan Biyani tried to convince people to learn online through live classes. But what he discovered instead was that everyone wanted an online repository of content that allowed them to learn at their own pace, whenever and wherever. So, he canned his idea and Udemy created what is now called a massive open online course provider, or MOOC.
In the years since, Biyani was let go from Udemy, started a 200-person food company, shut that down, took a sabbatical, and is now returning to the seedling he left behind in 2009: live, online courses.
Today, Biyani tells TechCrunch that he is teaming up with Wes Kao, the co-founder of AltMBA, an online cohort-based leadership program, to start an edtech company that combines both of their experiences into one focus: live, cohort-based learning. The duo grew up as friends in the same hometown, but only recently reconnected over education once Biyani returned from sabbatical. Kao’s experience building an online course from scratch, with an over 95% completion rate, was validation that the format worked. And soon enough, they incorporated a company together.
The company will focus on cohort-based learning, mixing live and asynchronous components. As it’s still in early stealth, the founders said it doesn’t have a name yet. Instead of a company site, they have a Notion landing page. Update: The company filed paperwork with the SEC indicating that the funding has been raised under an Austin-based corporation named “Didactic.”
Despite those missing details, what Biyani did say is that the startup’s main focus is creating a community where anyone can start their own course. Kao says that creating a course requires over a dozen people behind the scenes — teacher assistants, community moderators and the process is essentially “an entire production.” With the startup, she wants to democratize that operation.
“I see it as a way to help more traders and experts be able to share their knowledge,” she said. “And take away the question marks on how to build community.”
The company from the start will focus on the back-end production of helping teachers, but eventually create a marketplace to allow students to see a directory of classes.
“It should be as easy as building a Substack,” Biyani said, referring to the popular newsletter service. Similar to Substack, the company will only make money if the instructor, or creator, does. It takes a chunk of each student’s subscription cost as revenue.
The company is entering a crowded space. Yesterday, CampusWire announced that it has pivoted to start offering build-your-own courses to experienced professors. MasterClass allows celebrities to teach classes, Teachable allows anyone to create their own course, and the list continues.
But Biyani views their biggest competitor as teachers who have already built courses without a third-party service. The company is planning to bring those creators onto their platform by offering ways to manage their customer base.
Ultimately, the market will only be won over by the startup that has the best strategy, product, and teacher pool. Based on their stealthy vision, the duo has raised $4.3 million in a round led by First Round Capital. Other investors include Naval Ravikant, Sahil Lavingia, Li Jin, Arlan Hamilton and co-founders from Lambda School, Outschool, Superhuman, and Udemy.
It’s a stacked term-sheet for a company in the early stages, suggesting that that edtech’s boom is still very much upon us. Lavingia says that he committed right away even though he didn’t use the product.
“Gagan’s name was enough for me,” he said. “I think I followed him on Twitter a year or two ago and i’d back anything he does just based on what he shares.”
Backstage Capital’s Hamilton said that Kao has been within the Backstage mentor network for a while, and added that “there’s a perfect storm for Wes and Gagan to execute within.”
Powered by WPeMatico
Campuswire was in a fortuitous spot when colleges and universities across the world shut down on short notice because of the threat of coronavirus. Founded by Tade Oyerinde in 2018, Campuswire is a virtual solution for any teacher who wants to digitize their internal classroom communications, from Q&A time to the lecture itself.
The strategy, for the most part, has worked. Campuswire is now used at more than 300 universities among 200,000 students, Oyerinde tells me.
While Campuswire’s pitch was set to boom overnight, the founder instead saw a bigger challenge approaching: more competition. As professors moved online, lectures moved to Zoom or tools built atop of Zoom. Microsoft Teams and Google Hangouts filled in the gap for classrooms that couldn’t afford fancy licenses. Campuswire’s key monetization strategy, which was selling pro licenses for its online class software, felt threatened by alternatives.
So, after months of iterating, Campuswire has adapted its monetization strategy and today announced that it is launching live courses taught by professors. Instead of solely working with professors to streamline internal class communications, Campuswire will now help teachers produce classes that students can then take for a fee. The tuition revenue will be split between the teacher and Campuswire.
Campuswire courses kick off with an angel investing class taught by Charles Hudson, the founder and general partner of Precursor Ventures. Hudson lectures at Stanford occasionally, and working with Campuswire allows him to teach a broader set of students.
Meanwhile, Campuswire software will be free to use starting in January 2021.
The move marks Campuswire’s further dive into synchronous learning. Campuswire’s model is built on how existing classrooms work in universities and colleges. Classes on Campuswire are capped at 500 to promote conversation, and large lectures are supplemented with teacher assistant (TA) classes to hammer home confusing concepts.
Meanwhile, it’s clear amid the pandemic that asynchronous learning has its perks (students can learn on their own schedule, while educators are able to work more flexible hours). Still, Oyerinde thinks a pre-recorded format is not effective for pedagogy purposes.
“This is kind of the hill we’re going to die on,” he said. “Real, lasting learning has to be synchronous for the majority of people.”
In other words, while there’s a small group of gifted-and-talented students who can watch a one-hour lecture and absorb every factoid and nuance, the majority of students need engagement, interaction and motivation to understand a topic, he argues. It’s the reason why MOOCs, or massive open online course providers, only have a 2-3% completion rate on their courses, he argues.
At its core, Campuswire has evolved from a platform trying to compete with Zoom to a platform that is trying to compete with these MOOCS through engaging content taught by experienced professors. Its main differentiation from MOOCs is that it’s live and has teacher assistants.
There are a number of startups that are trying to create engaging, celebrity professor-taught classes through hybrid plays. MasterClass, which just raised $100 million a few months ago, sells entertainment and education in one go, offering cooking classes from Gordon Ramsay and tennis lessons from Serena Williams. While you can’t interact with Ramsay or Williams, you can chat with fellow classmates.
BookClub connects readers to the authors they are reading, giving bookworms an opportunity to ask about cliffhangers and character development. The upstart is still in its early stages, but founder David Blake says that readers could talk directly to authors down the road. There’s also Teachable, which got acquired by Hotmart earlier this year. Teachable helps any expert who wants to create a business around their expertise do so with a virtual course. Arlan Hamilton, a seed-stage investor, has a course on the platform.
Today’s pivot signals the founder’s mindset that, in order to grow to the billion-dollar business mark in edtech, you need to sell more than software that Google and Microsoft will always give away for free.
“Online learning can be 100 times bigger than it is today,” Oyerinde said. “Once you actually support synchronicity, you actually support people getting to actually interact with UCLA/Princeton/Cornell professors, not just watching them on pre-recorded videos.”
Powered by WPeMatico
The fall semester is off to a rocky start. When schools were forced to close in the spring, students (and parents) struggled. As the new school year begins, affluent families are building pandemic pods and inequities abound, while surveys suggest that college students want tuition discounts for online classes.
To avoid a catastrophic loss in revenue, colleges are bringing students back to campus. At UNC-Chapel Hill, those plans were quickly reversed when 130 students tested positive for the virus just a week into the new semester. As cases skyrocket, UNC will not be the only educational institution or school district to move online again.
What is it about digital learning that has schools so keen on reopening despite the health and reputational risks? Why hasn’t digital learning lived up to its promise?
If I were asked 20 years ago, as the founding CEO of Rosetta Stone, what digital learning would look like today, I would have imagined a very different future. Online learning was exploding. Teachers and faculty were experimenting with now commonplace consumer technologies like speech recognition and virtual reality to create immersive learning experiences.
Sadly, most of these innovations never took hold in our schools and colleges, and remote learners today are left with edtech that feels like it is still trapped in the 90s.
Ironically, the business of edtech and digital learning has been booming. Billions of dollars have been invested in tools and platforms that promise to improve the learning outcomes and lives of students. But for all the investments, headlines and flashy IPOs, edtech has little to show in terms of transformative outcomes.
The United States continues to lag behind many other advanced industrialized nations in math, science and reading literacy. Schools at all levels grapple with pervasive equity gaps. And research shows that heavily investing in education technology has, so far, yielded virtually no appreciable improvement in student achievement in these core subjects.
The challenge stems from the fact that rather than making learning better, the education technology field has, for the most part, focused on reaching more students. In our rush to scale, we have largely ignored tremendous pedagogical innovation that has occurred over the last twenty years.
No matter how high-tech a digital learning solution might be, it means nothing if it doesn’t also reflect recent and emerging changes in pedagogy. In 2010, a study at the University of North Texas compared how students retain information literacy skills in a face-to-face class, an online class and a blended class. The researchers found that there was no difference in outcomes between the three kinds of classes. This is because all three used the same materials and pedagogical approach.
But in a digital environment, far more is possible. We can now create video-game quality simulations to evaluate complex skills like creativity or problem-solving. Shy students can take the form of learning avatars in online laboratories — or explore career paths first-hand, through virtual reality. We know more than ever about attention span and engagement, or the connection between socio-emotional development and academic outcomes.
Researchers have, likewise, gained a deeper understanding of the ways students’ minds work. We know more than ever about how students reason, process information and solve problems. We know what kinds of scaffolding is required to develop and master these skills. Learning is best when it is built around doing, and when the context is practical, allowing students to try their hand at solving problems even as they’re still learning. It’s best when it is individualized, with progress based on a student’s personal aptitude and proficiency as they move toward mastering the material. And it’s best when it is enriched with peer-based discussion, practice and collaboration.
Astonishingly, few mass-market digital learning tools are built or adopted with these pedagogical advancements in mind. While Zoom is a fine tool for live conversations in small groups, it has few tools to facilitate the kind of engagement necessary for real learning. Coursera has raised millions for simply replicating the old-fashioned experience of a teacher lecturing at the front of a classroom. Quizlet is but a virtual collection of flashcards; it can assess the learning of certain facts, but it is hardly useful for the acquisition of skills. These types of common digital learning tools are increasingly great at making educators’ jobs easier. They are great at expanding access, allowing teachers and schools to reach more students than ever before. But scale, ease and access are not sufficient to help students learn and build skills.
The frustrations of educators and learners alike reflect the fact that education technology functions as a digital proxy for our oldest methods of teaching. Simply listening to a lecture is not effective in the real world, and yet that largely remains the default mode of education online. The impact of COVID-19 has only exacerbated these long-standing shortcomings. To create the digital learning experience students deserve — to finally fulfill the untapped promise and potential of educational technology — we must create tools that reflect not only advancements in technology, but in what we now understand about how the mind works and how students learn.
Powered by WPeMatico
Juni Learning connects kids with math and science tutors, but co-founder Vivian Shen would prefer not to be lumped in with other edtech startups, despite the sector’s pandemic-born boom.
“We’re not just in the middle to take a few percentage points off of each side and pretend like we’re delivering value,” said Shen. “That’s not scalable.”
Semantics aside, Shen’s words underscore a truth about live tutoring businesses: Anyone can start one. All it takes is smart friends, eager students and a platform to bring them together.
The low barrier of entry has given rise to a slew of new startups. Some view edtech as a marketplace play, others go the gig economy route, and some are trying to make tutoring as simple as calling an Uber — on-demand and only when you need it.
Juni Learning, co-founded by Shen and Ruby Lee, is entering a fragmented and fatigued market full of better-funded and well-known startups. The startup views itself as a consumer play instead of an edtech startup and raised a $10.5 million Series A back in February to prove it can take a slice of the market.
With only 4,000 active subscribers, Juni Learning is bringing in $10 million in annual run revenue (ARR), compared to $2 million of ARR in March, according to my calculations.
So how is it faring?
In 2005, Andrew Geant was thinking about two-sided gig economy marketplaces. He applied the model to tutoring, thinking he could grow a business from connecting students and tutors online to meet offline. So, Geant and Mike Weishuhn, both recent Princeton graduates, founded Wyzant.
Powered by WPeMatico
Higher education is being transformed by COVID-19, but it goes beyond universities simply “going remote” to try and cope. The changes afoot are holistic, transformative and a long time coming. These changes will extend to recruiting, training and, ultimately, how employers fundamentally go about finding potential candidates for their organizations. It also will change the very nature of higher education itself.
Before COVID-19, would-be employees would take traditional educational routes to gain employment. High school led to college, which (sometimes) led to grad school. Almost all of this was done in an immersive campus setting where students tried to figure out not only who they were but what they wanted to do and with whom they wanted to do it. This path required enterprises to react specifically to an entrenched educational model that determined how would-be employees would be groomed and trained — be it for a specific skill set or cultural fit — all in an effort to determine who the right person was for them.
This model has grown bloated over the years, and the industry that supports it — projected to register $10 trillion globally by 2030 — has become increasingly vulnerable to the kind of technology-driven change that, over the last decade, has been disrupting old-school industries across the board, from retail to logistics to real estate and more.
“A reckoning is coming for schools and universities,” Scott Galloway, a professor of marketing at the NYU Stern School of Business, told CNN in late May. “We’ve raised prices 1400% but at the same time, if you look at innovation … if you walked into a classroom today it wouldn’t look, smell or feel much different from what it did 40 years ago.”
In a blog post from April, Galloway further projected that COVID-19 would lead to a culling among universities. As with retail, he suggested — where closures skyrocketed from 9,500 stores in 2019 to more than 15,000 in 2020 — there will likely be dozens, if not hundreds, of colleges and universities that simply do not recover from the virus. He also predicted a sustained drop in applications at four-year universities for the first time in decades.
“The blow to the world of higher education was bound to come,” said Roei Deutsch, co-founder and CEO of live video course marketplace Jolt Inc. during a talk on the podcast, Coffee Break. “There is a higher education bubble, something there does not work in terms of cost versus what students receive in return, and you can say that the coronavirus crisis is the beginning of this bubble’s bursting.”
While the virus may hasten an overdue transformation in higher education, it also will create opportunities for startups that create alternatives to traditional higher education. As with many other sectors, though, this will be less about COVID-19 acting as a radical change agent and more about the virus accelerating what was already taking place behind the scenes, primarily within global enterprises.
Over the last decade, enterprise learning and development (L&D) has grown in importance as various technologies proliferated throughout large organizations. The global corporate e-learning market is estimated to grow up to $30 billion at a 13% compound annual growth rate through 2022. This growth was driven in large part by the increased importance of matching workforce capabilities with actual required skill sets.
Learning experience platforms (LXP) and learning management systems (LMS) are core products used by enterprises in L&D. They are used to monitor, track and administer employment learning activities. They usually serve as digitized online catalogs. Learning software is primarily designed to create more personalized learning experiences and help users discover new learning opportunities by combining learning content from different sources, while recommending and delivering them — with the support of AI — across multiple digital touch points, e.g., desktop applications, mobile learning apps and others.
Significantly, these same online education tools have also begun to be adopted by many colleges and universities as they look for ways to cope with COVID-19. This is helping to transform thinking around these applications, tools and platforms. Enterprises, which had already been adopting these tools, are now reconsidering their potential. It does not take a colossal leap of imagination to see what lies ahead.
Instead of building training academies and LMS systems to help continually train people for new or expanded roles within an organization, enterprises will now target the front end of the recruiting funnel where higher education begins. With university life transformed by COVID-19, it has opened up the possibility for enterprises to reassess how they participate in that funnel. The potential for global enterprises to own the university experience is, suddenly, very real.
Imagine leveraging these existing education and training platforms to create hyperspecific curricula for enterprises. A gig economy for professors who have been displaced from shuttered universities could provide the online faculty. They’ll design a curriculum specifically suited to an enterprise’s needs.
These new enterprise-driven, online university systems will vet people for academic excellence and cultural alignment to determine who they want to educate and, ultimately, hire. And all of it will feed them directly into their own systems. These would be university systems not unlike what we see today with, say, The U.S. Naval Academy, where a tuition-free education comes with an obligation to serve for a period of time. Others have speculated that a kind of hybrid, for-profit model that blends universities and global enterprises may also emerge.
“MIT/Google could offer a two-year degree in STEM,” suggested Galloway. “MIT/Google could enroll 100,000 kids at $100,000 in tuition (a bargain), yielding $5 billion a year (two-year program) that would have margins rivaling … MIT and Google. Bocconi/Apple, Carnegie Mellon/Amazon, UCLA/Netflix, Berkeley/Microsoft … you get the idea.”
Higher education is not the only system poised for fundamental transformation. The U.S. staffing and recruiting market, whose total size was already predicted to decrease 21% due to the coronavirus outbreak, could also see changes in how they operate. No longer will enterprises feel obliged to recruit at universities or utilize the tools, platforms and resources necessary to identify recruits coming out of these outdated systems. Now, they’ll have a direct funnel to employees perfectly attuned to their needs. This would be a boon for enterprises that would not only create novel profit centers in their organizations but would also avoid the costly and inefficient process of searching for employees common to most recruiting models today. The savings are not insignificant.
The cost of a bad hire can reach up to 30% of the employee’s first-year earnings, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Undercover Recruiter looked at misadventures in hiring potentially costing enterprise $240,000 in expenses related to hiring, compensation and retention. One study found that 74% of companies that admit they’ve hired the wrong person lost an average of $14,900 for each bad hire, according to CareerBuilder.
Then there are the ancillary benefits for students — the cost of higher education has been skyrocketing for decades, and student debt has reached unacceptable levels, with diminished earning power associated with degrees. A tipping point is fast approaching: One study demonstrated that a college degree decreases in value as the number of graduates increases. So, in Sub-Saharan Africa (where degrees are relatively rare) a degree will boost earnings by more than 20%. In Scandinavia (where 40% of adults have degrees) that number drops to 9%.
These new, enterprise-specific universities would provide real, tangible ROI on every education investment dollar made. The promise of specific jobs upon graduation with good salaries is doubly important in a shaky economy. As universities continue to price themselves out, they’ll have a tougher time justifying their costs, particularly when juxtaposed against an online educational system that feeds directly into Google, Twitter or Microsoft. It would likely prove irresistible for many students.
The secondary effects of COVID-19 as it relates to higher education are still not clear, but a possible picture is beginning to emerge. Recruiting could have to transform who they target and how (and when) they go about it. A burgeoning industry that has been supporting a steadily increasing appetite from enterprises for digital education and training could be transformed overnight and grow by leaps and bounds. Students could see debt cut in half and have a clear path forward toward employment. Whatever the ultimate landscape is that emerges, the changes in store for universities and colleges will undoubtedly be unpleasant.
“I think we’ve stuck out the mother of all chins and the fist of COVID-19 is coming for us,” Galloway told CNN. “Think of another industry that charges 100K and gets 90-plus points of margin. Other than a pharmaceutical for a drug that cures a rare cancer, maybe, what other product gets that kind of margin? Quite frankly, we’ve had this coming.”
That some kind of change is coming seems clear, but whether a paradigm shift in education is a good thing is less so. Like most industries disrupted by software and technology, tremendous value will flow to millions of consumers as technologies drive market efficiencies. There will be jobs that vanish or are transformed and there will be new jobs that are created to satisfy the new way of doing things. Major global enterprise and tech companies stand to profit the most from this transformation, with more wealth and power flowing into the hands of the FAANGs of the corporate world.
There will also be a reshaping of priorities in higher education as intellectual discovery, cultural appreciation and individual growth — the hallmarks of a campus-based liberal arts education — are replaced by the pursuit of a narrowly defined set of vocational skills and corporate efficiencies. The implications of global enterprises wading into higher ed will change not only how we educate, hire and train people but how we fundamentally think about and value higher education, as well.
Powered by WPeMatico
Edtech is booming, but a short while ago, many companies in the category were struggling to break through as mainstream offerings. Now, it seems like everyone is clamoring to get into the next seed-stage startup that has the phrase “remote learning” on its About page.
And so begins the normal cycle that occurs when a sector gets overheated — boom, bust and a reckoning. While we’re still in the early days of edtech’s revitalization, it isn’t a gold mine all around the world. Today, in the spirit of balance and history, I’ll present three bearish takes I’ve heard on edtech’s future.
Quizlet’s CEO Matthew Glotzbach says that when students go back to school, the technology that “sticks” during this time of massive experimentation might not be bountiful.
“I think the dividing line there will be there are companies that have been around, that are a little more entrenched, and have good financial runway and can probably survive this cycle,” he said. “They have credibility and will probably get picked [by schools].” The newer companies, he said, might get stuck with adoption because they are at a high degree of risk, and might be giving out free licenses beyond their financial runway right now.
Powered by WPeMatico