Friday, August 26, 2005
Is Educational Software Dead?
The NY Times (yeah, you gotta register, but its free) reports that the educational software market is in decline. They particularly focus on home software for young kids.
What’s going on? The educational software industry has, once again, promised more than they can deliver. Most of the stuff in this category is lousy. At the recent SIIA EdTech conference, Ed Coughlin told a depressing tale of two software packages, Reader Rabbit and DaisyQuest. You’ve probably heard of Reader Rabbit, but DaisyQuest has disappeared from the market. Guess which one has research demonstrating its effectiveness? And which one is still on the market.
Competitive markets work when the criteria for success in the market values in the short term what works for them in the long term. This hasn’t happened in educational software (or, more broadly, in education). In the short term, consumers are attracted by flash and (assumed) engagement. In the long term, though, they want effectiveness. But effectiveness is unrelated to flash and only related to engagement in ways that aren’t always obvious to consumers. So they buy software once for the flash and then don’t return.
What’s going on? The educational software industry has, once again, promised more than they can deliver. Most of the stuff in this category is lousy. At the recent SIIA EdTech conference, Ed Coughlin told a depressing tale of two software packages, Reader Rabbit and DaisyQuest. You’ve probably heard of Reader Rabbit, but DaisyQuest has disappeared from the market. Guess which one has research demonstrating its effectiveness? And which one is still on the market.
Competitive markets work when the criteria for success in the market values in the short term what works for them in the long term. This hasn’t happened in educational software (or, more broadly, in education). In the short term, consumers are attracted by flash and (assumed) engagement. In the long term, though, they want effectiveness. But effectiveness is unrelated to flash and only related to engagement in ways that aren’t always obvious to consumers. So they buy software once for the flash and then don’t return.
// posted by Steve Ritter @ 1:47 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I agree about the high short motivator of "flash" and the desired albeit back-seat motivator of "effectiveness."
But why does effectiveness take a backseat? Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline) and other systems dynamics folk would say it's because we humans have problems with delayed feedback. It takes so long to see the effectiveness payoff that you forget to care.
So how about adding personal investment as a factor that might give a sustained reminder of "you better care?" The test-prep industry has launched a variety of hand-held gadgets dedicated to prepping kids for the SAT and ACT.
Do kids feel personally invested in raising their NCLB test scores? No. But they sure want to get into a good college. (Or perhaps it's their parents who are personally invested.)
--StephenG
But why does effectiveness take a backseat? Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline) and other systems dynamics folk would say it's because we humans have problems with delayed feedback. It takes so long to see the effectiveness payoff that you forget to care.
So how about adding personal investment as a factor that might give a sustained reminder of "you better care?" The test-prep industry has launched a variety of hand-held gadgets dedicated to prepping kids for the SAT and ACT.
Do kids feel personally invested in raising their NCLB test scores? No. But they sure want to get into a good college. (Or perhaps it's their parents who are personally invested.)
--StephenG
I'm a believer in immediate feedback, so I'll agree that the systems dynamics folks know what they're talking about.
There are ways to provide feedback more frequently (like frequent testing) but that's time-intensive and, often anti-motivating.
Leveraging personal interest is a great idea. I think that's already what "good students" do. If you've got a way to get the disinterested students to be interested in learning again (especially after middle school), that'd be a winner. But I don't think the promise of college is it. That's a long way down the road.
Post a Comment
There are ways to provide feedback more frequently (like frequent testing) but that's time-intensive and, often anti-motivating.
Leveraging personal interest is a great idea. I think that's already what "good students" do. If you've got a way to get the disinterested students to be interested in learning again (especially after middle school), that'd be a winner. But I don't think the promise of college is it. That's a long way down the road.
<< Home
