Seven Reasons Online Learning Platforms Might Never Take Off

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Vikrama Dhiman

Disclaimer: Online Learning Platforms in this post means products that are not affiliated with colleges for the award of degrees/ course credits. Hence, the #epic courses from universities like University of Phoenix do not qualify.

However, products like Edufire, for instance, do qualify. Some of these platforms have been around for a long time [3-4 years or even before]. None of them has really hit the big league and with each passing day, the prospect looks increasingly bleak. Here are seven reasons why this could be happening and why no Online Education company will ever make it big:

Reason: The population that is intrinsically motivated to learn is small. Worse, very little [little as in overall scheme of things and not your product interface's scheme of things] you can do on your website will convert someone not interested in learning something to learn it. One can also read this statement as “Most people feel the Learning pang very less and not very strongly.” Hence, the urge to look to learn and be knowledgeable is not very widespread.
Reason: Following from Reason 1, among the very small number of people who are really interested in learning, very few are looking for teachers/ courses online. The web is filled with information overload anyways. In such a scenario, it is not surprising that content is finding us rather than the other way around. There is plenty available on platforms that do not brand themselves as Online Learning Platforms, anyways. Slideshare, Scribd, YouTube, Wikipedia – that is mostly enough for any learning. Couple these with blogs and your Personal Learning Networks on Twitter/ Ning/ Facebook and not much else seems to be needed in the Online Learning space.
Reason: Following on from the reasons above, even among the small minority of people looking for teachers/ courses online, very few want unaccredited courses or want to pay for these. Especially when, plenty of quality stuff is available for free online – MIT OCW, lectures on Academic Earth, Presentations on YouTube and Slideshare, for instance. The future of Learning (at least the online variety) is going towards a zero-price anyways. If you think you can charge for something, you will have to communicate and demonstrate the value for the same. The challenge is not easily definable.
Reason: Learning Online is Boring! Its like college minus the fun, the parties and the networking [the real networking and not the social types]. Most people go to college for the degrees, freedom, peers, learning – in that order. Before you protest, read the first two words of the sentence – Most people.
Reason: Learning Online is not (as) social. Despite the claims to the contrary – Learning Online is way less social than Learning Offline. Forget the cool parts like parties, the online experience still is just a distant substitute to face-to-face. One can argue that people moved to Webex et al to forgo business travel. However, unlike there, the incentive to go online to give away the benefit of face-to-face is not much.
Reason: Learning Online can never compete with an Offline Teaching Organizations. Unlike booking movie tickets/ airline tickets [more convenience] or finding the exact thing second hand you are looking for one eBay, Learning Online achieves nothing. For many, it is an additional headache concerning bandwidth, time, commitment to not browse elsewhere etc etc. And when the same course is available just a mile away, incentive to learn online plummets almost completely. And given this ambivalence in mind, learners need to see even more value from an online teacher/ course, than otherwise.
Reason: Learning Online is fixing what is not broken. The broken part of our education system varies from country to country. In India, lack of entrepreneurial tendencies and lack of access to quality education because of poverty are major concerns. Online Education is not addressing that. In the United States, lack of motivation to learn, is a recurring theme. Online Education does not address that. Learning Anytime/ Anywhere is an issue but not as important as other pressing issues. Most platforms however, play on that angle. The other theme on most of the platforms seems to be to get traffic and then monetize later. Further, the technology medium to reach this population is not the browser on laptop/ computer. It is the mobile phone. This disconnect between the real problems and proposed solutions is too stark. Where the hunger is, the solution is not. The current solutions target [hypothetical] aspirations.

However, lets end this on a positive note. Large scale penetration of technology is happening at a massive rate and new innovative business models as well as changes in the behavior of learners [and teachers] are taking place. The tipping point is when all these factors converge favorably. Now, is there a Facebook growing one school/ area at a time, that is going to help us realize this

Pingback: Kirsten Winkler
Pingback: Kay Alexander
Pingback: E-Teachers Academy
Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Mike Shields
Harman

Six Reasons Why They Will….

Vik, this is an interesting analysis and the reasons you mentioned are definitely worth noting. But here are 6 reasons online learning might take off:
1. It's economical: There is a 40-50% cost reduction in online vs. classroom teaching (infrastructure etc.) that can be passed on to the customers
2. You can learn from better teachers. If say you don't live in an area there are good teachers
3. You learn better from (human) teachers than watching videos and presentations. Educational videos existed long before internet came along and yet Universities have always hired teachers
4. A person's time will always be paid and so the teachers will always be paid and so there will be transactions; hence the business models
5. The digital world is better than the walled classroom (for many learning scenarios) such as
for learning about 3D objects, accessing class recordings later on etc.
6. Like in anything else, convenience always wins. Attending a class online can be done from a laptop and soon from a smartphone – much more convenient than being physically present in the class

Now, why this hasn't been achieved so far is because I think it hasn't been done right yet as well as the technology hasn't yet fully converged. Either way, only time can tell if it will happen

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

All these are good points for sure. But the Tipping Point will need more.

My hunch after checking out what one can call top 10 learning platforms is that WiZiQ is in a unique position to reach that Tipping Point. The runaway success has not happened so far anywhere. But, there too, WiZiQ can actually any day stop looking for the Tipping Point because the platform also doubles up as a tool nicely.

However, till it happens, how to tip the world towards this tipping point in online learning -> that is the sexiest problem to solve

http://www.myeslfriends.com Gmachlan

In my simplistic view WiziQ is perfect for a world in flux. They continue to go against the other platform's wisdom. They have not narrowed and even resisted wonderful voices like Kirsten's to let the teachers decide what they do and how they do it. Admittedly this is rather messy. And it looks rather chaotic sometimes.

I have watched and took personal grief from many conventional academicians who insist that only “qualified” teachers should be allowed on WizIQ. Other teachers demand that all should charge for classes or none can survive. I am satisfied that no one has the key to the future of online education. Particularly for the vast untapped audience that have always been locked out of conventional institutions. The answer lies in less control, not more of the same.

WizIQ continues to exemplify the best of what made the American experience great. Liberty and freedoms beyond the wisdom of any other. Yes the American experience has been messy and particularly hard for those who cannot adapt to change. But, for the time being, there is no better model. I am personally grateful that WizIQ has embraced a paradigm of individual freedom and minimal top-down control.

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

The question is: are platforms built for teachers or for students?

http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

YES, Kirsten! Students are the end customer. A platform service that thinks it can simply focus on drawing in teachers, and that students will naturally follow, is a business that *ignores its customers*. This has been the failing of virtually every platform that I've seen so far.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

I am not so sure about that one. Its kind of chicken-and-egg to an extent. If you don't have quality teachers, students won't come; if you don't have large enough student base, quality teachers won't even start thinking about it as an evangelizing platform.

Having said that, you can still target your product to teachers or organizations, just like Elluminate/ Blackboard/ Moodle/ WiZiQ Virtual Classroom for Private Classes or Organizations.
Harman

A lot of my thoughts resonate with Vik's. Could it be that we woekrd together

But his point is logical to me. Since I know the number of classes etc. happening on WiZiQ – which I can't disclose – I can tell you that a storm is coming

The public classes you see on WiZiQ is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Not to say that there aren't any challenges to build such a platform – there are many. But I believe we at WiZiQ have viable solution to most which will result in achieving our goals:
Great learning platform for students that they are ready to pay for
Great teaching and earning platform for teachers – I mean a significant lively hood.

Enough said. Back to work and actually making it happen
http://www.myeslfriends.com Gmachlan

Great sound bites Harman. One of the things that I find perplexing at WizIQ is that there is a total absencse of analytics or demographics to base any kind of marketing or business decisions on. I think it is, at the least, unkind to throw a statement like “Since I know the number … Storm comming!” without substantiating it. If I may be a little abbrasive, that smacks of hype. Which is the one area that I have said WizIQ strays a little close to. I can accept that the marketing is focusing on the dream or vision and tends to bring out gross facts (e.g. 100,000 teachers signed up or some such number), which on its face may be true. But, is that number truly indicative of tha active user community?

Please either give us some good data to base our opinions and decisions on or be kind and don't tease us with empiracle statements that are not verifiable.

A true believer in the WizIQ platform.

George

PS That is the first time I have ever seen a mission statement for WizIQ! Is there supporting goals, values, vision, etc. also? A shame that I have to find it here.

PPS I only say this because I trust and love you man (in a masculine manly way).
chinaMike

I am going to go out on a limb here.

I think you try to figure out if they were built for teaching or were built for learning. Those that were built for teaching were built with the teachers in mind. Those that were built for learning…well you get the idea.

I would imagine that some are balanced quite equally.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

If a platform is designed with “teaching” [and not teachers] in mind, won't it be useful for students/ learners as well?
Gmachlan

I find that the word “teach/teacher/teaching” seems to be the stumbling block for many. Personally I am trying to find a replacement that is not so semantically burden with biases, assumptions, taboos and elitism.
chinamike

Good luck. I personally love this word. I don't think we need to replace it; i think we need to live up to its fullest meaning.
chinamike

If a platform were designed for teaching and not teachers it would suffer from a lack of focus. Not all teachers are the same. You should have a clear idea of what kind of teachers are using your teaching tools. I can say definitively for example that young teachers differ from older teachers and that University teachers differ from Kindergarten teachers. Then there are the teachers that like the spotlight and those that avoid the footlights. If students have preferred learning styles then you can bet teachers have preferred teaching styles.

And no, I believe that a platform that is designed for teaching will, by its very nature, be vastly different than a platform designed to maximize learning. The bottom line- teaching and learning are different enterprises that do intersect but can and in practice do differ in many significant ways.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

So, essentially, you are saying that it is possible to construct a learning platform without focusing on teachers/ teaching or making it the central focus?

I agree that teaching by teacher != learning by the student – at least not always. But then so does a lot of other things like watching videos != learning or going through a self paced course != learning. Are we ready to put the onus of learning on the learner — the consumer?
chinamike

So, essentially, you are saying that it is possible to construct a learning platform without focusing on teachers/ teaching or making it the central focus?

Yes, and the key word here is central focus.

I didn't say that teachers weren't also important in the learning process. They are essential, especially with regards to the social side of learning. They can be good at providing context, perspective, motivation and the right question at the right time.

Most teachers however are merely average at building a curriculum, following up on learning over time, understanding how learners learn, building repeatable learning experiences, and individualizing the learning experiences.

If you have crafted the right environment, why you wouldn't want to put the onus of learning on the learner is beyond me. But, part of crafting the right environment means providing a path to mastery for every student.
http://www.myeslfriends.com Gmachlan

Excellent point, Kirsten. In WizIQ's case they definitely gambled on the chicken vs egg scenario of teacher being first. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the teachers brought too much baggage, assumptions and elite attitude to the portal. But I am edupunk through and through so I cannot speak objectively. On the other hand I fear that the true catalyst (students with their untainted ideas) will be a long time in empowering and bringing to the for. They are so conditioned to be passive in the learning process that it is going to be some time before they really open up and become the equal partners that a “both/and” world can benefit from.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Fantastic Comment. Inspiration for my next post

chinaMike

Can a successful commercial operation can be built on the political ethos of liberty and freedom (which by the way neither had its start with Americans nor will it end with them)?

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

When you think of marketplace, you instantly think of eBay. Wasn't it based on the same ethos? Another one which comes to mind is Craigslist – successful again. What about Facebook as a Platform? Or even Google Ads.

However, I have missed your question completely. But, this is an important question not just for online education platforms but online learning overall.
chinamike

I couldn't think of what to say except when it comes to education that I generally come down on the side of boundaries, rules and expectations for teachers, students and schools. Where does that leave platforms? Perhaps it is the relative absence of rules that best defines a platform.

Gmachlan

Thanks Harman. But if I may, those are “talking points” and in some ways a canned response of a true believer. We must go deeper in our evaluation and communications about this new world we are trying to find. And, dare I say it, delve deeply into feelings (yuck). Man's brain is 50% left and 50% right hemisphere. While the left brain is the gatekeeper and very logical, the right brain is ultimately in control. Our heart and truest self lies somewhere in that right brain, touchy-feely world (unless you are Vulcan . The points both you and Vic are making lie almost entirely in the realm of logic. The hearts and minds we are trying to convert must be touched on the “other side”.

I love you man (in a masculine, manly way) but don't let them define the discussion. Mr. Spock would love them but that emotional and passionate Captain Kirk took us all “where no man has gone before…”
http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

Very interesting discussion. Thanks everyone! My two penneth…

The reason it hasn't taken off is because virtually all online education is based upon offline education and, as explained in many ways above, is currently inferior and seen as a poor second best to actually 'being there'.

The reason it is like this is because people (educators and entrepreneurs) have concentrated on making the online spaces and processes replicate the offline world in terms of look, feel and process.

However, it can be better and I can prove it. But, the proof that it can be better is not very interesting to people who want to monetise traffic, sell printed books or write about companies that are floated.

The key to reaching the tipping point is to transform the experience into one that is far more effective than that currently available in the offline world. It has to be so much better that it is worth shouting about.

To do that we need to think differently and look inwards (brain cells) rather than outwards (bricks and mortar).

We need to use the technology and the infinite space we have online to support the most efficient learning processes possible. Not, as has been happening, make the technology fit an inefficient and out of date offline pedagogy.

There are lots of us online trying to make this work and trying to make some money from it. It is like we know it will work but we just haven't worked it out yet.

I work in language teaching and learning. The online environment is perfect for me and my product. I have audio proof (before and after clips and all of the bits in between recorded) that I can take a Chinese adult beginner (with 16 years of formal real world English study behind them) and in 18 hours have them speaking comfortably at about intermediate level. That is unheard of, and, as many of my online friends have attested, almost miraculous. How much is the knowledge contained in my little learning process and materials worth to Indian and Chinese English learners? I know. So, all we need to do is tell and show people and the good news will travel.

Is the media interested? No.

Are publishers interested? Yes, but not in the way you would think. So, no.

Are platforms interested, yes, very much so, but they, like universities and schools are primarily chasing bums on seats, i.e. traffic and they all have very specific integration issues for payment/and fulfilment.

Human beings hate change.

They will go with what they know or something that looks like what they know did 'ok' last time if it doesn't mean that they have to change the way they operate.

They will even go with what was 'just about tolerable' last time if the alternative is unfamiliar to them or not proven to be far far superior.

Currently most people are trying to recreate 'just about tolerable' in the online environment and hoping it will catch fire. It won't. Not until it is far far superior and then finally worth talking about in the real world. And not just in our (relatively) small circle of familiar avatars.

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Jason: Thanks for stopping by to read and comment. Interesting comments you make about online world being a replica for offline world. But, are not most successful online experiences just that anyways?

I do agree that a model which does not look for “traffic” could be interesting. However, with a good monetization strategy, it is not really a business anyways.

http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

I don't know, are they? I guess I should have said that my one-eyed view was more to do with learning systems and processes. In other words we seem to have been taking what we use in the real world and using it online. I just think that there has been a lack of imagination in some ways. It goes back to crowd-sourced content etc. The buildings come first then we try to create something to fit the building and we are immediately constrained. If you flip it, which I think is what Kirsten is talking about above and start from what you want to achieve (much like we did) then you have a different prospect altogether. The only thing then, as Kirsten rightfully points out, is the simplicity and clarity of the core message and how willing people are to do something different.

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

Good points Jason. You are right when saying that humans hate change and that is one of the main problems as it is true for entrepreneurs and customers.

Second problem is to sell something revolutionary as it might frighten both sides again.

So what to do? You stick with the standards and they might not be the best, agreed.

I had some pretty interesting talks the past weeks with startups in online education and the ones that are the most successful, right from the start are those which don't sell their product as revolutionary at all although I think they are.

What they have in common are that the founders come from “the other side” hence they were / are learners and they built their products on their specific needs which obviously are familiar to a larger group of people who then buy the product. The second thing those product have in common is that they don't need explanation. You see them, you understand what they are for and therefore you are able to use them immediately. Very important, I think.

What we see in the 1st gen platforms / services is that they became far too complex and hence frightening over time. They are full of features and you don't see immediately what they are good for and for whom they are built. Services that focus on one specific aspect seem to be more successful.

Which brings us to the question what success means. Does it mean you need to create the Microsoft, Google, Facebook of education?

http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

Success in a business is probably sustainability these days, I'd imagine, and those who create and run it earning a living wage. But there is still, in everyone probably, the desire to dominate (call it human nature again).

I have lost count of the number of platforms and online products that I have used or tried to use that have had the kitchen sink thrown in and merely confused me. I think you are right that there is new breed of ergonomically designed and much more intuitive tools to use. There has been great progress.

But in some of the simplest things there has been very little. Such as, what I am interested in, content sales and delivery via third party platforms. These tools are often complex and expensive and the preserve of the big boys, still, even though SaaS is growing at speed. I just console myself with the knowledge that someone somewhere is on the job

Success in education is surely improvement in terms of the acquisition and application of specific knowledge and skills. Does online education beat offline education currently? Which comes first, the technology or the pedagogy? I'd say, at the moment, there are still a lot of people building platforms and seeking users whilst the actual processes of learning using the available and existing technology (even the simplest and most widely used e.g Skype) is still being ignored by the educators. There seems to be this kind of laissez-faire attitude to pedagogy when it comes to online learning. It is either 'let's use what we use offline' or 'let's make it up as we go along'. Online teachers spend hour and hours creating lesson plans and courses. It is laborious and not very scientific and I think the lack of a body of specifically designed materials for online teaching and learning really plays into the hands of those who would prefer things to change very very slowly.

I've said this before, in Kolkata, at the British Council's Dialogue 2 English for Progress conference in Nov 2008. We had the technology and tools then…what we didn't and still don't have is the materials:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/india-secondpolic…

Sorry for biffing on about content…but remember, content used to king

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

Content is still king. If we take the term Social Media I think that we usually put too much attention on the social but in reality the media is the important part. Social is the feature, what we do with the media but without media, stuff to share, like, talk about, no social, right?

Koichi is currently building a killer delivery system for educational content called Gibbon. You should try to get a beta invite .
http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

I will deffo track Koichi down, thanks for the tip-off!

http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

One reason why they haven't…

I think that a large reason that they haven't taken off is lack of focus. Learning platforms have generally tried to be too many things to too many people, too quickly. EduFire tried to have this focus, initially, by only offering language tutoring and courses. But even that is too broad. Not only is the market for each language different, but the market for each individual language is different within each region. I don't think a platform like eduFire's — even when focused purely on language learning — could ever really compete with a much more targeted learning platform, like Englishtown. I think that the niche players are always going to be the winners.

That said, I don't see killer learning platforms as an impossibility. I think that huge opportunities exist for learning platforms that can collaborate directly with niche players and tie their communities together.

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Thanks for stopping by to read and comment

You bring out an interesting point. I thought about this as well. However, while lack of focus would be an important issue if I am in “social learning” or looking for “long tail of social proof”, I won't probably be that concerned if I am primarily interacting with the content and not the content creator. I see niche network plagued by above problems too.

http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

I'm not really talking about the social ambiguities that come from having an unfocused platform or learner community; I'm really talking about marketing and the understanding of your users that only comes from being completely focused on one segment. eduFire had a platform that didn't (couldn't) really understand the majority of its users and their unique needs. They tried to place the burden of marketing niche services on individual tutors and teachers. Having every individual educator trying to distribute their own marketing message doesn't create clarity for new consumers; it really only creates noise.

I imagine an effective (in terms of mass use) online learning platform as being relatively closed and manicured, with each niche being owned by a partner company that really understands the market segment and that can craft coherent marketing messages and establish appropriate pricing to draw in those users, while at the same time sharing common infrastructure, some users, and some educators, with other partners.

I could very well be completely off-base, or perhaps this has been done exactly in this way and failed miserably for all of the reasons that you discussed. But I think that most online education platforms suffer from a lack of coherent marketing, not so much to the educators who already know where to look for the latest tools, but to the students who ultimately have to pay to keep these services alive.

http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

Also, I would just like to add that most teachers don't want to do their own marketing. Many would probably love to shake off the burden of setting their own prices, which forces them to participate in a race to the bottom with the other teachers in the site, from whom they know no other way to differentiate themselves. Most teachers just want to teach.

I think that a killer platform would equate this into its solution and choose to work through partners that could actually set prices, so that teachers would be free to do what they do best: teach.

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Well platforms like TutorVista have been around for a while now. Live Person which acquired Kasamba was also a sort of similar model. I am not sure if the future is this kind of control.

Teachers do not want to do their own marketing. That is an interesting thought. One could have said the same about eBay at one time too. However, I agree that building a teacher/ expert brand is more time consuming – takes more time. But, I think the onus has to be on the teacher. A parallel I can think is getting followers on Twitter. Unless you are already known, it takes time to get those. And unless you have significantly large and engaged followers, deriving value from them [click your links for instance] is very hard.

I think the main reason why people are not flocking to online platforms like these is not the marketing but not being able to excite the students to flock there. Now, why could that be, when everything suggests they should be flocking there? Probably, a theme for the next blog post.
http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

Vikrama, thanks so much for the post and the discussion! When I got into my eighth paragraph of my latest response, I realized that I didn't actually have a discussion thread response — I had a blog post. We can pick up our discussion when I post it.
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

Teachers don't want to market themselves and even if they want they most often don't know how. Online marketing is a whole different game.

That is why services like TeachStreet will be winners in this game. They take this big and important part of your career and do it for you while they are not telling you what to teach, how to teach, where to teach and what to earn.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

IMO, it is not possible to outsource your marketing to a platform. You can outsource it to a service. You will have to do work on your own. You can not escape that.
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

But that is exactly what most platforms promise. Set up your courses, offer your great teaching and we take care of the rest like providing you with students.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Humn! I haven't seen as many platforms as you have. The one's I do – provide you with tools to set up your presence, do activity, attract followers and then monetize.

That does not seem like a very easy process to me!
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

But Social Media sucks at conversion, it's simply not made for THIS industry, it MIGHT work for others. Setting up social profiles and promoting on Twitter, Facebook et all is a waste of time.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Not so sure. There are people who have got cult celebrity status using Twitter and Facebook too. But, success requires incredible innovation and patience.
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

In education? Name one.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Randomly, the one that comes to mind is http://twitter.com/tophatprofessor

Also, check this out: http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/twitter-professors/
http://twitter.com/darienbrown Darien Brown

Professor Layton is not an educator; he is a fictional character from a DS game… Probably a bad example.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Oh! I did no realize that. Anyways, even with fictional character, it is still commanding some following. I guess the educators featured in the Mashable article make the cut.

One can also exaggerate slightly and say most authors are also educators, and some of them command healthy social media following.

http://twitter.com/hollysuel Hollysuel

Actually, I've come across a couple of live online platforms that seem to be doing very well and are marketing themselves to just one market. Talkbean in S. Korea and Tutor ABC in Taiwan are examples A new player on the market in China, Taoxue8, is marketing only in China and is worth watching as they seem to be focused on one market. Although all three of these companies seem like a platform, the teachers go through interviews and must pass their screening process in order to get students.

Some teachers I know who teach for Tutor ABC seem to be quite happy and have all the hours they want and TalkBean has also said that the teachers who qualify are able to teach as much as they are available. So, I agree with you that if the platforms were not as broad and were marketing to just one target market and then grow from there–they have a chance!

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Thanks for your comment

The apps like the ones you mentioned, are not really platforms. These are businesses who are hiring teachers to teach students they are recruiting. They are just online versions of teaching academies [just like TutorVista].
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

They are platforms but like Darien said strict and manicured. Nevertheless a teacher can still apply to teach there. The rules and regulations are just very high, kind of the model Myngle is heading towards.
http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

That is like saying Britannica Encyclopedia and Wikipedia are both the same thing. Platforms are like Windows, Facebook API. They have rules but the rules are the same for everyone. They are also automated.

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

I totally agree with this one. If we can agree on the point that the student needs to learn and wants to accomplish something you can say that the student needs a specific tool to fix this problem. So instead of giving him the big toolbox and let him search for it just hand him the screwdriver he needs.

Pingback: Prof Michael Ritter
Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Gmachlan

I will be featuring this article at WizIQ this weekend. We have started a small ongoing discussion called “Learn and Earn at WizIQ”. I am not sure where we are going with this discussion group but your article is timely albeit overly negative of the economic model we are searching for.
Link to blog entry for this class:
http://myeslfriends.com/wordpress/2010/08/18/le…

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Thanks for stopping by to read and comment. I have been struggling with these questions myself. I have found that stopping and taking one thought [even if it is negative] to its conclusion is sometimes a good approach to get going. Each of these blog posts elaborates one thought process. In the next one, I challenge some assumptions we make while building platforms for the web these days

Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Kirsten Winkler
Pingback: E-Teachers Academy
Pingback: Jason Renshaw
Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Faiza Khan
Pingback: Gapfillers
Pingback: Gunjan Juyal
http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

What a great discussion! Thank you for sparking it and thank you all for getting involved in the comments .

So let me chime in here.

1. Reason – I agree that people won't pay (much) if they learn for pleasure. Apps will take a big portion of the market here. They cost a couple of Dollars / Euros, are convinient as they are on the device I carry with me anyway and offer learning sprints I can do while sitting in the metro or during the lunch break.

However if I NEED to learn a language, or anything else, I will be willing to pay to get a short cut / guarantee to achieve my goal.

2. Reason – Agree 1/2 way. Yes, there is a ton of information out there, nevertheless it is scattered and it takes a lot of time to filter through all the junk. In fact a good thing to write about – no one seems to care about classic skills in this area anymore: SEO. Will draft something about that issue as I have a good proof .

What people would pay for is a curated system that delivers me what I want / need, a learning assistant if you would like to call it like this.

3. Reason – Agreed for up to upper intermediate levels. Above that expertise and personality plays a far bigger role. As I am only teaching advanced students the core feature in the lessons is my personality, not the certifications on the wall. Below that big names like Pearson material and a DELTA are handy to sell your courses.

4. Reason – Don't agree. Learning is fun when using the right tools. And those tools depend on the individual person. MindSnacks for example is far away from being boring (for me), it's more the other direction, it's addictive.

5. Reason – Nothing beats a live interaction in the real life, agreed. Nevertheless you cannot underestimate the relationships that are being build online. For example the one between you and I, or you and Darien. Would not have been possible in the real world, at least very difficult.

6. Reason – It depends on how much you are willing to invest (and I don't mean money). If the best teacher for you is on the internet the learning effect will outweigh the possible difficulties. And with the growth of the internet those problems we have today will get smaller and smaller. Traffic and bad weather will stay .

7. Reason – Agreed. We need better solutions rather then copying the classic ones into an online scheme. I will have a chat with one of the founders of TenMarks tomorrow which I think is going into the right direction with the platform.

I believe we need to listen to what the customers expect and not what we think is best for them. This will be another post because I think there is a new disruptive wave coming which no one is seeing yet.

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Most of the counter arguments you provide include the word “might” in them. People “might” want sorted list of learning objects, “might” look for someone online, “might” be fun at one learning network, “might” not want certification. That is not very convincing.

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

I don't see one “might” in my argumentation.

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

There is a “might” in the argument for sure

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

My next post will be based on hard data, with screen shot! Extra for you .

Pingback: Vikrama Dhiman
Pingback: Kirsten Winkler
Pingback: Marco
chinamike

Great discussion. Wonderful discussion!

A lot of our discussion here hinges on a definition of what a platform is (can anyone offer such a definition?) Personally, I believe, after observing Myngle up close, that platforms have a tendency to morph into schools (but not the other way around). In fact, it could be said that what we have is a single continuum with schools on one end and platforms on the other. I would be interested in discovering at what point this cross over actually take place. My feeling is that Myngle is going through this cross over process right now.

Forgive me for sounding sound like Carrie Bradshaw when I ask:
When does a platform stop becoming a platform and start becoming a school?

From my point of view platforms will always be inferior to schools especially those schools that are super focused (on content, marketing, pedagogy, teacher training, teacher selection) and will continue to be inferior UNTIL such time as platforms can achieve that ability to create (craft, design) quality education environments in every sphere they touch.

The niches that are left by schools are the niches that nobody wants. The table scrapes so to speak. Are platforms only a place to go for table scrapes? My apologies to those that I offend with this last question……

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Thanks Mike for the response.

What is a platform and whether they are needed at all or not – important questions. Probably, interesting enough for another blog post!

http://kirstenwinkler.com KirstenWinkler

Let me quote my frient EnglishRaven on Twitter: “Bah! ed platforms? teachers can build their own now AND market them independently. Not rocket science… ” http://twitter.com/englishraven/status/21627095783

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

Yes and No. Its not rocket science but a platform will give you a head start with some visibility. Theoretically at least -> the more visible you are, the better your chance of success. But, some people get surprised at the kind of visibility we are talking about here -> which is crazy. And, they also are surprised at how long and how consistent you need to be at this.

ChinaMike

Vikrama,

I hope you continue this blog topic. I am quickly becoming a fan!

http://www.myeslfriends.com Gmachlan

The second half of our class (about 30 minutes into the recorded version found here: http://www.wiziq.com/online-class/360289-how-2-…

is when we took up Vikram's and Kirsten's challenge. Ultimately, I think most of us decided that Kirsten/Vik were playing “devils advocate” for the down side of online teaching for profit. We are not a sophisticated discussion group but we did enjoy the challenge to rebut the 7 point premis. We are on a quest (hopefully not the Holy Grail) to find an economicly viable business model for online learning/teaching.

This ongoing discussion group is open to all at WizIQ on Sunday's at 9AM New York time. http://www.wiziq.com

http://www.vikramadhiman.com/ Vikrama Dhiman

George: Can you post some salient points/ summary here?

http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

Very interesting discussion. Thanks everyone! My two penneth…

The reason it hasn't taken off is because virtually all online education is based upon offline education and, as explained in many ways above, is currently inferior and seen as a poor second best to actually 'being there'.

The reason it is like this is because people (educators and entrepreneurs) have concentrated on making the online spaces and processes replicate the offline world in terms of look, feel and process.

However, it can be better and I can prove it. But, the proof that it can be better is not very interesting to people who want to monetise traffic, sell printed books or write about companies that are floated.

The key to reaching the tipping point is to transform the experience into one that is far more effective than that currently available in the offline world. It has to be so much better that it is worth shouting about.

To do that we need to think differently and look inwards (brain cells) rather than outwards (bricks and mortar).

We need to use the technology and the infinite space we have online to support the most efficient learning processes possible. Not, as has been happening, make the technology fit an inefficient and out of date offline pedagogy.

There are lots of us online trying to make this work and trying to make some money from it. It is like we know it will work but we just haven't worked it out yet.

I work in language teaching and learning. The online environment is perfect for me and my product. I have audio proof (before and after clips and all of the bits in between recorded) that I can take a Chinese adult beginner (with 16 years of formal real world English study behind them) and in 18 hours have them speaking comfortably at about intermediate level. That is unheard of, and, as many of my online friends have attested, almost miraculous. How much is the knowledge contained in my little learning process and materials worth to Indian and Chinese English learners? I know. So, all we need to do is tell and show people and the good news will travel.

Is the media interested? No.

Are publishers interested? Yes, but not in the way you would think. So, no.

Are platforms interested, yes, very much so, but they, like universities and schools are primarily chasing bums on seats, i.e. traffic and they all have very specific integration issues for payment/and fulfilment.

Human beings hate change.

They will go with what they know or something that looks like what they know did 'ok' last time if it doesn't mean that they have to change the way they operate.

They will even go with what was 'just about tolerable' last time if the alternative is unfamiliar to them or not proven to be far far superior.

Currently most people are trying to recreate 'just about tolerable' in the online environment and hoping it will catch fire. It won't. Not until it is far far superior and then finally worth talking about in the real world. And not just in our (relatively) small circle of familiar avatars.
http://www.languagesoutthere.com jasonoutthere

Very interesting discussion. Thanks everyone! My two penneth…

The reason it hasn't taken off is because virtually all online education is based upon offline education and, as explained in many ways above, is currently inferior and seen as a poor second best to actually 'being there'.

The reason it is like this is because people (educators and entrepreneurs) have concentrated on making the online spaces and processes replicate the offline world in terms of look, feel and process.

However, it can be better and I can prove it. But, the proof that it can be better is not very interesting to people who want to monetise traffic, sell printed books or write about companies that are floated.

The key to reaching the tipping point is to transform the experience into one that is far more effective than that currently available in the offline world. It has to be so much better that it is worth shouting about.

To do that we need to think differently and look inwards (brain cells) rather than outwards (bricks and mortar).

We need to use the technology and the infinite space we have online to support the most efficient learning processes possible. Not, as has been happening, make the technology fit an inefficient and out of date offline pedagogy.

There are lots of us online trying to make this work and trying to make some money from it. It is like we know it will work but we just haven't worked it out yet.

I work in language teaching and learning. The online environment is perfect for me and my product. I have audio proof (before and after clips and all of the bits in between recorded) that I can take a Chinese adult beginner (with 16 years of formal real world English study behind them) and in 18 hours have them speaking comfortably at about intermediate level. That is unheard of, and, as many of my online friends have attested, almost miraculous. How much is the knowledge contained in my little learning process and materials worth to Indian and Chinese English learners? I know. So, all we need to do is tell and show people and the good news will travel.

Is the media interested? No.

Are publishers interested? Yes, but not in the way you would think. So, no.

Are platforms interested, yes, very much so, but they, like universities and schools are primarily chasing bums on seats, i.e. traffic and they all have very specific integration issues for payment/and fulfilment.

Human beings hate change.

They will go with what they know or something that looks like what they know did 'ok' last time if it doesn't mean that they have to change the way they operate.

They will even go with what was 'just about tolerable' last time if the alternative is unfamiliar to them or not proven to be far far superior.

Currently most people are trying to recreate 'just about tolerable' in the online environment and hoping it will catch fire. It won't. Not until it is far far superior and then finally worth talking about in the real world. And not just in our (relatively) small circle of familiar avatars.
Pingback: Hank Horkoff
Pingback: Alexei Vinidiktov
lingosteve

This is probably a stale discussion but here are my two cents' worth.

1. Reason: The population that is intrinsically motivated to learn is small.

We are conditioned to want to learn all the time, and the market for learning and self-improvement is huge, everywhere. We have been indoctrinated into thinking that learning is something formal that only takes place at school and university, but this is changing. Adult education is booming and many millions of people buy books, CDs and enroll in courses.

2. Reason: Following from Reason 1, among the very small number of people who are really interested in learning, very few are looking for teachers/ courses online.

Perhaps, but more and more are doing so, and if we add the many people looking for learning resources on the Web the number of people wanting to learn on the web is very large indeed. The tools and resources are growing apace.

3. Reason: Following on from the reasons above, even among the small minority of people looking for teachers/ courses online, very few want unaccredited courses or want to pay for these.

Most do not need accreditation, but some do. What's the big deal here? They can find both on the web.

4. Reason: Learning Online is Boring! Its like college minus the fun

Most people do not have the time and money to attend college, without the support of their parents or the state. Online learning offers a cheaper alternative where learners can choose the content of their learning, whom to learn from, and go elsewhere to party.

5. Reason: Learning Online is not (as) social as going to school.

True, although through online learning communities it offers a different kind of socialization around common interests.

6. Reason: Learning Online can never compete with an Offline Teaching Organizations.

Online learning is just another option, a cheaper and more effective way for more and more people who do not have the option to go to school. As the control in learning moves from teachers to learners, teaching organizations will have to play ball or lose out.

7. Reason: Learning Online is fixing what is not broken.

What is broken is the fact that the present education system destroys motivation. A new entrepreneurial online approach can cater to individual interests and learning habits, offer more choice and freedom, and deliver better results, thus fueling more motivation.

http://blog.brain-scape.com Amanda Moritz

Hi Steve,

I got to this comment from your post on your blog. As for reasons 4 and 5. a) learning online is fun. i) learning is fun. period. ii)online communities are fun, definitely not boring. which brings me to 5. online communities are very social. and as Randy the Yearlyglot pointed out in a recent post, online relationships can turn into real life relationships to that are just as rewarding, if not more, or in a different way, as relationships based solely in the “real world”.

-Amanda

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to the free EDUKWEST Newsletter and get updates via email.