tdekken

Before the 1870s, customers were expected to haggle over the price of retail goods. This interaction was not only bad for customers (e.g., image waiting in line while all the customers ahead of you haggled over their prices), but also necessitated multi-year apprenticeships during which store clerks learned the art of haggling and the intricacies of the business (e.g., how much goods cost to make, how much competitors sold them for, etc.) This seemingly minute detail impeded the development of larger stores and, correspondingly, economies of scale.

In 1874, a simple yet radical technology, the price tag, revolutionized the retail industry. A fixed price for goods was better for most customers and better for most businesses. Importantly, it didn’t eliminate the role of the store clerk nor the incentive inherent in better serving customers (e.g., knowledge of materials, styles, etc.) Instead, it dramatically lowered the barrier to entry by eliminating extraneous complexity.

Analogous to store clerks of yore, expert teaching is simply too complex. It requires, at minimum, a single person to deeply understand:

1. at least one subject deeply,

2. how to present that subject in bite-sized lessons,

3. how to customize those lessons a priori based on an expected audience,

4. how to identify and overcome academic, social, and emotional challenges during a lesson,

5. how to connect those lessons into a logical progression,

6. how to customize that progression based on the outcomes of previous lessons, and

7. how to motivate learners to exert effort over the long haul.

This is a tall task even for professional teachers and an almost insurmountable barrier for the countless parents, relatives, and volunteers that want to ensure children everywhere succeed.

My question for this group: Is today’s educational technology a breakthrough like the humble price tag or does it miss the mark? Why or why not?