As an educational psychology researcher in a field plagued by a poor history of translational science and the replication crisis, I’ve often contemplated how to enhance the impact of our work. Too many studies are published but fail to extend their reach beyond academic circles. Thousands of apps are produced but few survive on the market. Early in my career, I developed apps for children, like the Our Story app at the Open University, and – as an industry advisor and consultant – saw the power of collaboration between the children’s media industry and educational psychologists for impactful technologies. This positive experience made me wonder: How can the sector harness academia-industry relationships to greatly improve children’s technologies?
This positive experience made me wonder: How can the sector harness academia-industry relationships to greatly improve children's technologies?
While some collaboration exists between industry and academia in areas like human-computer interaction and learning engineering, there is a significant gap when it comes to working with domain-specific experts who can shape educational content. This content should do more than just meet teachers’ immediate needs or align with curricula; it must be firmly rooted in the Science of Learning or learning sciences.
By “learning sciences,” I’m referring to the educational and practical aspects of the Science of Learning (SoL), although the two terms are often used interchangeably. By “academics,” I mean those working in one of the key disciplines that make up the Science of Learning, such as psychology, education, neuroscience, cognitive science, linguistics, and developmental studies. These experts bring valuable insights from their fields to improve how we understand and enhance learning, particularly in the context of educational technologies.
Unfortunately, as several studies have shown, like this one by Hirsh-Pasek et al., many apps and learning platforms advertised as “educational” focus on what engages students and teachers in the short term, rather than what truly improves learning outcomes. While this approach may be effective for driving user growth and engagement, it falls short of harnessing technology’s potential to complement teachers’ efforts in achieving meaningful learning gains. By overlooking the broader learning principles, edtech developers and designers risk perpetuating learning myths and missing the chance to create tools that genuinely improve educational outcomes.
Barriers To Collaboration Between SoL And The EdTech Industry
There are several reasons for the lack of systematic engagement between learning scientists and edtech designers, some rooted in historical systems while others are driven by more recent developments. One of the historic barriers is a mismatched timeline between academic work and industry developments. Academic research often requires more time than the rapid pace of product development. That leads companies to rely on research firms or internal R&D teams for quicker results. This may work for some studies but not for validation studies that require independent validation.
Another barrier is that much academic learning research is often theoretical and only later examined for practical application. In edtech, however, applied research isn’t optional – it must be integrated into the product development process, requiring ongoing adjustments.
Learning scientists working at universities are motivated by publishing research and securing tenure, while edtech companies prioritize user growth and revenue.
Then there are incentive mismatches. Learning scientists working at universities are motivated by publishing research and securing tenure, while edtech companies prioritize user growth and revenue. This creates challenges, as the academic need to publish findings may conflict with the industry’s business goals. These barriers mean that the expertise of learning science scholars is often reduced to quick, superficial advice, with one expert selected for an advisory board, or worse, by a CEO simply Googling an idea they believe will be the “silver bullet” for how children learn.
This oversimplification misses the complexity of the Science of Learning, which requires careful, systematic integration with children’s products. This demands precise matching between domain experts and a technology’s specific target areas and features. Effective use of this knowledge can’t be rushed or generalized – it must be tailored to the nuances of each educational tool.
Benefits of SoL-EdTech Collaboration
Seamless collaboration between learning scientists and edtech producers is crucial for addressing the learning crisis. We need to ensure that children engage with technologies that have been rigorously evaluated for their impact and are based on the latest research in learning science – not just the latest tech trends.
We know from research and experience that when learning scientists are involved in the development of technologies, those are the products that tend to succeed in the long run. By partnering, both the scientists and developers can benefit by increasing the impact of each other’s work and improving learning outcomes for children, all while benefiting from each other’s expertise.
By partnering, both the scientists and developers can benefit by increasing the impact of each other’s work and improving learning outcomes for children, all while benefiting from each other's expertise.
Technologies developed through early collaboration between academics and edtech companies consistently perform well in replicable studies over time and demonstrate added value beyond other tools or traditional classroom methods. Through rigorous testing – such as randomized trials and long-term evaluations – these technologies consistently prove their effectiveness. Examples of successful, research-backed technologies include Age of Learning, Sesame Street, or onebillion, all of which consistently show positive outcomes in real-world classroom settings.
Research-Practice-Development Partnerships
Bridging edtech and the Science of Learning isn’t merely about conducting randomized controlled trials with a neurocognitive focus – a common misconception that I often hear when researchers join studies led primarily by teachers. Instead, the goal is to foster a collaborative approach that unites the insights of teachers, researchers, and designers in a non-hierarchical manner. With a genuine commitment to listening to each other and a willingness to find practical, scientific, and innovative compromises, we can move closer to realizing the vision of a “partnership industry.” In a partnership approach, developers, researchers, and teachers collaborate closely to enhance educational outcomes on a systems level. Only through a dynamic partnership spanning research, industry, and practice can we guarantee that edtech not only sparks innovation but also delivers meaningful, lasting improvements in learning outcomes.
To bring this vision to reality, researchers, developers, and teachers need to bring policy-makers on board. Political discussions vary by country regarding how teachers, industry, and research are valued. Some countries have decentralized systems that empower teachers with significant decision-making authority, and some countries focus more on investing in technological innovation than others. Regardless of the system, conversations with policymakers typically reflect two primary types of systemic thinking: soft and hard systems thinking. The two need to be balanced if we are to make progress with effective research-practice-development partnerships.
Balancing Soft and Hard Systems Thinking
There are two main approaches to systems thinking: “Hard” system thinking imposes rules, certification standards, and procedures to enhance the quality of edtech and build public trust. On the other hand, “soft” systems thinking acknowledges the inherent unpredictability of interactions with technology. Soft systems thinking puts the human at the center, not the rules.
This year, we are witnessing a significant tension between hard and soft systems thinking in the edtech field: Some advocate for more inclusive research and design that puts teachers at the center, while others push for mandatory certifications of edtech quality, binding the tools’ performance to students’ outcomes through outcome-based contracting. The tension has resulted in back-and-white thinking of some governments and districts, which decided to ban smartphones, Chromebooks, or digital books from schools (see the cases in Finland or France).
A partnership industry will not thrive if we impose rigid requirements, such as certifying companies solely based on their ability to demonstrate research-based practices. And it won’t be effective if we rely only on financial incentives to encourage companies to collaborate with teachers. True collaboration requires more than just compliance or monetary motivation; it demands a genuine commitment to shared goals and values among all stakeholders involved.
True collaboration requires more than just compliance or monetary motivation; it demands a genuine commitment to shared goals and values among all stakeholders involved.
To achieve meaningful collaboration, we must merge hard and soft systems perspectives into a cohesive approach. This means giving equal weight to all participants and recognizing the importance of their relationships. Practically, this entails creating places all participants can collaboratively design beneficial processes and equitable funding opportunities for the solutions they collectively endorse. Teachers, researchers, and designers need to sit at one table, and listen to each other and the children they serve.
Only then can we harness these relationships as a resource that empowers the combined knowledge of ecosystem members to serve those who matter most: The learners at the center of our collective mission.
Natalia I. Kucirkova is a professor and the Director of the International Centre for EdTech Impact.
1 thought on “Relationships As A Resource: When The Science Of Learning Meets The EdTech Industry”
This resonates well. Getting a clear shared purpose and shared value is critical to get both sides trusting each other.