Philosophy & Approach
How I think about education, technology, and the intersection where real learning happens.
How I think about education, technology, and the intersection where real learning happens.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: most educational technology doesn't make learning better. It just makes administration easier. We've built elaborate systems that serve institutions while leaving teachers frustrated and students disengaged.
I believe we can do better. Technology should amplify what great teachers already do, not replace them. It should remove barriers to learning, not create new ones. And it should feel natural, not like you're fighting the interface to get to the education.
These aren't just ideas. They're the lens through which I evaluate every design decision and line of code.
AI is amazing. VR is cool. But if you start with "let's use AI/VR" instead of "what problem are we solving," you'll build impressive technology that doesn't actually help anyone learn. I always start by understanding the real pain points, whether that's teachers spending 8 hours on standards alignment or emergency responders needing safer practice environments.
Teachers aren't the problem. They're the solution. Technology should give them superpowers, not make them obsolete. When I built AlignEd, the goal wasn't to replace teachers' judgment about curriculum alignment. It was to eliminate the tedious manual work so they could apply their expertise to what actually matters: teaching students.
If your learning solution only works for some students, it's not a solution. It's a barrier. WCAG compliance isn't a checklist item to complete at the end. It's baked into every design decision from day one. Because education should be universal, not exclusive.
Completion rates and engagement metrics are easy to measure, but they don't tell you if anyone actually learned anything. I focus on outcomes: Can teachers now do their jobs better? Are students demonstrating mastery? Is the solution solving the problem it was built to solve? If not, the technology is failing, no matter how impressive the metrics look.
The best solutions feel simple, even when they're technically sophisticated. If teachers need a 50-page manual to use your tool, you've failed. Complexity on the backend is fine. Complexity in the user experience is a design flaw. I build systems that experts appreciate but beginners can immediately use.
The same learning material needs different treatment for K-12 teachers versus corporate trainers versus emergency responders. Generic one-size-fits-all solutions serve no one well. I design for specific contexts, specific users, and specific problems, because that's where real learning happens.
AI is the most overhyped and most underutilized technology in education right now. Everyone's talking about it, but most applications miss the point entirely.
The key difference? AI should handle the repetitive, time-consuming tasks that machines do better than humans, freeing up humans to do what only humans can do: build relationships, exercise judgment, inspire curiosity, and adapt to the unique needs of each learner.
Good instructional design is invisible. Students shouldn't notice the scaffolding, the cognitive load management, or the carefully sequenced information architecture. They should just think "wow, this makes sense."
Every design decision either adds or reduces cognitive load. Clean interfaces, logical navigation, and progressive disclosure aren't just aesthetic choices. They're learning optimizations.
Learning happens in the gap between action and feedback. The faster and more specific that feedback, the more effective the learning. This is true for students and for teachers using new tools.
Points, badges, and leaderboards are extrinsic motivators that rarely work long-term. Real motivation comes from competence, autonomy, and purpose. Design for those, not for gamification metrics.
People don't learn facts in isolation. They build mental models. Start with context, show why it matters, then introduce the details. This is how adults actually learn in professional settings.
Just as important as what I believe is what I don't. Here are the common educational technology assumptions I actively reject:
Every decade brings a new "revolutionary" technology that will supposedly transform education. Radio, television, computers, tablets, VR, AI: each was supposed to be the game-changer. Technology is a tool, not a revolution. Good teaching matters infinitely more than the delivery mechanism.
Feature bloat is the enemy of usability. Every additional button, option, or setting adds cognitive load and complexity. I'd rather build one feature that works brilliantly than ten features that work adequately.
Sometimes learning is hard work. Sometimes it's tedious. That's okay. The goal isn't entertainment. It's competence. I design to make learning as effective and efficient as possible, not to turn everything into a game.
Data informs decisions; it doesn't make them. Behind every data point is a human being with context that metrics can't capture. I use analytics to guide, not dictate, design decisions.
K-12 teachers have different needs than corporate trainers who have different needs than medical educators. Trying to build one system for everyone means building a system that truly serves no one. Specialization isn't a weakness. It's honesty about who you're actually helping.
Education technology is at an inflection point. AI is genuinely transformative, not in the ways the hype suggests, but in its potential to eliminate tedious work and personalize learning at scale. We can build systems where every student gets feedback tailored to their specific misconceptions. Where every teacher has an AI assistant that handles administrative work. Where learning adapts in real-time to student needs.
But this only works if we keep humans at the center. Technology should make teachers more effective, not obsolete. It should make learning more accessible, not more isolating. It should reduce inequality, not amplify it.
That's the future I hope to help build.
If this philosophy resonates with you, let's talk. I'm here to help you create learning systems that prioritize human potential over technological complexity.