The pitch
Unruly Splats is transforming how children learn STEM by turning physical activity into coding adventures. Their interactive floor tiles and curriculum empower kids to build their own games, blending movement, creativity, and problem-solving – so every child can see themselves as a maker. Since 2027, they have reached schools across 49 US States and 6 Canadian Provinces, bringing STEM and play to all areas of a school including Music, Language Arts, PE, and core STEM subjects. Unruly Splats is a testament that active play and coding can go hand in hand.
The team
A group of educators, parents, goofballs, and lifelong learners. who believe that every student should have the same opportunities to unlock STEM and play.
And the Adivsory board – renowned figures in education and toys development, notably Amon Millner, the co-inventor of Scratch Programming Language. With a team like this, it comes as no surprise they Unruly Splats was named one of Tech and Learning 2021 best learning tools.
Check out their Kickstarter campaign: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bryanneleeming/unruly-splats-active-stem-play?term=edtech&total_hits=113&category_id=334
Yes, I will invest in this venture. Unruly Splats already got my attention with the 2-minute video about the organization’s history, goals, and dedication to helping kids learn coding in a simple yet interactive teaching method. Bryanne Leeming, the founder, found a creative method to teach the students the complexity of coding. This shows her commitment to education by integrating play with learning. I saw the passion to go beyond an educator’s calling and exemplify a deep understanding of both educational needs and product development. This alone shows a potential for success.
Today, the edtech market is booming, and Unruly Splats took this opportunity to offer a unique product. They were able to intersect physical education and computer science. Schools are seeking innovative tools that make learning engaging and interactive. Definitely, Unruly Splats hit the spot by offering a solution that addresses these needs.
The product promotes active learning, creative thinking, and inclusivity. They made STEM education more accessible and fun.
NO, I would not invest in this venture (as I pretend to be a school principal that places value on technology created for equitable access) — which may surprise you after reading the first bit of my review.
The video was attractive in its design and appealing in its vision, rooted on sound learning theory. The CEO, Bryanne Leeming, is enthusiastic about both her product, learning to code, and STEM learning. Unruly Splats has assembled a dynamic team to inform the design of their product and service and the product is original and appealing — in that it marries the engagement of physical activities with learning how to code.
My concerns lie with market size and product support. How affordably priced is the technology to access global education markets (not just the United States)? How accessible is product support in a global context? While STEM learning experiences and technologies are popular in education and the educational marketplace, they typically require a certain level of technology infrastructure and expensive hardware in need of reliable product support and training. As a startup company, I am concerned about pricing, updates, and the level of support offered to buyers as the product develops through iterations. If the teachers I buy this product for to use in classrooms don’t know how to use it or are in need of support and can’t access it in a timely fashion, it will not be used and therefore a waste of money.
The venture, while interesting and charming, is too much of a logistical and financial risk.
NO, I would not invest in this venture.
Okay, now that I’ve staked my claim, here’s my reasoning. I’m offering my first Pitch Pool critique without checking how this venture is actually doing (other than it reached it’s $40K funding goal) or checking what other people said.
The Kickstarter campaign is clearly put together by someone who understands the market for kid’s coding, STEM activities, and the importance of play for learning. The marketing materials are cohesive, the vision is fairly clear, and what really impressed me was the names of some of the advisors and press partners the website mentions. Being able to say you’re the “first ever active STEM-play experience for kids” is quite an accomplishment if it’s true.
There doesn’t seem to be any competition mentioned in the pitch, and there isn’t a definitive pain point mentioned, though it’s perhaps implied by the mention of being the “first ever” of something. Maybe this is solving a problem people didn’t know they had? That they’re kiddos didn’t have active learning experiences for coding?
My hesitation lies in the future of coding as a profession with AI being what it is and what it’s doing to that profession currently. There will always be a need for professional high-level coders, machine learning experts, and so on. And the skills and mindset learned in coding is transferable elsewhere. Still, it makes you stop and think. For this reason, I’m out.
No, I would not invest in this venture at this time. While the concept looks engaging and well-marketed, I have several questions about its originality and classroom practicality.
I have seen the term “Splat” used in other projected math game formats, so I wonder what makes this product distinct from similar edtech tools already used in classrooms. In particular, I would need a clearer explanation of how it is meaningfully different from existing interactive learning games.
I also have concerns about how feasible it would be in a classroom setting. It is difficult to imagine managing movement-based pads with a full class without creating significant disruption or logistical challenges.
In comparison, tools like Scratch Jr already offer accessible entry points into coding without requiring additional physical equipment. I also see similar engagement goals being met through platforms like GoNoodle, which raises questions about what specifically makes this product unique in the market.
Although the pitch video is strong and the marketing is effective, I would need a clearer explanation of its distinct value proposition and classroom implementation before considering investment.
No, I would not invest in this venture. While the elevator pitch highlighted some fun aspects of these devices, I find their purpose to be lacking. The competitive edge that these tiles would provide is limited to their ability to only play sounds or show different colours. With this information, the pain point is getting students to briefly move while executing the code. The time spent learning and inputting code would outweigh the active portion of the activity. If the solution focused on tiles with letters and numbers that could be coded (and would light up), I could see more differentiation and purpose in purchasing and using this technology in the classroom. Currently, the innovative game ideas and the movement of students to the tiles are directed by the teacher. Could the tiles just be sitting in reach on the floor or on a desk? If so, the solution would need further consideration of these possibilities.