Hey all,<\/p>\n
I think I went a little overboard here but anyways, had a good time doing it. Sorry about all the formatting inconsistencies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Critiquing \u2018Empowered Learning: A Better Way to Teach Highschool Math\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Overview<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n From the ETEC 522 \u2018pitch pool\u2019 I chose the pitch titled \u2018Empowered Learning: A Better Way to Teach Highschool Math\u2019. The clip lasted 2 minutes, 53 seconds, or 173 seconds total. I chose this pitch initially because I typically teach secondary school math and was curious how technology would be implemented within this field. For each of the standard criteria of a \u2018pitch\u2019 I noted whether each item was present or not and then gave information concerning the time length of each segment compared to the entire time length of the pitch. Further, I noted the time where each portion existed, for users to locate in the actual video, as well as the order in which each portion was mentioned out of the ten total topics presented. Lastly, I then made some short notes, details, and critiques about what I noted concerning the pitch. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Detailed Critique<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> Yes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duration: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The problem was first mentioned for <\/strong>10 of 173 seconds total (5.8%) <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Next, examples of the problem are given for 35 of 173 seconds total (20.2%)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Position in Pitch: <\/span><\/strong>The 2nd item mentioned was the problem, between 0:12 \u2013 0:22. The 3rd<\/sup> item mentioned were the consequences of the problem, between 0:23 \u2013 0:58. \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The author of the pitch noted that math students typically waste too much time doing math homework that they don\u2019t understand, and help is too difficult to find. It was also stated that teachers waste too much time (estimated at 30%) with administrative tasks and checking homework, instead of helping students. Lastly it was mentioned that parents seem to struggle with real time feedback on how their son or daughter is doing during the length of the school year. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I agree with most of these problems in school but I have trouble understanding how software can save time with regards to administrative tasks for teachers. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n With regards to students having difficulty with homework, I think this is a natural part of the learning process and is not necessarily a negative aspect. Regardless of how well the students adapt to this proposed software, there will always be questions from students regarding mathematical procedure and \u2018why\u2019 a certain procedure is followed. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I think it was quite appropriate that the author of the pitch spent this amount of time discussing the problem and the consequences of the problem. He did a great job illustrating the typical student worries, teacher roles, and parent concerns. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> Yes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duration: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The product and solution were discussed for 45 of 173 seconds (26.0%)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Position in Pitch:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The product and solution were mentioned 4th<\/sup> in the pitch between <\/span>0:59 \u2013 1:44.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The new software supposedly helps students with specific math homework and keeps parents more informed of student progress throughout the year. The software also keeps parents more informed of their son\/daughters academic standing. The author was successful in providing very accurate problems facing secondary students, teachers, and parents. The pitch works well at hooking all these groups which comprises a large population. The author did a good job at not just focusing on one of these groups and limiting prospective interest.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in the Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> No<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes: <\/span><\/strong>Did not mention alternative software and discussed as if it was the first of its kind. (see \u2018perfecting the pitch\u2019 for reasons why this is not a good idea). In the solution section the pitch talked about why it is a good product but did not compare itself with others in the market. Assuming or intentionally disregarding that there is no competition makes the audience of the pitch question why no one else has created a similar product. The audience will also question the narrow-mindedness of the presenter as a flaw in the inability to adapt and innovate within one\u2019s own market. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> Yes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duration: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The potential target market was discussed for 11 of 173 seconds (6.4%)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Position in Pitch:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The potential target market for the item was mentioned 7th<\/sup> in the pitch between <\/span>2:11 \u2013 2:22.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This section was quite vague and lacked any detail on how they were going to enter the \u2018U.S.\u2019 market as noted in the pitch. The author then just mentioned that the product will enter into \u2018other\u2019 countries once the U.S. market was established. The pitch did not mention any further regions within the U.S., but just mentioned the American market in general.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The pitch did not talk about how potential buyers will be reached or how the software will be marketed. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in the Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> Yes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duration: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The author of the pitch introduced himself for <\/strong><\/span>11 of 173 seconds (6.4%). <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Position in Pitch: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The introduction of the author and past job history began the pitch first between the time 0:00 \u2013 0:11.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The author of the pitch seemed to be \u2018solo\u2019 in the venture, or he just neglected to introduce any other co-workers or sponsors of the software. The introduction was solid and since the author revealed that he had previously worked for a software company prior to going back to teach secondary mathematics, then his actions and decisions thus far were definitely lent credibility. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in the Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> No<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The competing software programs for this software idea were not mentioned. This is quite a significant weakness in the pitch. Either the author does not know who the competition is or he purposely ignores their significance. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in the Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> Yes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duration:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The \u2018ask\u2019 was delivered for 14 of 173 seconds (8.1%)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Position in Pitch: <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The \u2018ask\u2019 occurred as the 9th<\/sup> item in the pitch between the time 2:28 \u2013 2:42. <\/p>\n Details\/Notes:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The author asked for $250,000 to build new features and gather customer feedback. Therefore the \u2018ask\u2019 was also quite vague. Not sure how this amount of an investment will be divided up for each task to be completed. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Included in the Pitch:<\/span><\/strong> No<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Details\/Notes:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n There was no discussion regarding anything about how investors will \u2018exit\u2019 from their investment in the \u2018Empowered Learning\u2019 company. This lack of return for investors would frighten most investors and lead most to question the viability of such a venture. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sources of Information<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In order to prepare for this critique I read through the ETEC 522, Module 2 notes, and watched the suggested video \u2018Perfecting Your Pitch<\/em>\u2019 by David Shore. This video was very good and David Shore is so relaxed and confident it\u2019s ridiculous. David delivers great information and it all makes sense, very genuine material. I highly recommend this video to anyone constructing their own pitch or required to critique someone else\u2019s pitch. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Verdict <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n I would eventually invest in this company but not until results were obtained from an actual test market. It is difficult to be sure if this software is unique enough to attain a large enough portion of the education market. <\/span><\/p>\n \n Thanks.<\/p>\n -Regen<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hey all, I think I went a little overboard here but anyways, had a good time doing it. Sorry about all the formatting inconsistencies. Critiquing \u2018Empowered Learning: A Better Way to Teach Highschool Math\u2019 Overview From the ETEC 522 \u2018pitch pool\u2019 I chose the pitch titled \u2018Empowered Learning: A Better Way to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12466,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[493565],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-week-03-analyst-bootcamp"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12466"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5695"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5695\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5696,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5695\/revisions\/5696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/etec522may12\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n