Apollo to Buy Adaptive-Learning Company for $75-Million

August 2, 2011, 9:40 pm

The Apollo Group, which runs the University of Phoenix, announced on Tuesday that it plans to pay $75-million to purchase Carnegie Learning, which develops interactive math instruction that adapts to the needs of individual students.

The purchase is a major endorsement of the prospects for adaptive learning by the operator of the nation’s largest for-profit college, where officials believe that personalizing instruction will help improve retention and graduation rates.

Carnegie Learning’s software, Cognitive Tutor, continually assesses students’ understanding of math concepts and customizes lessons to their strengths and weaknesses. The company was formed in 1998 by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

Apollo also agreed to pay Carnegie Mellon $21.5-million over 10 years to acquire technology associated with the company.

Carnegie Learning has primarily sold its instructional materials to middle schools and high schools and only entered the higher education market in 2007. The company says its software is used by 600,000 students in grades 6 through 12.

But at a time when many college students need basic-level math skills, much of the company’s expertise is relevant for the college market. Apollo was attracted to Carnegie Learning’s decade-long expertise in developing adaptive-learning systems and its deep well of learning content, said Mike White, its chief technology officer.

“We loved the ability the technology provided with remediation,” Mr. White said. “If a student is working on a concept they might need to brush up on, say, addition, they can get that brush-up.”

Carnegie Learning’s technology and team are set to become a key part of Apollo’s expansive effort to rebuild its learning platform to personalize instruction. The company has hired tech-industry heavyweights from Yahoo, including Mr. White, and installed a team of more than 100 people to work on the project.

“We see adaptive learning as the future,” Mr. White said. “It is about individual learning outcomes.”

The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of next year, and Mr. White said Apollo will incorporate Carnegie’s technology later that year. In a press release, Apollo said that due to its focus on higher education, it plans to explore “strategic alternatives” with respect to the Carnegie’s K-12 business.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

archman

You obviously have no idea how modern U.S. universities operate, nor are aware of the challenges that the typical university professor now faces just to do a “decent job”. State support constantly is removed, our work loads keep increasing, and our salaries remain flat year after year. Meanwhile we receive ridiculous, completely unrealistic or unattainable “inititiatives” from hack politicians who are simply kissing butt or doing the bidding of another politician. Welcome to Texas.
chemistry_guy

I wouldn’t expect that the cognitive scientists at Carnegie Mellon are very proud or happy about this end for their years of hard work. If I had invented something this interesting, I would hope that it would be available to students at public institutions of higher education, and not hidden away at a for-profit like the “University” of Phoenix (it pains me to say the word University in this context).

I hope there are competitors out there (does anyone know of any?) whose technology stays available for community colleges and four-year institutions needing to teach remedial math.
whatsamattau

Once again, Apollo and the University of Phoenix step-up to put students first. I’m sure Carnegie Mellon is quite happy with this arrangement. No other institution Public or Private had the insight, foresight or bankroll to make this happen. Kudos to UOP.
chancellornilj

Another bold initiative to improve services to students who otherwise would not be accepted in traditional education.

Dr. Charles T. Kelly, Jr.
charleskellyphd@att.net
rudyrepl

Its about time that UoP does something for the students. With all that federal aid and expensive tuition, one would believe that they will offer a meal as well.
betterschool

This looks to me like a solid contribution to the quality of higher education. Phoenix already employs state of the science curriculum development and management and has the best faculty training program in the industry. Moving into adaptive learning will further serve to lead higher education out of the dark ages, where most professors still teach exactly the same way their grand-professors taught, proudly ignorant of 50 years of compelling learning and evaluation sciences. Adaptive learning incorporates both learning sciences (cognitive and brain) and measurement sciences (leaning heavily on IRT and associated methodologies and analytic tools). Good for Apollo. Now, stand by for the trashing from a parade of proud 1906 troglodytes who will protest how modern, and good, and moral they are, cashing their paychecks while decrying Phoenix for structuring themselves to make a profit.
R117532

Actually, there are rich, longstanding friendships there. The Phoenix guys are alums and former profs of Princeton, Cambridge, Berkeley, etc. Probably considerably better credentialed than someone who would make the comment you made. Don’t be surprised if Phoenix makes it available to community colleges.
http://www.facebook.com/martin.alcala Martin Alcala

Good and fine, but waht about cognitive skills underlying math comprehension? That is where college kids are failing and dropping out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OailbkRMiy8
R117532

I’m a cognitive scientist and I don’t know what this means. On balance, learning proceeds from the specific to the general. (This is why professors display ignorance when they make “fact versus theory” and “training versus education” distinctions as if they could effectively teach disembodied theory and only that is education; this is scientific rubbish.) Master an increasingly diverse set of applied math problems, progressing from simple to complex, narrow to broad, drawing on underlying generalizations, principles, etc. and eventually, you have not only computational skills but generalizable comprehension. You “understand the topic because you can create your own functions within the mathematical domain.

This is where ‘betterschool’ is spot on. Traditional methods (i.e., the ones 99% of teachers employ) assume that all students have identical deficiencies with respect to each underlying construct and the challenges associated to mastering each computational function. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good adaptive instruction is analogous to “looking” inside your mind, determining precisely what you don’t know and need to know, and delivering content on that topic, and only that topic. This is not the old-fashioned “programmed instruction” it is learning what you need to learn. How best to teach it to you as an individual, structuring the teaching of it (learning objectives, activity suites, assessment metrics & rubrics), delivering the content, assessing its impact, and adjusting based on results.
chemistry_guy

I will be very surprised if the U of P shares this with Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio, or Youngstown State University in Youngstown. Doesn’t U of P compete with these schools for dollars, er I mean students?
dbiezad

This all sounds well and good, but where are the results of applying this technology to learning? The buzz-words “adaptive learning” and “customized instruction” are enticing, and the “Cognitive Tutor” website is impressive, but where are the results that the application of this software works in practice? My years in academia have convinced me that the key to learning success is to follow the traditional guidelines: (1) Know and like your subject; (2) Know and like your students; (3) Apply Feedback. It seems that the software misses one or more of these marks, and that it will be perceived as mechanical and, ultimately, alienating (after an initial honeymoon period).
betterschool

I certainly agree with your three maxims. You sound like someone who understands and values teaching. However, this topic goes to more than software and these terms are way past buzzword status. It brings much of what we have learned about how the brain learns and how to assess learning validly to the classroom. You did not address “measure learning validly.” Are you aware that the majority of professor-designed assessment instruments to measure learning fail basic scientific tests of validity? Modern sciences are not incompatible with your dimensions of caring. To the contrary, they make it easier for you to express that care in meaningful ways.