Glenda Morgan, EdTech Market Analyst at Phil Hill & Associates (OnEdTech Newsletter) and former Gartner analyst, knows the ins and outs of education technology like few others. In her EdTech Mentor conversation, she shares why real change in education isn't about chasing shiny tools or quick fixes. Instead, it's about thoughtful design and addressing the root causes of challenges. Join us as she walks us through her experiences and what they have taught her about what EdTech success looks like.
Hosted by Laureano Díaz, CSO of 27zero, this conversation is packed with fresh ideas and practical advice for anyone passionate about making a difference in EdTech.
Sure. Like many people in EdTech, I came into it in a somewhat unusual way. I started out as a faculty member, living in South Africa, and teaching at Rhodes University. I came to the United States to pursue a PhD on a Fulbright scholarship. My PhD is in political science, which I earned at the University of Minnesota. When they told me it was cold there, I thought, How cold could it possibly be? But it was really cold.
During my PhD, I focused on technology policy and fell in love with technology. It was the '90s, and the internet was new and incredibly exciting. I worked in tech as a graduate student, supporting myself through school, and wrote my dissertation on technology policy. By 1999, I realized I had a window of opportunity. I loved teaching—it’s magical to me—but I didn’t enjoy the academic business side, particularly in the U.S. I knew I had a chance to pivot into technology and EdTech, and I didn’t want to miss it.
I applied for and got a job at the University of Wisconsin working in EdTech, then moved on to the Cal State University system, George Mason University, and later the University of Illinois. In 2014, I left traditional higher ed to work as an analyst in Gartner’s education team. I was there for eight years, gaining insights into being an analyst and into EdTech on a global scale. I worked extensively in Latin America, Australia, Europe, and APAC.
I’ve known Phil Hill for a long time—we worked together on a big learning management system project when I was at the Cal State system. He’d been encouraging me to join him, and in 2023, I finally did. Since then, I’ve been having a lot of fun. I truly love being an analyst—it’s my favorite part of EdTech.
There are definitely some fundamental similarities that make it possible to work across regions. A British poet once wrote, “He knows nothing of England who only England knows.” That sentiment has always guided me, from my days as a political scientist to my work in EdTech. You only truly understand your own system by exploring others.
There’s immense value in learning from different systems, and yet I see similar challenges everywhere—issues of cost, enrollment, student success, online learning, and now, navigating AI. People tackle these problems differently, but the core challenges aren’t that different. Sometimes, you notice temporal lags. For example, in regions like Thailand and the Philippines, I see the same online learning patterns we saw years ago in the U.S. or more recently in Australia.
Later adopters often have the advantage of learning from earlier adopters’ mistakes. In Africa, where I have a particular interest, there’s significant leapfrogging happening. By observing what worked and didn’t work elsewhere, these regions can make smarter, faster progress.
Absolutely. I think it’s most intense in the U.S., but it’s also evident in the UK and Australia. In emerging economies, there’s still a strong belief in the tangible benefits of higher education—better lifetime earnings, job security, and overall quality of life.
In older, developed economies, the value proposition is under greater scrutiny. Higher ed needs to do a better job of articulating its value—not just in terms of lifetime earnings but also in avoiding unemployment, contributing to health, and fostering societal benefits.
In the past, some in higher ed would say their role wasn’t to help students find their first job but to prepare them for their fifth job. Increasingly, though, they also need to help with that first job. Without that initial step, students risk falling behind, which can affect them for years to come.
Yes, I often say higher ed has lost control of the narrative. Higher education used to be universally valued, but over time, that perception has eroded. This loss of narrative contributes to enrollment challenges and even some of the political issues surrounding higher ed in the U.S.
Universities need to reclaim the narrative—not just about what they bring to students, but also their contributions to local and national economies. It’s not purely a marketing issue; it’s about restoring and reinforcing their image and purpose.
As a first-generation college student, this is deeply personal to me. My father was a plumber, and my mom worked in a store. Neither finished school beyond age 14. Education changed my life, and I think higher ed needs to communicate the transformative impact it can have, even beyond its utilitarian benefits.
I don’t think it’s changed much. In EdTech, you’re often, as they say in English, the red-headed stepchild of technology. There’s the network, the administrative systems, all the big “iron,” and then there’s EdTech. As one of my colleagues once said, “One of these things is not like the others,” because EdTech brings a unique set of challenges and opportunities. Some of that is good, and some of it isn’t.
One of the enduring problems with EdTech in universities is that it’s often treated like a cottage industry—something done on a small scale. Institutions haven’t always adapted to the need for scalability, though we’ve seen progress, especially in areas like online learning. There’s still a tension with senior administrators, like CIOs, who often don’t have an education or EdTech background and may not fully understand the field. As an EdTech professional, you need to lead upwards and translate complex ideas into terms they can grasp, which can be a challenge.
It’s also easy for people without an EdTech background to jump to conclusions or see easy solutions where there aren’t any. I saw this even at Gartner, where some colleagues with more administrative perspectives embraced ideas like HyFlex teaching without fully considering its pedagogical implications. I had to walk them through the challenges—showing how it offers solutions in some areas but also introduces significant drawbacks. It’s not the magic bullet some assume it to be.
Exactly. Scaling technology—especially when it involves sensitive data—requires careful planning and foresight. There are so many variables to account for.
Absolutely. My PhD gave me a distinct way of thinking about the world. Engineers often say their training provides them with a unique perspective—I see my academic background in much the same way. It gave me tools and frameworks that I use daily.
I worked for Gartner, a global research and advisory firm with about 2,000 analysts operating in 40 countries. As an analyst, your work revolves around three key areas: writing, advising, and presenting.
You write focused, actionable pieces, like Gartner’s research notes. I currently write a newsletter about EdTech. You also spend a significant amount of time speaking with clients—at Gartner, I conducted around 500 calls per year. Lastly, you give talks at conferences and events. Staying up-to-date with industry trends is essential, as is earning trust quickly. Clients come to you with problems, and you need to help them think through their challenges in a structured, thoughtful way—not just hand them a list of solutions.
Gartner also had an excellent mentorship program for new analysts. Each new analyst was paired with a mentor, whose performance was partially tied to the mentee’s success. My mentor was phenomenal—one of the company’s top analysts—and she guided me through every step. Even after the formal mentorship ended, she continued to support me, and she still does to this day. It’s a model I wish we could see more often in EdTech.
First, develop an understanding of broader trends in the industry. Learn how to read earnings reports and annual reports from EdTech companies. You need to cut through the spin that’s often present, both from universities and vendors, to uncover the real story.
Listening is another critical skill. It sounds simple, but truly hearing and engaging with people is essential. You need to figure out what’s going on beneath the surface. Being an analyst is a bit like investigative reporting—you’re uncovering deeper dynamics and finding patterns. Since you’ll work with universities, vendors, and governments, it’s important to bring a diverse skill set and an ability to adapt to different needs.
Honestly, it was dumb luck for me. I responded to a job ad, and during my time at Gartner, I never met another analyst who got the job that way. Most were recommended by other analysts or had built relationships in the industry. Networking is crucial. Not in a transactional way, but by genuinely getting to know people and bringing value to those connections.
You also need to think about your personal brand—not in a mercenary sense, but in terms of making sure people know who you are and the value you can offer. At Gartner, being a Gartner analyst brought automatic recognition. When I left, I had to rebuild that visibility, and it taught me how important it is to consciously nurture your professional reputation.
I might not be the best person to ask because I tend to overdo it. I read a ton, and I’m constantly reaching out to people—probably to the point of being annoying—to ask what’s going on. I attend conferences, and I have many friends in the industry whom I lean on relentlessly. I try to make it up to them by buying cocktails when I see them! They serve as sounding boards: Does this make sense? How does this sound to you?
I’ve done a lot in EdTech, but I haven’t done everything, so I rely on others to provide context or expertise. I also visit institutions to understand their environments better. Sometimes, people are hesitant to speak openly because I’m “Morgan from On EdTech,” and they worry I’ll write something critical. But I assure them I’m just trying to understand, and I treat all conversations with confidentiality and respect.
I listen to podcasts and consume as much information as possible, though it can be daunting. My approach is very inductive—I gather a lot of data points and then start to see patterns. I’ve worked with people who approach things differently. For example, my boss at Gartner came from a government and software engineering background and was very deductive. He’d start with first principles and only needed a few data points to draw conclusions. That’s not my style, but it worked for him. Everyone needs to find their way of making sense of things. My social science training shaped my approach, emphasizing the importance of patterns and context.
I love digging into the details. While I’ve done a lot of work on policy, I don’t particularly enjoy it. I’m far more interested in EdTech and online learning—how technology can amplify and accelerate student learning.
One of my key focuses for the next couple of years is student success, particularly how technology and data can ensure better outcomes. There are a lot of misconceptions and suboptimal solutions being pushed by vendors, and I want to address that. In the U.S., student success is becoming a more pressing issue, and technology-mediated learning plays a significant role in that. Anything that offers insight into improving these areas grabs my attention.
I’ve also found myself increasingly fascinated by AI. At first, I was skeptical, thinking it was overhyped, but now I see how transformative it can be. AI is fundamentally changing how knowledge is produced and consumed. I often say we overestimate its short-term impact but underestimate its long-term potential. It’s one of those technologies that truly reshapes everything.
To deepen my understanding, I’ve been taking Coursera courses on AI. These not only help my thinking but also give me insights into how online learning platforms operate. It’s research in its own way, and it’s been incredibly enlightening. Beyond that, I look forward to revisiting the nuts and bolts of EdTech more broadly.
That’s a complex question, and in some ways, it’s still too early to answer definitively. A conversation I had in 2002 has stuck with me. At the time, I was researching learning management systems (LMS). I interviewed a biology professor named Scott Cooper, and we ended up talking in a bar to avoid the noise elsewhere. Interestingly, the university’s provost walked in—it was 4:00 p.m., so it was fine!
Scott told me he loved the LMS—not necessarily because it transformed learning, but because it made his 600-student class more manageable. He could upload his syllabus, lecture slides, and grades, which eliminated repetitive questions from students about missed content or grades. This freed up his time to focus on teaching biology.
That’s one clear way EdTech contributes—through efficiency and productivity, creating more space for meaningful teaching.
There’s also potential in adaptive learning, especially in subjects like math. Automated systems can provide instant feedback, enabling students to practice and learn at their own pace. Another area is fostering social learning. For example, Honor Education, a replacement LMS, emphasizes that personalization isn’t just about delivering tailored content—it’s about enabling interactions between learners. Learning is inherently social, and technology can facilitate those connections in ways that aren’t always possible in traditional settings.
That said, a big challenge remains: EdTech often benefits the strongest learners—those who are already engaged and motivated. We need to find ways to use technology to support weaker learners as well. Right now, most research suggests EdTech strengthens strong learners, but we have to focus on bringing everyone along. That’s the real test.
One of my soapboxes, and I get on it from time to time, is that I think there’s actually too much emphasis on evidence. We need more pilots, more experimental approaches, and less obsession with what is often poorly designed research studies. That said, there are great resources and people out there—Chuck Dziuban and Patsy Moskal at the University of Central Florida, for example, and the University of Virginia has some excellent initiatives.
But we shouldn’t fixate on evidence alone. People need to run their own experiments, listen to students, and evaluate what makes sense in their specific contexts. Focus on the teaching—don’t just add technology for technology’s sake. Phil often emphasizes this, and he recently mentioned Arizona State’s work in virtual reality as an example of design-enabled technology. What impressed him wasn’t the VR itself but how thoughtfully it was integrated into teaching and learning. It’s about asking, Where does learning happen? How can technology enhance that? rather than saying, Oh, here’s a shiny new tool—let’s use it.
Also, another great resource is a newsletter called On EdTech. I strongly recommend it.
Yes, though there’s one contributor who’s a bit of a crank.
It’s my secret sauce for interviews.
Absolutely. Solutionism is one of the biggest problems I see in EdTech, especially in student success initiatives. During my time at Gartner, and even now, I hear people say, We have a retention problem. What technology can fix it? They’re looking for a quick fix, like plugging in an air conditioner on a hot day. But EdTech doesn’t work that way—it requires a much more holistic approach.
Take Georgia State University in Atlanta as an example. They’ve made significant strides in improving retention, particularly among weaker students. But they’ll tell you that success was 1% technology and 99% thoughtful problem-solving. They used data and technology, yes, but they also hired more advisors, implemented a new grant program, and designed interventions to address the core issues.
Solutionism is the mindset that technology alone can solve problems. It’s like buying a CRM and thinking that will magically improve the student experience. But real solutions require understanding the root causes and designing comprehensive strategies.
Exactly. Another analogy I often use, because I’m South African and Anglican/Episcopalian, is something Archbishop Desmond Tutu used to say: You have to stop fishing people out of the river. At some point, you need to go upstream and figure out why they’re falling in. That’s what we need to do in EdTech—address the root causes, not just apply surface-level fixes.
And don’t impose technology on people. Work with stakeholders to understand their needs and perspectives. One thing I enjoy is helping institutions identify their stakeholders and learn how to communicate effectively with them. It seems obvious, but it’s often overlooked.
It’s a broad term, but I think of student success as ensuring students enroll in the right programs, stay in school, graduate in a timely manner, and gain something meaningful from the experience.
You can’t focus solely on retention or dropout rates—you miss the bigger picture that way. For example, I once heard the president of Maricopa Community Colleges in Arizona, one of the largest community college districts, say that many of his students were “one flat tire away from dropping out.” Their struggles weren’t academic—they were practical, everyday challenges that no data could predict.
Student success is about addressing these diverse and interconnected challenges. It’s about focusing on the right things, understanding where issues arise, and designing systems to support students holistically.
Thank you, Laureano. I feel like I've talked your ears off, as they say.
