--- title: "Building with the Cool Kids: The New Architecture of Classroom Engagement" slug: "ankit-gupta-wayground-quizizz-building-with-the-cool-kids-the-asu-gsv-2026" author: "Ankit Gupta, Bethlam Forsa, Sam Chaudhary" date: "2026-04-14 12:00:00" category: "Premium" topics: "ASU+GSV 2026, conference transcript, K-12 Education" summary: "This panel of ed tech company leaders -- Ankit Gupta (Wayground/Quizizz), Bethlam Forsa (Savvas), and Sam Chaudhary (ClassDojo) -- discussed how classroom engagement is evolving through AI-powered personalization, multimodal input, and growing student agency." banner: "" thumbnail: "" --- > **ASU+GSV 2026 Summit** | Tuesday, April 14, 2026, 2:00 pm-2:35 pm | StarTrack ## Speakers - **Ankit Gupta**, Wayground/Quizizz - **Bethlam Forsa**, Savvas - **Sam Chaudhary**, ClassDojo ## Key Takeaways - This panel of ed tech company leaders -- Ankit Gupta (Wayground/Quizizz), Bethlam Forsa (Savvas), and Sam Chaudhary (ClassDojo) -- discussed how classroom engagement is evolving through AI-powered personalization, multimodal input, and growing student agency. - A major theme was the consolidation trend from point solutions to integrated platforms, driven by tighter budgets and the need for unified student data, though Chaudhary offered a contrarian consumer-focused perspective arguing for simplicity over bloat. - The panel debated the vision of AI teaching assistants that passively listen to classrooms and surface actionable insights to teachers, with Chaudhary describing it as "now possible for every teacher on the planet." On defensibility, the panelists discussed the tension between shipping speed (enabled by AI coding tools) and maintaining product taste and judgment, with Synthesia CEO Victor Riparbelli's warning about "slop" resonating. - ClassDojo shared striking results from their AI reading tutor: children going from pre-literacy to second/third grade reading proficiency in five months at just 15 minutes per day. ## Notable Quotes > "We can give every teacher a teaching assistant. That's a much more humane interface, where you don't have to do anything. This assistant is open on your phone, listens to the classroom, gives to you the synthesis of what happened." > > — **Sam Chaudhary** > "It's about giving them the tools they need as a co-pilot, as a co-pilot for teachers, not necessarily an auto-pilot of the classroom." > > — **Bethlam Forsa** > "Technology should be very engaging to the extent that it helps you get all the foundations handled. So let's get literacy and numeracy handled. We can do those very, very quickly. And then let's create space in the classroom for us to do all the things we've always dreamt of doing." > > — **Sam Chaudhary** > "All the screen time challenges that have been coming out are probably not because students are spending too much time on screen learning things, they are more because kids are spending too much time passively consuming things." > > — **Ankit Gupta** > "The spaceship is where you have full and unfettered access to everything that reduces friction... The cloister is one where you have absolutely no access to any of that. You basically have a very difficult text and a pencil and maybe some friends." > > — **Sam Chaudhary** ## Full Transcript Hi, welcome, everybody. It is a pleasure to have this rock star panel of builders on stage. I'm going to kick it off, actually, I'm going to just double check first. How many people in the audience are builders, operators themselves? Okay. How about educators? Fabulous. Investors, others, policy workers, people adjacent in this field? Very cool. Okay. So, nice mix of educators as well as builders in space. I'm going to just kind of do a very initial rapid fire first question from this group, which is, in one sentence, what do you think is different about classroom engagement today than it was one year ago? I'm going to put Ankit in the hot seat by starting with you first. I would say, again, engagement, I can maybe I might not answer it directly, but in my opinion, there are layers to engagement, right? Like, I just feel with the advancement of technology coming in, we have been able to even personalize so much, even on the engagement layer, which there were things which were not even possible last year, I would say with AI coming in, we have been able to do a lot more at an engagement layer is the way at least we see things. Yeah, I completely agree with the notion of the personalization aspect in the classroom. And also, I think this is not just, it continues to evolve, is more student agency. I think students want to own the learning journey, and we continue to see more and more of that. Yeah, we work with younger kids, kids under 13 and families a lot. I think there's a lot of background anxiety, honestly, about screen time and what's happening with my kids' brains and that kind of stuff, which was kind of in the background with Jonathan Hayes and so on, but I think it's really come more to the forefront of the last year or so. Let's kind of start off with the, like you said, what has enabling some of that agency? What has changed from a technological perspective that is, do you think, causing these shifts? I think generally speaking, we continue to evolve in the educational system in terms of students want to have a voice. They want to be able to, you know, student agency is more and more important today than it was, say, a decade ago. I think a lot of that has to do with optionality, and we continue to see this in terms of, as an example, we particularly see this for high school kids already, even in middle school, this notion that they want to be able to build skills. Skills has become this, you know, discussion. I would like to come out from high school with certain skills and would like to have the opportunity to develop the skills while I'm still in high school, and under a great scenario, being able to get a credential, industry-level credential. So whether the students decide to go to college or join the employment or both is that that's what they're looking for. They're looking for more optionality, more agency in terms of how they learn, best way they learn, and all of this being included as part of that process. And technology enabling, particularly the older the kids are, enabling that. Yeah, I'd love, Ankit, maybe you could also expand on what is helping people, like what is the vendor side doing to adjusting to this kind of pulled new demand that's coming from the students? Yeah. I mean, maybe if I may add on the agency, one thing I felt, one big change that has happened on the technology side is that there have been new interfaces that have come in, right? So I would say voice was such a big unlock, where there were certain students who only felt comfortable, maybe, you know, to write out their ideas while participating. But then, you know, it was holding back set of students who were more, you know, who would like to talk more. I think with that technology coming in, I felt this idea of opening up, you know, I'd say different students with different way to communicate was opened up, and then that allowed a bunch of other students to also participate, and then empowered the agency, the skill building, and all the good stuff from there. And some of this is, so you're talking about new technologies, new modalities of input, we're seeing also, potentially a shift, not just in new modalities, but also the types of tools, you know, historically, people who have very point solutions, I felt a technology did do one use case to maybe potentially a shift towards more integrated systems. I don't know if you guys are seeing or you feel that integrated shift, if you think we're going to continue down that trend, we'd love to hear kind of your thoughts on that. I can share a couple of thoughts on just the integrated side of the house. One big shift we are seeing, at least, and I mean, we ended up even rebranding our company. So we were previously a point solution called quizzes. And then over a period of time, we ended up building different capabilities on our platform, where we had to rebrand because our name was becoming too limited. I've seen there have been three divers for the shift of consolidation. One definitely is this idea that budgets are getting, you know, tighter, and that is making the districts to also look more closely and say, like, hey, which are the tools which are really useful? And then rather than having X tools, can we work with a few good ones and then really build the right experience? So I'd say that has been one bit that has been driving this integrated experience. The other piece we have seen is, especially on the instruction side where we work, once you had these different tools, the data was being generated in different places. And then, you know, for a teacher or for an administrator, it was hard to get a full picture on where the students are, where, you know, the class is today standing. And bringing all these tools in one umbrella just gives that power to both the teachers as well as administrators to really get a true understanding versus going on the point solution side. So I'd say those have been the two things we have at least observed where we have also tried to consolidate, you know, different point solutions. And that, as I said, made us even do a rebrand last year. Just to add to that, I completely agree. I think the notion of an integrated platform. So in our case, we have core instructional solution, then we have supplemental intervention assessment as well as college and career readiness across the board integrated within a single platform. Because frankly, educator, administrators don't want to have to go to 57 different places and come through best of breed. That's yesterday's. In today's world where there is, they have so much on their plate. And more importantly, I think the idea of truly understanding the student and having in the student journey in terms of their learning journey and being able to have a way to view that in an easy manner. This is where you deploy technology that allows you to do that. And then the data flow. But also, frankly, we got to protect student data and everything else. With 57 different things, you have vulnerability that comes with that. So this idea of really of an integrated solution, I mean, it supports the understanding the student's journey, it supports the teachers with a better understanding of where students are, the administrators by layering an overall dashboard and insight. So I think it's a win-win across the board. And I think that's really what they're looking for. And I think educators have been very clear. They like to experiment with tools here and there. And I think they will always continue to be that. Because that's how you create innovation. But I think overall, an integrated platform is what they're looking for. Okay. I'll throw a little spice into this one. Dojo's a little different in that it's purely consumer, right? So teachers adopted, families and kids adopted. So we started as a classroom tool just to give kids positive feedback. That expanded into communication. And that's kind of been the core of the company for a very long time now, for like 10 years. It's spread quite far. My view is that actually teachers, like the people doing the work, want like a very, very simple interface and product that they can just use, which doesn't bloat into trying to do everything for them. But it's a very different user, right? We're not so much talking with the district leaders and there's like different things we do for them. But for the people actually doing the work of teaching and learning, like teachers and parents and kids, my instinct has been to stay as kind of build as little product as possible, actually, that does the important things for them. So that's kind of where we've been. I think that's an interesting juxtaposition. Maybe this comes down, if there is a more integrated system, what is the homepage, right? Like, what's the starting point? Where do you go to unlock or discover or to really get to a very specific need that's focused? And is there a home page for teachers? Is there a home page for students? Where should that reside? And I think we, again, probably, I'll answer this more from a technology lens. The previous interfaces was all built with this click first mode, where the experience would be same for every individual. They come in. They have to follow these X steps to get to the place they want to be in. I would say with AI coming in, even the way you interact with the platforms is meaningfully changing. We see there are two interfaces, at least in our world. There's one interface which is built more for student, where we keep engagement as the center of it. How do you build experiences which are really joyful for the kids? And on the teacher front, our belief is, and I'm going more maybe in the coming years, I think a lot of the operational stuff would end up getting done by agents. And then for the teacher, it would just be the signals that would be coming in. So in our case, where we do a lot of formative assessments, a teacher would be getting in real time that, hey, Ankit is someone who needs help. I should go and spend more time with him. These were the gaps which he has. Maybe in the background, a lot of resources gets created. Teachers uses their judgment to even assign those things. But a lot of the previous interfaces which were click-based, I believe, would be changing. And this, I'm talking more from our next two to three years time period, where agents would start becoming more mainstream. And that's at least the world which we are envisioning would come in, especially on the teacher end. And I think to add to that, I think absolutely there is an interface for the teacher and one for the students. And I think that if you think about it, the home screen or the workbench for the teacher really will have all the tools and capabilities that they will need to be able to teach, to support the student. We always say we are here to empower teachers so that they are able to help students. So they're going to need all the different tools and be able to personalize it for every child in a way that makes sense. And I think what they're going to be looking for is to ensure the technology is not working outside. Or where they don't have a control of it, they should always have a control to use it or not use That on and off switch needs to be controlled from the teacher dashboard so they can deploy it when they need it, use it as a differentiation tool when they need it. But we think of it in that way, giving them the capabilities and to be able to do it. So it's about giving them the ability. I always say it's about when you look even in terms of AI and so forth, it's giving them the tools they need as a co-pilot, as a co-pilot for teachers, not necessarily an auto-pilot of the classroom. So I think that's what they're looking for is they're different and deploying it in the way they want to. I think, yeah, no, no, Sam, please, no, yeah. So the homepage thing, I think we all probably agree, misses the point a little bit. Because the homepage is just a very poor way to interact with intelligence. The more humane way and the one that's designed around human beings is the one that is most natural for us, which is probably something like speaking and listening and this kind of stuff. So I'll give you one example that we've seen. There's a great company. It's called SoCrate. I don't know if the founders are here. But the first version of the, I think we all believe there's going to be a set of services that would prove to be very expensive to provide. We'd all be better off if we had an assistant. Turns out it's kind of expensive to have an assistant or a personal doctor or a personal therapist or whatever. But we're going to have approximations of these provided by AI. I think every teacher ought to have a teaching assistant. We probably all saw, a year ago, kind of the crap version of this, which was like, here's a chatbot. Please talk to the chatbot and tell it to do things for you. This is like, it's fine, but it doesn't change anyone's life, in my view. Another version of that is kind of the assistant that sits in the classroom and does what a real teacher's assistant would do, would listen to the whole classroom, absorb all the context of what's happening, notice that that kid needs more attention, or maybe needs to talk to this kid's parent, or we should cover that bit of material again. The truth is, that is now possible for every teacher on the planet. We can give every teacher a teaching assistant. That's a much more humane interface, where you don't have to do anything. This assistant is open on your phone, listens to the classroom, gives to you, the teacher, the synthesis of the summary of what happened or what you might need to pay attention to, can take some of those actions for you if you want. I think that's a much more exciting vision of the future for me. But I think what it also captures, and Ankit, you also mentioned this, was the multimodality, the ability to capture information in so many different forms of input than the historical just text or click the input or something of that nature. And what that also potentially enables is the personalization, which has been the great promise of AI. A lot of that, though, is very data-driven that in terms of being able to have very good sense of memory as well as context for the individual user. That data comes from a lot of different sources and then needs to be shared across. And so this is, maybe I'll start with you, Sam, from an integrated system standpoint. You talked about, great, but we still need to make sure we satisfy use cases really, really well. How do you balance that with also the need to be able to have portability of information, interoperability of systems? Yeah, again, this might be because Dojo is much more of a consumer product. We think about those things, but I think much more about what's going to be very useful for the family. So for example, last year, we built an AI tutor. And this tutor is focused specifically on teaching kids to read. So it's fully multimodal, looks and feels a bit like a Duolingo game. You've got this little blue guy called Sparky that you talk to, and he knows a lot about you and gets to know you more. And as you talk to him, he presents a series of scaffolded phonics activities. And they're very structured. They're super engaging. We had to cap engagement on this at 15 minutes a day. But our answer for, OK, what do we do with data and stuff is we're collecting a lot in the interactions between kids and the AI. So we're understanding a lot more about how kids learn, how they read, et cetera, et cetera. And I think we can do awesome stuff with that information. We can surface that. At some point, districts are very interested in this. We can surface that in safe and useful ways. I think there are companies like Clever and others who are working on the interoperability stuff. I think for me, I'm mostly interested in how can we have the most impact on teachers, and kids, and families in the point of views. Although that does raise a very interesting point around engagement. What is the, I think, about the case of character AI where I think their median or mean engagement is two hours a day? That's mean. So just imagine what the upper end is doing. And there's definitely a lot of concerns, particularly with students, around what is a healthy level of engagement. What are the guardrails that we need to put in place? What should stay synchronous? What should stay driven outside of, perhaps, the technology? Any thoughts? I'm sure, as you guys build for the classroom cases, or also build trust with parents and students, how you guys think about that? Just a quick one for me. Just to give you a real example of it, we launched this teaser in Q2 of last year. So it's been about eight, nine months. It's our fastest growing product ever. And what we've seen is that kids are going from, we've had a few hundred thousand kids go through it now, but kids are going from pre-literacy, so not knowing how to read, to maybe second or third grade level of reading proficiency, in about five months, in 15 minutes a day. And so for me, I'm kind of like, I think it's incumbent on us as technology designers and product designers to design for the human being. We probably don't want, and we have some agency in this. We have some agency in designing the world that we want. We probably don't want a world where kids are on screens for the majority of their childhood. You probably want a world where time on screen is highly effective, super engaging, parents are connected. That's a vision I think we can get behind. And then you probably want kids to not be on screens for a good chunk of time going and making campfires, and skinning your knee, and getting into little upsets on the playground, and having an experience of childhood that teaches us. I think the reason we are all in this room today is not because our parents knew computers were coming, or the internet was coming, and therefore we just crammed as much about computers, or AI, or whatever it is into our heads. The reason we're here, I think, are some more fundamental traits around intellectual curiosity, and grit, and empathy, and ability to work in teams. These things, I think, are still going to be super important in the world ahead. I think we need to create space in childhood for kids to develop those. So my view is technology should be very engaging to the extent that it helps you get all the foundations handled. So let's get literacy and numeracy handled. We can do those very, very quickly. And we can be a great support to teachers who are really trying to do this in classrooms of 30 kids. It's an impossible job because everyone's at a different level. AI is a really good use of AI technology there. And then let's create space in the classroom and at school for us to do all the things we've always dreamt of. of doing, like the technology enables us to do that now. I think to add to that, the way, I think it depends what age we're talking about. I think it's important when we talk about that. I think at the younger age, we absolutely believe and we continue to see a higher demand for more blended solutions. And we build our solution that are research based, pedagogically sound, and they are blended because absolutely kids should not be sitting in a classroom in front of screens and doing that. So we think of it as you have to differentiate in terms of, and now we're seeing more and more ask around limiting one hour per day is really what we're seeing more and more. So is what are you using it for? Technology needs to be not technology for the sake of technology, but technology delivering a very specific, to advance teaching and learning along the way. So therefore at the younger age, we see a much more ability to allow them to move around hands on experiences and everything and seeing that. On the other hand, if you go to the other extreme at the high school level, absolutely I think asynchronous learning is absolutely another area of high demand. Why? Because if I take the example of in the college and career readiness space, I think district cannot afford to have all kinds of different CTE offering for the different industries. So particularly the case for rural students. So how do you bring in this to reach all these rural students? Are they going to be at a disadvantage because they happen to be in a location that where they may not have access to all sorts of different ability and therefore they are not going to be able to participate in growing economies and skills, then in that case, I do think asynchronous learning provides them access and to be able to get access to that. So we think of it, you got to go and look at the age and how that's deployed. On that I might just add, I fundamentally believe learning is a hard activity, right? And all the screen time challenges that have been coming out are probably not because students are spending too much time on screen learning things, they are more because kids are spending too much time passively consuming things which are not actually kind of helping them learn things, right? Like it's more of the passive consumption where all the screen time debates have come out. In my opinion, learning is like, you know, playing any sports, you know, physically, you will get exhausted sometime. So I feel on the just learning specifically, screen time debate might be slightly overbloated, right? Like if you ask me, it's more of the screen time happening outside learning where, you know, maybe students are getting distracted too much. That's my at least personal take on this. And so kind of to build off of that, though, Ankit, I think there are still some who question the effectiveness of some of the academic screen time, right? And kind of concerns around the outcomes that we have hoped for, but maybe not fully seen yet. Any thoughts around how to make, you know, like, how do you think about ensuring that that time is engaging and engaging in the right way? So again, unfortunately, the world moves not just for a student in the classroom, right? The technology when it came in, the internet came in, it was also at home, there were like a lot of other things also, social media came in, and maybe that created a distraction for I would say even adults, I mean, you know, kids, right, like, I mean, I've been struggling to have the same attention, which I used to have back, you know, 10 years back. So I'd say, you know, unfortunately, all these things happen together. So we don't know necessarily what happens during the classroom, is it? Is it the reason for some of the learning gaps, which we are seeing today? Having said that, I mean, if I take the other side of the argument on like, why some of the pieces on technology end up being very powerful, one of the things which we build at Wayground was this idea of accommodation. So we all know in the classroom, there are kids at different reading levels, some kids need, you know, are right now well-versed with, let's say, English. And as a teacher, your job is to differentiate, right, like you want to give them these different capabilities. But in a pre-technology world, pre-AI world, this used to happen where you will make a different version of that assignment and give it to a kid. Now that kid is also in a social setting. And they feel they're being discriminated, right, like with the whole class, and there's some social stigma that comes in. I think with technology, you can now deliver all these things discreetly, right, like that's something we have built with accommodation. So I would say there's again, the right way, like a new technology, there's a good and bad, but I personally still feel that in a learning scenario, there's a lot of good things that come in, unless you are just using it for passive consumption, right, like, learning happens when you do active consumption. And in those situations, I personally still believe learning, a lot of learning happens and a lot of good happens with technology. Can I just add something here? I think sometimes we take these extremes, we think either you are in front of a screen, or you're sitting at your desk with a piece of paper. And I don't think it's one or the other. Even when people talk about, like games, like, why do we always think games have to be digital? We actually provide hands on games that they do for math in the classroom, because we believe that is part of the learning process of understanding math concept. So it's not about just digitally, we actually have hands on games that they use. So it's not one or the other, you have to be able to, you're building, you're connecting it around engineering skills, and so forth. So we think of it as not one or the other, but really, you know, it's that blended, blended approach. Yeah. Go ahead. Just to tag on, there's this British historian, Niall Ferguson, and he wrote this essay, I think it was called The Spaceship and the Cloister. And it's a really excellent read, but he basically talks about, like, actually, like having these two different settings, which I quite, I'm not sure if I agree with it, but I quite like the thrust of it. It was like, the spaceship is where you have full access, full and unfettered access to everything that reduces friction. You know, so AI is like a great example of this, just like its job is to eliminate friction in your life, and like, you should touch the complete access and see what you can create. So when we interview people at Dojo now, we used to do a take home thing that was, you know, you could do in like two hours or something. Now it's a take home that's impossible to do, unless you're aggressively using AI. And so I think there's an argument to be made for using for that environment. The other environment was, which he calls the cloister, is one where you have absolutely no access to any of that. You basically have like a very difficult text and a pencil and maybe some friends, and you kind of have to like make sense of what's happening there. And I quite like, like, just the mental model of that, because I think both environments have something to teach you, but they're probably quite a different set of skills. And I think there's arguments for kids to spend a lot of time in kind of both kinds of environments. Sam, quick question. So do you think the blue book should come back? And should we, should we go back to writing in, you know, three page essays by hand? I don't have much time for writing, but I think there's something to writing as a form of thinking. And I think there's something to people having some time to think. And writing by hand. That's not what I said. I think that I think there's like, there's something to people having time and space to think and wrestle with difficult ideas that's important. I think it's actually probably important for democracy as well, that people have a sense of like, critical thinking and critical awareness. You might express that in writing, you might express it in debate, you might express it in just wrestling with ideas. But I think there is something to wrestling with difficult material that's, that's useful. I'm gonna take... Not to sound like too old fashioned or Victorian or something, I think, I think, I think we should kind of do both. You know, I think there's like times you're like, just explain, just do the thing for me. I want you to do the thing for me. I want you to like, kind of figure out the texture of your own mind in a little way. Appreciate the different perspectives and kind of the ideas around it. I'm going to shift a little bit, and since fortunate to have people who've built such amazing companies on stage, to kind of get the insight from operator and builder perspective. You know, today, it's easy, the time to product iteration and development has condensed dramatically, right? So startups can easily build, replicate and launch new features, what used to take years or sometimes not even possible now, weeks, potentially, right? How do you think about creating long term defensibility in this space? So let me first start with that shot back in the day, building was hard, but the best companies come when you actually leverage the new technology and rethink how do you solve a problem statement. So Uber, if we take as an example, right, they didn't build a better taxi, they fundamentally changed how you think about transportation, right? Like, same thing I would call out on maybe Airbnb, right? Like they fundamentally just thought about how hotels should look like. So I'd say there will always be, you know, new ideas that would come out, and the companies which have been working in this space. So if I talk about Wayground, we have been spending last 10 years more deeply understanding both from teachers and students perspective, and now increasingly from admin perspective, what makes a great lesson, what makes a student really thrive, feel engaged, and all those learnings then you apply, and put it in software. So I'd say that institutional knowledge stays as a defensibility, your distribution stays as a defensibility, but for any new startup coming in, I don't think you will replicate a dojo and win. You will probably have to rethink on how would even the communication layer look like. So that's at least my take on. The next set of ideas won't be a copy of what happened now, but there will be completely rethinking on how to solve today's problems. I think it really is about not, you have to solve a problem we have. So it's not cool thing, but what are you trying to solve? A lot of times, we get this thing, oh look, we built this thing. I'm like, what is it going to do? What is the problem it's going to solve, and what is it going to do? And I think it's just about solving whether it is an education problem, a classroom problem, an administration problem. What is it solving? It's coming at it from solving, and we all don't solve the same problem the same way. It's do that, and then I think the rest of us will actually come together. Sure. I've got a general answer, and then maybe a specific one for education. The general answer, maybe like the best thing I've ever read on defensibility was this book by a guy named Hamilton Helmer called The Seven Powers. That's a stunning book, very dense if you get into the math, but you can skip the math, and it's a very good read. He basically just talks about seven sources of market power, and they're things like network effects, and switching costs, and brand, and a bunch of other stuff. Well worth a read. No company has any of these, or very few companies have any of these starting out on day one. So I think of that as just one of the lenses. If you thought about the three lenses that Dojo uses, for example, for product development, it's like we have to delight our users in hard-to-copy, margin-enhancing ways. So delight users, like solve a real problem in hard-to-copy ways that build these modes, and then margin-enhancing things that could actually be a sustainable business in the future. I think that's our algorithm for it. For education specifically, I think one of the structural issues that we've tried to sidestep, but I think people ought to spend a good amount of time on in starting a new company is like, what's your answer to business model and distribution before you get anywhere near the product? Just because I think that's been some of the harder structural stuff in this space, and I think it's good to have differentiated answers to that if you can, if you're building a venture business, I'd say. I think that that's always a big question of, do you start first with business model and distribution, which is very hard to replicate and requires muscle building, or the product and the use, like the problem that you're trying to solve deeply, as Bellum pointed out. In the last minute plus, to kind of bring everything back down to the engagement side, where do you see the opportunity for any big unlocks going forward? I'll keep it brief. A couple of things, multimodality we talked about is going to be important. I also believe in education, it won't be just about math, but how do you combine a student's understanding across different subjects, and really, and that's where the whole AI memory comes in. So I believe that would be the next layer that would start showcasing in coming years. I think the engagement is going to come in from allowing, again, student agency, optionality, and leveraging technology to maximize the different ways students learn, and giving them that opportunity. Yeah, I'm kind of talking my own book, but I think families are especially excited and interested, and kind of maybe scared about what to do in the age of AI, and their kids, and education. I think there's a huge opportunity there to do great things for families, specifically. Yeah, that connection point between parents and students has always been an incredibly difficult one for unlocking, so appreciate that, Sam. On that note, thank you, everybody, for joining us, and thank you to our wonderful panelists for taking the time to share your guys' experience. Thank you. ♪♪ --- *This transcript was put together by our friend [Philippos Savvides](https://scaleu.org) from Arizona State University. The original transcript and additional summit resources are available on [GitHub](https://github.com/savvides/asu-gsv-2026-summit-intelligence). Licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).*