Your research question. Selyvi as the technical infrastructure.
Selyvi can be extended for research projects — with features, data collection and digital routines. You bring the research question; together we work out how Selyvi carries it into the school day.
Projects from: Education researchClassroom researchSchool developmentEdTechAI in educationTeacher research
Selyvi does not have to be your research question.
Maybe it is about teacher workload, lesson planning, feedback, AI literacy or support processes.
If the study needs a digital feature or environment inside the school day, we work out whether Selyvi can provide it.
What we can build for your research project
Instruments that run inside the school day
Project-specific questionnaires and survey waves
New features and digital interventions
Logging of defined usage and process data
A/B and comparison variants
Digital support for teaching and support concepts
Project-specific dashboards and analyses
New teaching and learning materials, built out
Research and test environments
Export of defined research data – under our published rules
We release data under three conditions only: verified consent, aggregation with minimum case numbers instead of raw data, and a documented data collection model. The rules in full.
Selyvi is deliberately malleable. If your project needs a feature that does not exist today, that can be exactly where the work together starts.
How a collaboration runs
- 1
Research question
You describe what you want to investigate. We listen before we propose anything — a question pressed into an existing tool is a different question afterwards.
- 2
Technical fit
Together we work out what Selyvi carries today, what can be extended, and what is better built elsewhere. This assessment can end in a no, and says so.
- 3
Research design
Data collection, roles and data protection are settled per project. What gets collected is fixed before the project starts — not at the end, once the data is already there.
- 4
Build in a research and test environment
The work happens in its own environment, separate from day-to-day operation. There you can try, discard and build again differently without a single school noticing.
- 5
Practice
The trial runs with practice partners — existing ones, or ones brought in for the project. Whether a school takes part is the school's decision.
- 6
Analysis
What gets analysed is the data agreed in the design, in the form agreed there. What was not agreed is not analysed either.
What both sides get out of it
For research
- Infrastructure without having to build it yourself
- Features cut to the project
- Closeness to the real school day, not to the survey situation
- Impact measurement that can be defined up front
- Long-term studies inside the same system
For schools
- New answers early — where they are needed
- Taking part stays the school's decision
Where it fits academically and legally, we would like in future to bring projects together with schools from our growing practice network.
For Selyvi
- Academic input instead of gut feeling
- Features that grow out of real research questions
- Cleaner data collection models than we would build alone
What works today — and what hangs on the network
Today
- Provide research and test environments
- Build features for projects
- Model impact measurement technically
- Integrate data collection instruments
- Prepare study designs together
In future — with a growing school network
- Data collection across schools
- Longitudinal studies
- Comparisons across school types and regions
- Larger research and practice projects
These four hang on the number of schools taking part, not on technology.
How we measure
The survey model follows the PHINEO impact staircase: input, output, outcome, impact. We collect across three waves rather than once. A single snapshot cannot tell relief apart from people simply getting used to a tool.
Consent is granular by purpose: not to “research” in general, but to each purpose on its own. The analysis follows a codebook written in advance. And a value only appears above a defined minimum case count — below it the field stays empty rather than showing a number that carries nobody.
Stage 1
Input
What goes in: development work, the subject corpus, the rollout at a school.
Stage 2
Output
What measurably comes out: observations, report comments, parent emails, materials.
Stage 3
Outcome
What changes for the people involved: time spent, perceived workload, what parents hear back.
Stage 4
Impact
What is left after all that. Three survey waves cannot reach this stage on their own — this is where research partners come in.
„Every workload relief report carries a note directly beneath the figures: measured values are labelled as measured, estimates as estimates — and neither label can be switched off, not even by us.“
Without it, “140 hours saved” reads like evidence. It is not, and the line says so.
What there is to research with Selyvi
Nine questions we keep returning to. The impact model already runs in survey waves; the instruments for these questions we design with the people who will use them.
We would rather not design them alone. Whoever works in one of these fields should have a say in what gets collected — and in what had better not be.
Evidence-based teaching approaches
Which teaching approaches actually hold up day to day and which only work on paper. A question that could be examined together, instead of continuing to guess at it.
How lessons actually run
How a lesson really unfolds – between the plan, the interruption and the improvisation. We would like to measure that gap between draft and reality with you.
Differences in teaching styles
Where teaching styles differ day to day and what that does in the classroom. A field in which we would welcome research that sees more than a single school.
New teaching and learning materials
What materials would have to look like if they built on the documented observations of one particular class. We would like to design them together and then have them examined.
Evaluating digital support
Whether digital tools really deliver in everyday school life what they promise. For us the most uncomfortable question – and the reason Selyvi should not answer it alone.
Administrative workload of teachers
What share of working time goes on documentation, communication and administration – and which of those tasks is experienced as a burden at all, and which is not.
Regional differences
Whether workload and preparation practice differ systematically between federal states, school sizes and catchment areas. A question only a consortium across state borders can answer.
New approaches to learning support
What support looks like when it builds on continuous observation instead of a single snapshot. That needs expert counter-argument, not just software.
Long-term impact analyses
What is actually left of school measures after years. A question for which three survey waves are not enough – here we need partners with staying power.
How we handle research data
Three things have to be in place before any data leaves us: consent that has been legally reviewed and is granular by purpose; aggregation with minimum case counts instead of raw data; and a documented survey model.
The survey model is documented, the minimum case counts are written into it, and the impact line in the product already works to them.
That order is the slower one. It is also the reason you can put your name on the result.
Questions from research
Before the application is the best moment.
For funding and consortium applications we work out early whether Selyvi fits as a technical development, application or practice partner.
Ideas before funding are explicitly welcome — the best collaborations start before the application, not after the budget has been split.
A research project in the making? Three sentences are enough.
We reply on working days — and say plainly whether it fits technically.
Rather write it out? selyvi.app@gmail.com — or try it yourself first.