EDSS 530 "Disrupting Class"

Chapter 1: Why Schools Struggle to Teach Differently when each Student Learns Differently

1. Explain the difference between interdependence and modularity.  How is education currently organized?  

Interdependence and modularity are opposite terms to describe the organization of a system. A system or product is interdependent one piece is reliant on the on the make up of the parts around it. Modularity is more flexible system where pieces can be changed as needed. In an interdependent system, one piece cannot be changed without changing everything around it, or even the whole system. But in a modular system one piece can be replaced or substituted and fit in with the existing process.

The US education system is decidedly interdependent. The book cites several examples regarding special education needs, classroom and facility design, and the limits of textbooks and curriculum. The pieces that make up the education system are gridlocked, which means change and improvement are limited. Standardized testing limits a teachers ability to adapt a lesson so a particular individual or group can better grasp a topic.

At my current CP school site, the technical resources are limited in this way. Components such as computers, projectors, and document cams are strictly regulated by the district. Teachers are not able to use their own technology in the classroom. For instance, a teacher found a $60 document camera that works very well, but is not allowed to use it. The only option they have, if the district provides one, is a more expensive, less effective one the district provided because of a deal made with the manufacturer. 

Chapter 2: Making the Shift:  Schools meet Society’s need

2. Explain the disruptive innovation theory.  What does this have to do with schools?

The disruptive innovation theory is an economic explanation for the way established companies and products can be shaken by simple changes. Market leaders in most fields survive on simple improvements that drive consumption, called “sustaining innovations.” A disruptive innovation happens when a new company or product arrives on the market that may not be as good as the traditional product, but it is cheaper or easier to use, and therefore it begins to take over the market. It appeals to non-consumers and takes business away from the traditional producer. With improvements, the new, disruptive innovation becomes the new standard.

This disruptive innovation theory is rooted in economics and an open, capitalist market. The public school system, however, is a monopoly. Schools have improved along the lines of sustaining innovations. But there has not been any “game-changing” disruption because there is no outside party or company to shake things up. However the authors of the text, Clayton Christensen, Curtis W. Johnson, and Michael B. Horn, state that emerging technology could be a means to service struggling students and non-consumers in this “industry.” They predict disruption as a result of new technology.

Chapter 3: Crammed Classroom Computers

3.  Why doesn’t cramming computers in schools work?  Explain this in terms of the lessons from Rachmaninoff (what does it mean to compete against non-consumption?)

Filling schools with technology does not work because they are only being used to accomplish the same tasks students have always worked on for the past several decades. They are merely a tool or supplement to traditional teaching. They are only a sustainable change, they are not disrupting, because presently they are not competitive with a human teacher.

The Rachmaninoff incident the book describes is a decent analogy. Earlier record players were an option for those who could not see live performances. They were not competing with the consumers of live shows, because they technically were not as good. But they took over the music market by appealing to the non-consumers. They gave a way for people who were not consuming, to consume. Then came innovation, and personal music players still reign.

If computers were to supplant traditional teaching, it would have to start by appealing to the people who are not getting anything out of traditional education. Right now technology cannot compete with human teachers. But if it wins over the non-consumers, its potential will be realized and it can spark new innovation.

Chapter 4: Disruptively Deploying Computers

4. Explain the pattern of disruption. 

The pattern for disruption occurs in a S-curve on a graph depicting growth or market share over time. First, a new technology or innovation goes for the non-consumers, not to compete with the established “leader.” Basically, it starts its own market for the people who are not being served. Over time, the new innovation improves, and there is a dramatic spike in users which creates the S-shape of the graph. This is due to the consumers leaving the traditional product in favor of the new because it is usually cheaper and/or easier to use. Then the growth plateaus as the new innovation approaches 100% of the industry as more trickle in to the market.

5. Explain the trap of monolithic instruction.  How does student-centric learning help this problem?

Monolithic instruction is rigorous, non-engaging, and does not check for understanding. Keeping up with pacing and lesson plans are more important than checking to make sure each student is not only keeping up, but mastering what they need to move forward. A monolithic view is stuck in tunnel vision. Sure the class is “moving forward,” but the teacher is unaware if everyone is keeping up.

Student-centered learning is build around checking for understanding and adapting lessons so that students are growing. Assessments are used to monitor progress and provide instant feedback and differentiated instruction. Therefore, it is less high stakes. The focus is not on what percentage has been mastered, but how deep a student has gotten into a particular subject or material. Students get help where they need it, not just told what they are doing wrong.

Chapter 5: The System for Student-Centric Learning

6. Explain public education’s commercial system.  What does it mean to say it is a value-chain business?  How does this affect student-centric learning?

Public schools are run like a value-adding process. Essentially, schools rope in students, stick them in a classroom, and dump knowledge on them. This process exists because of the notion that this process makes them more knowledgeable and more valuable, educated citizens.

The book describes the process in six, circular steps. It starts with textbooks, which get assessed and adapted by states and districts, the teachers teach this curriculum, there may be some individual attention, then the students are tested and assessed, which informs teacher training, and comes back to textbook creation.

Students can get more attention and differentiation through student-centered learning, which requires teachers have to change some of their processes. This involves leaving behind the  VAP system for a more facilitated network. Since the public education system is monopolistic, there is little chance of outside disruption. Disruption would have to come within, which some educators may say degrades the value of their role, thus resistance occurs.

Student center learning can occur with the technology we have. A YouTube video can provide tutoring and customized learning. There are many forms and technologic platforms, this is just one example. Teachers need to remember their goal to educate students. This may mean that their role changes from direct instructor to creator and facilitator of this technologically based material that will help students learn.