Christensen posits that technology has transformed many areas of our lives, but in education, it has not transformed instruction. He claims that educators have "crammed" technology into the current structure to reinforce current practices.
"Whereas her mother did the research through reference books, Maria now does it online; whereas her mother typed out her project on a typewriter, Maria types it using a word processor. Why haven't computers brought about a transformation in schools the way they have in other areas of life?" (p. 72)
"Classrooms look largely the same as they did before the personal computer revolution, and the teaching and learning processes are similar to what they were in the days before computers...the billions schools have spent on computers have had little effect on how teachers teach and students learn--save possibly to increase costs and draw resources away from other school priorities." (pp.72-73)
"...schools use computers as a tool and a topic, not as a primary instructional mechanism that helps students learn in ways that are customized to their type of intelligence." (p. 81)
However, Christensen argues that all of that will change with the proliferation of online learning opportunities. Online learning opportunities will continue to increase as students and their parents demand learning opportunities that are available anytime and anywhere. He also believes that online learning will provide students with opportunities to learn in their dominant mode of intelligence as opposed to getting lost in the "batch" instructional model public schools currently offer.
Christensen believes there are four factors which will accelerate the expansion and popularity of online learning as an alternative to traditional school.
- Computer based learning will keep improving and become even more engaging to reach different types of learners.
- Parents will gravitate towards online learning opportunities because learning pathways will be offered that fit each type of learner (student-centric model).
- Looming teacher shortage as a result of baby boomers retiring.
- Costs of online learning will drop dramatically as the market scales up.
Christensen believes this proliferation of online learning will serve as the "disruptive innovation" that will serve as the competition causing public schools to adopt substantive change. He believes that if public schools do not begin to offer these types of online, student-centric opportunities for kids, then the consumer will start looking elsewhere for these services.
As usual, Christensen's argument results in many questions. Is the proliferation of online learning really going to take place? Will parents really begin looking to this option for their kids? What will happen to public schools if we don't prepare for this "disruptive technology"? Can online learning thrive in the current environment of standardization driven by NCLB? How will the teacher's role change in an environment dominated by online learning opportunities?
I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this posting.
Posts
I have taken on-line classes in the past and although very convinient because you can work it around your schedule, it also requires more motivation on the part of the student. I have learned a ton from on-line classes but it does not equate to the classroom experience. On-line classes can be an option for some students, but it requires self-monitorning, discipline, motivation. One of the hardest things with on-line classes is the lack of interpersonal relationships. I believe that in the classroom you learn more than the subject itself and that's something that the online classes cannot offered. You not only learn from the teacher but you are learning from one another.
ReplyDeleteMarcella...Thanks for joining the conversation. I agree with you that online classes can be much more challenging than traditional classes. Also, many in the past have shared your concern with the lack of interpersonal communication in online classes. However, advancements in technology now allow that interpersonal communication through the use of various forms of video conferencing. Christensen would argue that as technology continues to improve, online classes will be able to overcome some of the traditional drawbacks to their implementation in the public school setting.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the push towards online education is becoming very powerful. Higher education is already seeing an intense amount of competition because of online programs that offer the same degree in a more convenient medium. My question is as question you mentioned at the end of your blog. How does online education on a high school (or even an elementary) level equate to the demands put forth by NCLB? The desire and need to use technology to create an educational environment that promotes differentiated learning seems to come in conflict with the standardized penicil to paper testing our students are "judged" by. If we move toward a technology dominated educational system, do we not also need to change the method by which we "test" our students? I do believe that we owe it to our students to educate them in a way that prepares them to fully participate in their techonolgy driven world; I just wonder how we do that with the restraints put on our educational system by NCLB.
ReplyDeletePatty...Thanks for commenting! Your question is valid, and deserving of discussion. Too often, when we talk of using technology in the classroom, we view it as an ends instead of as a means to an end. Our ultimate goal should not be to make our students proficient with technology. Rather, our goal should be to use technology as a tool to help our students achieve the ultimate goal, which is mastery of the curricular objectives. The use of technology then becomes a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need to focus on are instructional strategies that will maximize student learning. One way to accomplish that would be to allow students to use "their tools" (i.e. cell phones, ipods, Internet, etc.) as a means of maximizing engagement.
I agree with you that the current format of standardized testing is not ideal. However, if we are able to maximize student engagement, then student mastery of the learning objectives should increase. If students master the material, then the ability to fill in the correct dot on the scantron shouldn't be a problem.
Thanks again for your comment!!! I would be happy to continue the discussion if you have more thoughts on this topic.
Christensen seems to be advocating a system that amounts to a type of "personalized standardization" in that teaching and learning would be centered around the specific learning styles or "dominant modes of intelligence" of each student based on a set of prescribed or predetermined learning standards for the selected course/grade level. He obviously sees technology, more specifically online learning, as the key to that end. I'm interested to know how, both specifically and logistically, he posits that schools achieve this goal. It is an interesting premis. I see how it is entirely possible to allow a diverse group of students to show mastery in a Gardner-like fashion. For example, if a learning outcome was for a student to understand the term "metaphor" in a unit on figurative language, he could show he "knows" metaphor in a variety of ways. He could match the term to a definition or fill in the term to a given definition to show a literal or technical knowledge. He could recognize an example of a metaphor in a given text (more standardized test in nature), or he could show a more conceptual knowledge of the term by using a metaphor in an original song, poem, or other piece of writing. The challenge seems to be two-fold: how can the teacher fit each of these different forms of assessing mastery in a form that reflects equity in a classroom grade in the current way that we report and colleges expect grades to be reported, and how does this comport with preparing students to succeed on the standardized assessments that are now in place. The more I think about the question, the more questions I seem to generate. Are we doing our students a disservice by not allowing them more opportunities to learn and show mastery in their own "intelligence", or are we doing them more of a disservice by not preparing them in a way that is more in keeping to what they will see on state and national standardized tests, which, at least on its face, is more desired and valued by the nation, state, and educational system as a whole? In other words, does it matter if they know if they cannot show that they know in the way that the powers that be have decided is the best way to test if they know????????? Interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteGreg...Great post! The question you raise regarding standardized testing seems to be the dominant theme of this discussion. Specifically, can we provide a "student-centric" experience in our public schools and still meet the demands of NCLB? In other words, can our students be allowed to learn in their dominant intelligence, but demonstrate that learning on State standardized assessments? I believe this can be accomplished if we focus our instruction on the ultimate goal, which is mastery of the learning objective. The ISAT and PSAE are summative tests designed to measure attainment of the various State standards. Our job as educators is to provide instruction in a way that optimizes mastery of these standards. If we provide students opportunities to learn these standards in a "student-centric" manner, shouldn't mastery of these standards improve? Doesn't it also follow that if mastery improves, student performance on these standardized tests should improve. We have to be careful about getting so concerned about the mode of assessment that we forget about the mode of instruction. Even though the State forces us to assess in a standardized fashion, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to instruct in the same standardized fashion. Providing students instruction in their dominant intelligence should improve mastery, which should result in improved assessment results, no matter what the mode of assessment.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fantastic blog - found it via your twitter feed.
ReplyDeleteI recently heard one of the coauthors of the book give a keynote and wondered if disruption theory is so cleanly applicable as the authors think. The innovative disruptor model is built around single advances - the transistor overtaking the vacuum tube; Sony overtaking RCA.
The rise of the online world is a major change agent, certainly - but not the only one. There are plenty of students and families reaching for options that aren't fully available yet - student directed learning, outdoor education, project- and place- based programs - and none of these are dependent on the online world (though all are likely to benefit from it.)
I wonder if a different "disruptor" model makes more sense - TV. We went from the Big Three, to the Big Three plus cable, to the Big Three plus cable and premium, to satellite, and then to YouTube. It's a question of audience fragmentation - as a TV audience member, I can now come much closer to watching just what I want. But if what I want for my child is a tangible (rather than virtual) learning community that resonates with my values, I have to be prepared to go way beyond point and click.
Wendy...So glad you joined the conversation. You bring up a very interesting point in regards to the model of "disruptive technology." I would agree with you that there are many possible "disruptions" that parents are asking of public education. However, government/society/parents have been demanding changes in public education for years, and through it all, we have stubbornly held on to and defended the status quo. In other words, we have yet to face a true "disruptive technology" as described by Christensen. I believe the ability for online education to provide learning wherever and whenever parents/students desire will prove to be a powerful motivating force. This educational option has not been available to parents in the past, and we are already witnessing its impact with the proliferation of home school students. Online courses are now providing parents with the ability to home school, and they are taking advantage in record numbers. Will this force public education into a mode of competition? Only time will tell. Thanks for posting. I hope to hear from you again!
ReplyDeleteI'm back:-). Did some thinking about this with a friend and we concluded Christensen uses technology as his sole disruptor because of the demonstrable rise (and corresponding drop!) in market share of k12 students leaving traditional schools for online options. I think online schools are just leaving the flat bottom and beginning the upward swoosh on his disruptive innovations S-curve graph. Am looking for numbers to demonstrate this for an upcoming presentation to our school board.
ReplyDeleteI think you are on the money! If you find numbers to support this positions, please share.
ReplyDelete