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 is when one component of a system is designed to work within a specific system.  An interdependent system ensures optimal performance when doing a task it was specifically designed to do.  However, there is no room for flexibility as all components in the system must be changed to accommodate change.

Modularity is a system in which no component is dependent on another.  Of course a modular system is bound together by a set of “well-understood, crisply codified” guidelines (Christensen, 2008, p. 30). Having a base set of guidelines allows for independent proprietors to produce a modular component to work with a system.  Having a modular system allows for changes at the component level so long as it remains within the guidelines of the modular system. 

At present time, public education in the U.S. is an interdependent system.  U.S. education is temporally interdependent through strict grade level standards.  Learning is also laterally interdependent through English standards that prevent the adoption of efficient strategies for teaching foreign languages.    Physical interdependence is apparent in the school architecture that prevents project-based learning.  Lastly, policy and federal, state, and local politics prove to be a formidable hierarchical interdependency (Christensen, 2008, p. 33).

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

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

Christensen (2008) defines disruptive innovation theory that “explains why organizations struggle with certain kinds of innovation and how organizations can predictably succeed in innovation” (p. 45).  All entities will make sustaining innovations that continue to improve elements of their model that cater to a specific demographic.  Disruptive innovation occurs when another entity provides a product or model that serves people outside the traditional demographic.  In other words, disruptive innovation does not alter the course of innovation but creates its own market by catering to the non-consumers of the traditional market.  Initially, these disruptive innovations will not change the market, but as they become more refined they eventually redefine the market.

Unfortunately, due to the interdependence of education to the public, there has been little disruptive innovation.  Since all students and schools are mandated to achieve an arbitrarily set goal, there are no non-consumers to cater to.  Although the public school system tries to innovate by calling for different approaches to meet current concerns, there is no real disruptive innovation.  However, technology is being identified as a possible medium for disruptive innovation in education as it presents an opportunity to serve underserved, non-consumers, students. 

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 nonconsumption?)

Christensen (2008) cites that “the way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical – and perfectly wrong” (p. 73).  While schools have made a big push to incorporate more technology into their classrooms, teachers are only using the excess computers to support the traditional ways of learning and not using technology in disruptive ways.  I think part of the problem here is that teachers do not have the training or understanding on how to use new technology in disruptive ways that promote student-centered learning. 

Christensen presents and interesting example in RCA who decided to cater its phonograph recordings of Rachmaninoff to people who could not afford to attend live concerts in favor of the larger non-consumer market who do not have the means to see live musicians.  The best way to incorporate technology in the classroom is to use it to cater to the non consumers, or the underserved students, and not the students whose needs are being met by the traditional educational system.  Technology would be better utilized in serving students with different intelligences or to complement the classroom experience by giving gifted an opportunity to challenge them.

Chapter 4: Disruptively Deploying Computers

4. Explain the pattern of disruption. 

Disruption occurs in stages and at varying paces.  In the beginning, new disruptions create a new “plane of competition” by serving non-consumers.  Next, the disruption begins to adopt applications from the traditional market.  (Christensen, 2008, p. 96). Finally, the disruption transforms itself into a new market that caters to a larger demographic.  Looking at this explanation, I would argue that education is currently at the second stage in which software manufacturers are beginning to incorporate functions from the traditional school system into their systems.

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

The trap of monolithic instruction is its tendency to promote a one-size-fits all approach to education.  Given the strict mandates that schools and districts must abide by strict mandates, schools have begun cutting enriching courses to open up more resources to meet the federal, local, and state expectations. 

A student-centric approach can help to alleviate this one-size-fits all approach by catering students according to their learning intelligences and individual learning needs.  Carefully crafted programs can tailor the instruction according to student intelligences and provides more opportunities for formative assessments to adjust instruction on the fly. 


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?

Value-chains are businesses that bring in inputs and transform them into objects of higher value to sell to their customers.  Christensen (2008) likens the public schools system to a value-chain by describing as a system that organizes students into grade level classes (input), then learning the course content (adding value),  and then being moving on to the next grade (higher value).   Value chains are very systematic and highly structured preventing any form of innovation from taking hold.

This value chain model can have both positive and negative effects on student-centric learning.  For the most part, the current model has a great deal of non-consumers of educations.  This makes for a huge untapped market for student-centric curriculum providers.  On the other hand, with a ossified system in place, it is difficult to find support for student-centered providers as there is much resistance to such a movement.  But if student-centered curriculum disruption is like any other disruptive innovations, we will see a slow progression toward this new medium.