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.
