One of the case study students wants to study Arabic, but it isn’t offered at her school. Luckily, the principal offers her a chance to participate in an online Arabic course.
This chapter discusses how computer-based learning is likely to disrupt U.S. schooling. Like all disruptive innovations, it will begin by competing against nonconsumption. These settings might include AP courses, credit recovery, special tutoring, prekindergarten–anything that is not generally available to all students. In small, rural schools, urban secondary schools, and homeschooling situations, there are often learning experiences that would be nice to have, but, due to lack of resources, are not always available. Computer-based learning would be a welcome solution in these situations where the alternative is to forgo offering that subject altogether. By providing options in these moments of nonconsumption, computer-based learning will gain a foothold in the market. “Disruptive innovation requires…focus[ing] on courses that the pubic schools would be relieved not to have to teach, but do feel the need to offer” (p. 103). Teachers unions and funding models that penalize per-pupil funding for schools when students take online courses may impede this disruption, but the authors suggest that this kind of impediment will likely not be sufficient to prevent the shift to computer-based learning. They also mention that the lack of a free market will not prevent the disruption either. Continue reading “Disrupting Class: Chapter 4: Disruptively Deploying Computers”
The continuation of the beginning-of-the-chapters case reflects on how little schools have changed, despite massive technological and social shifts. Why do digital natives experience the same kind of teaching that their parents had at their age? Why has having computers in the classroom not changed the way schools work? The answer: Schools use computers as a sustaining innovation rather than a disruptive one. They try to make new technology work within their existing model, essentially competing against teachers, instead of competing against nonconsumption. The authors call this “cramming,” hence the chapter title: We cram computers into classrooms and use them within existing structures. This results in slow, expensive, and marginal improvement–students use computers to do more or less the same things students have always done. Continue reading “Disrupting Class: Chapter 3: Crammed Classroom Computers”
The case at the beginning of this chapter centers on the Chemistry teacher, Mr. Alvera, and his reflections about how school has changed since he first started teaching. As he increasingly hears comments about achievement, he wonders, “When did society start expecting schools to ensure achievement and not merely access to education?”
This chapter introduces the theory of disruptive innovation and begins to apply it to schools. In the business world, “disruptive innovations” contrast with “sustaining innovations.” Big companies generally (and rightly) try to improve the products they make for their best customers in order to make better profits by meeting these high-paying customer’s needs. This kind of innovation is a sustaining innovation. A disruptive innovation, on the other hand, does not serve current customers, but caters to “nonconsumers”–people who don’t have access to or use for the high-end products. Companies engaged in sustaining innovation generally don’t try to compete with disruptive innovations because their current clients don’t need what is being offered by these smaller companies. However, as disruptive innovations improve as they continue to do business with previous nonconsumers, they eventually become capable of doing many of the things the sustaining companies’ products could do. Continue reading “Disrupting Class: Chapter 2: Making the Shift: Schools Meet Society’s Needs”