Online instruction, says best-selling education author, will change schooling as we know it--if we're lucky
Primary Topic Channel: AASA
 |
|
|
|
If Harvard Business School's Clayton Christensen is right, half of all instruction will take place online within the next 10 years--and schools had better get into the online-learning market or risk losing their students to other providers.
Christensen was at the American Association of School Administrators conference in San Francisco Feb. 19 to discuss his book Disrupting Class, which looks at why schools have struggled to improve through the lens of "disruptive innovation."
Disruptive innovation is the business idea that, every so often, a new innovation comes along that completely changes the marketplace, knocking the old market leaders from their perch and giving rise to new ones.
Disruptive innovations transform products or services into something so simple that anyone can use them, creating what Christensen called "asymmetric competition."
Because they take advantage of these radical innovations, new entrants to the marketplace are essentially competing against "non-consumption"--that is, they're getting customers who didn't exist in that market before--while the innovation continues to improve.
Once the new innovation has matured, these companies are in a great position to compete with the established market leaders, Christensen said--and therefore they nearly always win.
To illustrate this idea, Christensen brought up the example of the personal computer in the 1980s. At the time, mainframe computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang, and Digital Equipment Corp.--which made a smaller mainframe called the "mini-computer"--were the clear market leaders.
When Digital was thriving, people attributed its success to sound management practices--and when the company suddenly collapsed in the 1990s and was bought by Compaq Computer Corp., one of the new market leaders along with Dell, some of these same people attributed its collapse to poor management, Christensen said.
"How can smart people suddenly get so stupid?" he asked. His answer: It wasn't management's fault; it was disruptive innovation. "It's actually the principles of good business management that assure each company's ultimate demise," he said.
The early PCs weren't very good, Christensen explained, which is typical of the first wave of products to take advantage of any innovation. And as all good companies do, Digital listened to its customers, who were saying this very thing. As a result, Digital decided it wasn't worth changing its business model.
In effect, the company's managers had to choose between making good products with a high profit margin, using a well-established business model; or scrapping that model--an extremely risky move--and making flawed products with a much smaller profit margin. Of course, sound business management practices said they should choose the first option...and the rest, as they say, is history.
A few companies have broken this model and continued to thrive after a disruptive innovation has occurred, but they've done so only by setting up a completely independent business unit, Christensen said--in effect, giving it a charter to compete against (and kill off) the parent company.
Comment now.
Don't forget to check out our Online highlights:
- Discover new resources that help school leaders strengthen their school district inside our new Superintendents Center.
Go to http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/superintendents-center/
- View this week's Student Video News Cast at www.eschoolnews.tv where you can also upload video too!
- Follow eSchool News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/eschoolnews
- Add our RSS feeds or our new widgets to any school web site. Go to http://www.eschoolnews.com/content-exchange-rss/
- Find the latest news in the current issue of eSchool News. Go to http://www.eschoolnews.com/current/
Why So Sacred?
The problem with some of the comments I've read is that they reflect an understanding of the learning process as WE engaged in it, not as students do today. Today's students are immersed in a vast sea of information, and they must make sense of it or drown. They do so through many means, such as collaboration with other consumers, verifying with trusted sites, contacting experts, etc. The one thing the vast majority do NOT do is to open a dry textbook to read and learn (independently of a class assignment) or seek out audio/video of a lecture to gain new knowledge. We did so out of necessity--few other means were available. This type of instruction is a limping, sickly dinosaur. Today's school systems largely represent a reality that no longer exists. Communication has changed, and will continue to evolve. Paper is becoming an irrelevant medium. Relationships are cultivated differently, via social networks and text messages, rather than meeting at the local pizza place. The teacher will someday very soon no longer need to be the "expert" on the subject matter, equipped with every answer. Rather, he/she will need to be the expert on creating connections between students and information and pass along the skills needed to make constructive use of the information learned. I'm not sure the article goes far enough in its predictions. The failure rate of some online classes was cited in a comment. What about the dropout rate in our inner city, traditional schools today that at times exceeds 75%? While I agree that there are important and effective qualities in a face-to-face learning environment, clinging stubbornly to a broken system is crippling our students and our society. Online learning is in its infancy, and the technology will continue to develop that will increase personal engagement and connectedness and lower failure rates. Simultaneously, this will open the door for students from lower performing schools to be instructed by the best teachers at the best schools. It will also radically alter our ideas of the school day, grade levels, and more. Students will grow increasingly proficient at online studies, as well, and success rates will increase. Schools that fail to change will be left behind and rendered irrelevant. I foresee many schools being shuttered up or converted into office buildings. The remaining ones will be those who have adapted and evolved, and whose teachers have embraced new roles as knowledge and information literacy guides. This excites me a great deal, as nothing is as thrilling as seeing a student discover something new with as little interference from me as is possible!
Posted By: randy_rodgers, 2009-03-03 4:13 PM
Choosing our words carefully
First - I applaud all the colleagues who have already written thoughtful criticisms and rejoinders in reaction to the coverage eSchool News has given to Professor Christensen's speech at AASA. He certainly is making the rounds these days isn't he. I particularly agree with the point made by ehammerstrom that "blended" or "hybrid" implementations of online delivery systems will be the next wave for technology integration supporting substantial improvement is both teachers' performance and students' academic achievement. I've been beating that drum since 2003. It's nice to finally be joined by more percussionists. (Not drummers...) Finally, a cautionary note to Professor Christensen and his followers about language, meaning and pragmatic consequences. I have admiration and respect for your work and I applaud your interest in bringing the transformational power of online educational delivery systems to the attention of increasing numbers of America's citizens. But continuing to emphasize the "disruptive" potential of this important tool for improving our schools is rapidly becoming the wrong message at the wrong time. Before our "economic downturn" blossomed into a full blow "economic crisis," I might even have used the same language. Now I believe continuing to emphasize the "disruptive" potential of online learning may encourage a societal backlash with potential to undo all the potential good that is still a possibility. I urge Professor Christensen to review the works of E.M. Rogers on "The Diffusion of Innovation;" in particular those chapters detailing his analysis of forces influencing the adoption/rejection decision. Simply stated: It's much easier to support the adoption and eventual :institutionalization of powerful but potentially disruptive technologies in periods of economic boom than it is during a bust. Until our economy begins to turn around again (and it will...), emphasizing equally significant outcomes like "value added," "improved efficiency" and "more equitable access to a quality education" are less risky. Although I believe online teaching and learning have become sufficiently "institutionalized" within America's educational system we've moved beyond the possibility of outright of outright "rejection," we haven't moved beyond the reach of "discontinuance." (Look it up.) Until we do, I'd sleep better nights if Professor Christensen would dial back just a bit on the "disruptive influence." BobBl
Posted By: bobblomeyer, 2009-03-03 10:56 AM
Theory vs. Practice
Teachers, as professionals, will embrace the theory for the particular situation and student. Feedback with body language, though, gives all the cues to understanding. That's why we know that one solution (online education) doesn't fit all and students can't miss out on practicing all the mentioned soft skills. It appears that computers can provide what the phone does: Feedback without face-to-face acceptance of responsibility of what the feedback implies. I guess we have to accept that 'some' students learn this way. So be it, and we should accommodate them. Everyone in this discussion who has taught knows the value of a facilitor/teacher. And because we know this, having taught, we know all students are different, different methods are needed. But, as a student, even though I love computers, I would find all online instruction totally boring!
Posted By: terrys965, 2009-03-02 3:13 PM
IVY LEAGUE IDIOT
Why did you waste your money going to Harvard instead of University of Phoenix then? Anyone who ever been around children will know this will only work for a small percentage of students.
Posted By: ronchase, 2009-03-02 2:41 PM
Hybrid, not online, should be the future
Research shows that online courses are much less effective than face-to-face classroom instruction or hybrid instruction that splits class time between the web and the classroom. Currently, failure rates for online programs are approximately 40%; thus, return on investment is low for most online courses. Web-based instruction meets a great variety of educational needs, especially in small school districts and in rural area. However, the web alone will not improve eduction but merely change it, perhaps in less effective ways.
Posted By: ehammerstrom, 2009-03-02 1:47 PM
Two Things
Despite best intentions and resources, traditional public education has been unable to deliver two essential elements to a quality educational system — equity and choice. The high school where I taught for more than 20 years offered six foreign languages and 15 Advanced Placement classes. The high school on the other side of town offered three foreign languages and two AP Classes. 25 miles out of the city, the local high school offered one foreign language and no AP Classes. Online learning can easily deliver to any student with broadband access 100 or more foreign languages and as many AP Classes as there are AP Exams. And instead of trying to offer a standard Algebra class to all students, a plethora of approaches to Algebra can be offered — from Algebra in your native tongue to Algebra for those who cannot wait until they get to high school. The best example that public schools cannot take advantage of what online learning can offer is the statistic that 80% of online students are not taking Swahili or Algebra for Spanish Speakers, but are taking "credit recovery" classes. Ironically, students who do not read or write well and who are not self motivated are the ones who need face to face teaching the most.
Posted By: Thomas.G.Layton, 2009-02-27 11:40 AM
The business of Education
I constantly draw parallels between the business and education when it comes to leveraging technology. I am pleased to see this article suggesting we learn from the 'reinvention' that companies undergo to innovate to survive. I'm confused by the fearful reaction of some as this process is quite liberating and downright exciting in the business world if only for the sake of making a dollar. Imagine the reward when a good education is the goal. It is this power of innovation in this space that gets me up early in the morning. I hope we can have the underlying systems that can cheaply, transparently and robustly capture and analyze the data from these new learning technology peripherals else we may not know what is worth its salt until it is too late.
Posted By: timyoungblood, 2009-02-23 4:22 PM
Disruption vs Planned Implementation
I'm all for adopting online components to challenge, extend and address the special needs of learners. (If all of the students can have netbooks)I'm just not favor of disruption as a method of delivery. Instead of driving this change like a feckless pigeon into a clear pane of glass, why doesn't the Department of Education consider a more robust strategy for incorporating the old with the new in a planned transition? Much as one might like to clear out the old in favor of the new and improved it isn't plausible or financially practical. It will be interesting to see how the economic crisis hits learners in the traditional school setting and how the impact drives educational reformation in favor of blended instruction.
Posted By: shieldsk, 2009-02-23 3:01 PM
I strongly believe in using technology in the classroom...It prepares students for jobs that haven't even been created yet. However, middle school and high school students still need personal connections with their teachers and peers. The one on one discussions, group discussions, and group activities teach responsibility, accountability, and teamwork. These activities also encourage creativity and synergistic learning opportunities. Balance is key...I have a smart board, and my students work online to complete their assignments. Then they submit work to their teachers via an online program similar to most online college programs; however, the best lessons are the ones that include interpersonal skills: Building positive relationships and sharing experiences adds to students' background knowledge. I hope the "powers that be", remember that balance is the key... Lisa Fricke, Lexington, NE
Posted By: lfricke, 2009-02-23 2:46 PM
 |
You need to be registered at eSchoolnews.com to add your comments. If you do not have a username / password please register here ! Registration is very simple and will not take much time! |
Really?
Having written courses and conducting virtual classes for the last couple of years, I've come to a few conclusions: many, many students take online classes and they are not pewpared to have that type of education. Unless the written communication skills are strong, and unless reading and language skills are at grade level, the student will be frustrated and behind the entire time. Students also are never prepared for the "idividual" aspect of this style of learning. We have cultivated a culture of "teams" and "groups" and "facilitating learning" and the average student I have had in these virtual classes has a difficult time with the work load and the individual responsibilities of some of the activities in the online course. The best successes in the virtual classes I've taught have been students who are ready to move at a faster pace than the average student, who have a strong sense of personal responsibility, and those who have better than average reading and writing skills.
Posted By: robertsonj, 2009-03-04 10:48 AM