|
100-101; 107). Teachers, especially in middle and high schools, do not have the time and/or the tools to deal with multiple intelligences (pp. 159-207). 47; 74; 79; 86; 92-96). In summary, Messrs. This dual approach would allow schools to reap economic, instructional, and customizable benefits. is at stake.
Schools teach and test students uniformly (pp. schools that would first complement the existing teacher-based, "batch" system (p. Messrs. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson lose their audience somewhat by introducing different business concepts that ultimately do not add much value to their core message about how to successfully reform U.S. is no longer as attractive to talented immigrants from around the world as it used to be to keep its technological edge globally (p. Over time, administrators, school committees, and teacher unions will have to acknowledge that student-centric learning has become mainstream (p.
35; 107; 126-132). This "student-centric" system would give students and teachers the software needed to facilitate the learning of some disciplines that are not aligned with the types of intelligence in which they excel (pp. Talking to children aged 0-4 in a fully adult, sophisticated, chatty language - as if the infants were listening, comprehending, and fully responding to this flow of words - has a critical impact on their later development. Messrs. 38-39; 91-92; 132-136). The opportunity to revolutionize education lies mostly outside of the K-12 school system (p.
Christensen, Horn, and Johnson plead for the introduction of a modular, customized learning model in U.S. Starting these reforms even before kindergarten is critical. 34). Most teaching looks like a value chain that processes students like standard, undifferentiated goods over a 12-year period (pp. Todd Risley and Betty Hart call this practice "language dancing" (pp. 209-219; 226). Christensen, Horn, and Johnson want to convince their audience that the sub-optimal performance of the K-12 education system lies mainly in its operating model.
98-99; 102). This disruptive method would compete with what the authors call non-consumption, i.e., where the alternative is nothing (pp. To implement these changes successfully, the authors note that administrators and school leaders will have to use the tools of power and separation. schools (pp. 37; 65; 111).
143). Finally, students learn at differences paces (pp. 115). Messrs. The U.S. 29; 33; 107-108; 225). Christensen, Horn, and Johnson observe that the increased spending on students with special needs is only a partial answer to the challenge at hand because all students have special learning needs (p.
148). 153).In chapters 7, 8, and 9, Messrs. Students who thrive in this undifferentiated environment have the type of intelligence that is in line with the discipline taught or are flexible enough to adapt to it (p. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson mostly succeed in their endeavor to challenge the status quo. Students usually excel in only two or three of the eight types of intelligence that Howard Gardner has identified. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson remind their audience that one of the reasons why children of lower-income, poorly educated, and inner-city parents are trapped in a multigenerational vicious circle lies in the lack of "language dancing" (p. 61; 102; 141-142; 225-226). Furthermore, the providers of this instruction would be able to collect data to further improve their offering (p.
35). 81-82). schools has failed to move the needle significantly. This disruption has to take place in a separate space that is not at the mercy of the textbook adoption process, the demand for standardization, or the power of the teachers unions (pp. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson forecast that by 2019 about 50% of high school courses will be delivered online based on current trends (pp. U.S.
Using these tools in the chartered and private school sectors will be easier than in the more traditional schools (pp. 6). No less than the future competitiveness of the U.S. Furthermore, students have different learning styles within each of these types of intelligence. schools do not have the ability to meet all students' learning needs.
They learn differently. schools struggle for one of the reasons traditionally given, i.e., lack of money, not enough computers, unmotivated or unprepared students (and parents), broken teaching model, or uncooperative unions (pp. Messrs. Messrs.
26; 28). Christensen, Horn, and Johnson remind any reader skeptical of their "student-centric" system that no disruptive technology has ever succeeded through a head-on attack against the current dominant players. To remediate this situation, Messrs. 1-5; 64; 71-72). The authors recommend that these courses be delivered both via digital instruction and online.
However, students are not part of a homogenous, monolithic population. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson note that cramming computers in U.S. Improved offerings, declining costs, looming teacher shortage, and the role of students, parents, and teachers in this alternative learning pathway will be the key drivers behind this disruptive innovation (pp. 150-151). In addition, Messrs.
Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson are not convinced that U.S. Most schools use computers as a tool and a topic, not as a primary instructional system that assist students in learning in ways that are in line with their type of intelligence (pp. 143).
They propose that each school designate one person whose sole job is to implement online courses. Instead, innovation must go around and underneath the system.3. Christensen, author of The Innovator's Dilemma, calls for philanthropies and foundations to fund the kind of research that helps us learn how different people learn, how to identify those differences, and how different students can best educate themselves and each other.Future teachers will need skills to work one-on-one with different types of learners as they study in a student-centric way, Christensen says. Previous studies of innovation showed that direct attacks on existing systems do not lead to effective disruptive innovation. Emerging online user networks offer a model for circumventing the education system and creating a new, modular system that facilitates customization.
Decentralized user networks democratize development and purchase decisions to the end users in the system--in this case students, parents, and teachers.Online courses offer the kind of customized, student-centric instruction that students most need, Christensen and colleagues argue. Graduate schools of education must train researchers to go beyond doing descriptive research that seeks average tendencies. 2. We know that all children learn differently, but the way schooling is currently arranged discourages educating children in customized ways. Instead, they should study the anomalies and outliers, where the richest insight often is found.Some major messages in this book:1. Clayton Christensen and colleagues point the way toward innovation in education by applying lessons learned through studying innovation in business.
Few education reforms have addressed the root cause of students' inability to learn. We need a modular system.4.
Christensen does NOT do the heavy lifting of building such courses, he only motivates those who are considering that heavy lifting. But he does provide the rationale for being willing to do the heavy lifting to build excellent courses delivered on the internet, and to invest the billions needed to give each student access to a computer in multiple classrooms. In fact he gets a lot right: education does need a paradigm shift to accommodate diminishing numbers of teachers and diminishing resource, and to accommodate the long discussed little addressed differences among learners and how to accommodate it in classes of 20 or more using lecture as the principal teaching method. I was skeptical that a business school professor would get anything right about education. They then argue cogently for that change being online courses delivered over the internet allowing teachers to do more one on one tutoring, less group lecture. Christensen and two colleagues present an interesting argument for the need for a radical (disruptive) change in education. As a high school teacher of math and physics for 15 years, I find their view of great value.Christensen is a professor at the Harvard Business School who developed a theory of disruptive change to explain what happens in business when new technology disrupts a stable market (e.g., the personal computer and its impact on mid-size and mainframe computers). The notion that courses delivered over the internet could be built to accommodate individual differences in learning style, and could free teachers from administrative tasks to allow them to tutor one on one, is intriguing.
A lot of timely, thought-provoking info about cutting edge educational practices. Extremely worth reading,by educators and parents alike.
In their discussions about education research on what makes a school perform well they ignore the seminal work of Chubb & Moe in their important book, "Politics, Markets & America's Schools (1990)," which specifically addressed that question.Judging by what they include and what they omit, one gets the impression of a leftward political slant. Christensen's models of Disruptive Innovation seem particularly relevant to the development of new education enterprises and systems.But then they go beyond this expertise to make sweeping statements about the conduct of research in education, the lack of success of charter schools, and theories of multiple intelligence.Their presentation on categories and stages of research is something I never heard of in my 20 years of research as a physicist and for good reason: They don't seem relevant to real research issues. Lastly, Moe & Chubb recently collaborated (again) on a book about the major role online instruction will play in the future, "Liberating Learning." Their book also refers to this book by Christensen et al but they only cite it for its specific discussions about Disruptive Innovation and thus not inconsistent with my comments in this review that only a portion of the book has significant merit. Clayton Christensen et al bring their strengths as experts in business evolution to the field of education reform- particularly at the K-12 levels. Their analysis of how online education will gain market share to approximately one-half within the next ten years is quite convincing. Very little mention is made of the harm done by teachers' unions, school administrators, education professors, and politicians in protecting their respective turfs against reform.Nothing is said about vouchers and other forms of competition.
|
