Disrupting Class - Reflection on how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns

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?  



   - We have an interdependent architecture in our schools today. The curriculum is rather similar no matter where you are or who you are teaching because there is mandated standardization, and trying to change one part of the school system causes a change from another part and so on. On the other hand, "[m]odularity allows for customization" (Christenson, 2011, pg. 23). Modularity will allow us to teach students differently because we know they learn differently. In addition, students need to build knowledge off experiences. Different students have different experiences, and thus our teaching toward them should be different as well.


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

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


   - Chapter 2 describes two types of innovations that are visible in any industry. The first, there are the type of innovations that improve and sustain an existing industry. In Disrupting Class, the authors write about how "[a]irplanes that fly farther, computers that process faster, cellular phone batteries that last longer, and televisions with clearer images are all sustaining innovations. On the other hand, disruptive innovation is the phenomenon of products entering a market that are not labeled as "breakthrough improvements," like the improvement of high definition TVs. A disruptive innovation benefits people who had been unable to consume the oft-expensive product that the sustaining industry offers. In the text, the authors explain how the personal computer is a great example of a disruptive innovation. Successful disruption changes the market; everyone (almost everyone) has a personal computer, and I have never even heard of minicomputers.
   What does this have to do with schools? Well, the the problem with the public education system is that it is basically a monopoly. In addition, everyone uses it (kids/adolescents basically have a requirement to be educated). This means that it is basically impossible for the new business models that disruptive innovation theory creates to be allowed to develop on their own and mature naturally. 
   Our schools need to improve by embracing disruptive theories within existing schools, a task not yet done successfully in a private industry (yet there is hope, as schools have proven to be able to assimilate to disruptive redefinitions of performance in past).


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?)


   - We have implemented computers in school by "cramming" them into the existing teaching and classroom models that were in place before they arrived. We have yet to let them disrupt the old methods to improve and transform the way we teach and learn, with the idea to become a more modularly framed school system. 
   We have been trying to implement computers into a classroom in such a way that would be analogous to selling tickets to people expecting to see Rachmaninoff play his second piano concerto, but instead having Rachmaninoff push the play button on a phonograph recording of himself. It would seem ridiculous. The phonograph did not get popular by replacing live music, but by providing music to those whom could not be at a concert when they wished to hear music. Disruptive innovations originate and mature by competing first with nonconsumption. For example, the personal computer originated by providing a computer to those whom did not want to put a gigantic and expensive minicomputer in their garage. 


Chapter 4: Disruptively Deploying Computers

4. Explain the pattern of disruption. 


   - The pattern of disruption, where new substitutes for the old, almost always follows an S-curve when measuring the percentage of the market using the new approach over time. "[T]he initial substitution pace is slow; then it steepens dramatically; and finally, it asymptotically approaches 100% of the market" (Christenson, 2011, pg. 97). 



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


   - The trap of monolithic instruction is that teachers in this model teach in a way that benefits very few types of learning intelligences. With limited time to instruct, the teacher can't possibly cater to all learning styles for each bit of content students are to learn. "As the monolithic system of instruction shifts to a learning environment powered by student-centered technology, teachers' roles will gradually shift over time." With student-centered technologies, teachers will be able to "coach" students to fit their unique style. 


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?


   - Public Education's system operates like a value-adding process (VAP) business. A VAP business "brings input materials into one end of their premises, transform them by adding value, and deliver higher-value products...at the other end" (Christenson, 2011, pg. 126). Using this definition, students in a school are the input materials, and they are the educated material output the other end. 
   The public education's current commercial system hinders student-centric learning. Textbooks are predominantly geared toward the dominant learning style of the authors whom create them, which are geared toward the style of the standardized assessment given at the end of the term that checks for understanding. The current business model could be more student-centric; but, if publishers were to create "different books for each type of intelligence, their volume per title-and their profitability-would decline markedly" (pg. 129). The text goes on to say that a new facilitated network, rather than a VAP business, needs to emerge to provide student-centric products for students in our public school system.


Note: I found the question about value-chain business to be synonymous with VAP business. If you feel I am incorrect here, please comment.