- ISBN13: 9780071592062
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Selected as one of the “Best Books on Innovation, 2008″ by BusinessWeek magazine Named the “Best Human-Capital Book of 2008″ by Strategy + Business magazine A crash course in the business of learning-from the bestselling author of The Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovator’s Solution… “Provocatively titled, Disrupting Class is just what America’s K-12 education system needs–a well thought-through proposal for using technology to better serve students and bring our schools into the 21st Century. Unlike so many education ‘reforms,’ this is not small-bore stuff. For that reason alone, it’s likely to be resisted by defenders of the status quo, even though it’s necess… More >>
Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns
I thought this book was an academic waste of time. Like sure when we use computers things are going to be disrutive, like in other industries. This book provides little in the way of what is being done well now, and the sub disruction. They use abstract examples from other industries where they sould be focused on education.
Rating: 1 / 5
In a nutshell, here is the ‘Innovators Solution’ for education: since all people have different learning styles, we need to change the education model to ’student-centric learning’, which here means individualized computer-based learning. This is the core of the argument, which he fleshes out with his favorite case studies of Intel, Toyota, Dell, Apple, etc.
What they don’t do is play this scenario out to its logical conclusion. If students go through 12 years of school learning alone, how do they come together to live and work in a society? He mentions in passing skills employers want out of high school graduates, but ignores a key one: ability to work together in teams. Individual learning may be helpful in certain subjects at certain levels, but there is another body of research about learning from peers, in class discussions and projects, that he is missing here.
Some of the examples and backing are just naive. There are examples of this style of education in other countries that support his claim, but none are offered here. There is plenty of opportunity for disruption in education, of which this idea is potentially one, but this book is a disappointment.
Rating: 3 / 5
Clayton Christensen previously has provided excellent insights on disruptive technologies within the business world. Unfortunately, he does not succeed with “Disrupting Class.”
Christensen begins noting that typical “solutions” do not up to scrutiny. Inflation-adjusted per-pupil expenditures have be doubled, with little result; further, Kentucky state accountability index performance between two districts varies inversely with expenditures – despite the lower-spending district also being more disadvantaged in pupil characteristics. (Christensen, however, offers no explanation of that the state accountability index is comprised. Other sources indicate it is vulnerable to distortion through low standards.) He also points out that U.S. education spending is about twice that of other developed nations.
Others contend that new technology is key to improving pupil performance. Christensen, however, notes that computer availability has roughly doubled, again, with little impact.
Perhaps pupil motivation is the key. Christensen “refutes” this explanation by reporting area scores in Montgomery County, Md. that meet or exceed minimums now match those of white pupils in non-poverty areas. (Christensen, however, fails to recognize that this is meaningless if the “minimum” standards are low.)
Christensen then notes that the proportion of pupils taking science and engineering courses falls as a nation’s prosperity increases – somehow failing to recognize that this supports a pupil motivation is key hypothesis. He also is oblivious to the decades-old trend for Asian and Jewish pupils to substantially outperform their peers.
Later on in “Disrupting Class,” Christensen reports favorable NAEP trends at the lower age levels as indicative of successes, failing to also notice that the 17-year-old scores have remained unchanged for decades – therefore, undermining his conclusion.
The essence of “Disrupting Class” is that computers can make learning more effective and attractive by individualizing instruction. Unfortunately, this is directly contrary to his early observation that high-scoring nations primarily use rote instruction, while the lower-scoring U.S. uses pupil-centered, more individualized instruction.
Bottom-Line: A well-intentioned, but seriously flawed book.
Rating: 1 / 5
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
Rating: 3 / 5
Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson are not convinced that U.S. 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. 1-5; 64; 71-72). Messrs. 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. Most teaching looks like a value chain that processes students like standard, undifferentiated goods over a 12-year period (pp. 35; 107; 126-132). Schools teach and test students uniformly (pp. 29; 33; 107-108; 225).
However, students are not part of a homogenous, monolithic population. They learn differently. Students usually excel in only two or three of the eight types of intelligence that Howard Gardner has identified. Furthermore, students have different learning styles within each of these types of intelligence. Finally, students learn at differences paces (pp. 26; 28). 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. 35). Teachers, especially in middle and high schools, do not have the time and/or the tools to deal with multiple intelligences (pp. 37; 65; 111). Messrs. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson note that cramming computers in U.S. schools has failed to move the needle significantly. 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. 81-82). In addition, Messrs. 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. 34).
To remediate this situation, Messrs. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson plead for the introduction of a modular, customized learning model in U.S. schools that would first complement the existing teacher-based, “batch” system (p. 143). 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. 38-39; 91-92; 132-136). This disruptive method would compete with what the authors call non-consumption, i.e., where the alternative is nothing (pp. 47; 74; 79; 86; 92-96). U.S. schools do not have the ability to meet all students’ learning needs. Messrs. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson forecast that by 2019 about 50% of high school courses will be delivered online based on current trends (pp. 98-99; 102). 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. 100-101; 107). The authors recommend that these courses be delivered both via digital instruction and online. This dual approach would allow schools to reap economic, instructional, and customizable benefits. Furthermore, the providers of this instruction would be able to collect data to further improve their offering (p. 115).
Messrs. 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. 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. 61; 102; 141-142; 225-226). Over time, administrators, school committees, and teacher unions will have to acknowledge that student-centric learning has become mainstream (p. 143). The opportunity to revolutionize education lies mostly outside of the K-12 school system (p. 148).
Starting these reforms even before kindergarten is critical. 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. Todd Risley and Betty Hart call this practice “language dancing” (pp. 150-151). Messrs. 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. 153).
In chapters 7, 8, and 9, 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. schools (pp. 159-207).
To implement these changes successfully, the authors note that administrators and school leaders will have to use the tools of power and separation. Using these tools in the chartered and private school sectors will be easier than in the more traditional schools (pp. 209-219; 226).
In summary, Messrs. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson mostly succeed in their endeavor to challenge the status quo. No less than the future competitiveness of the U.S. is at stake. The 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. 6).
Rating: 4 / 5