Chapter 1

So, ever think you should have stayed in law school? Or engineering? Or anything other than teaching?

How can we provide customized learning for each student?

The answer is to move to a modular architecture in schools. Such a design would be an ideal way of coping with the "considerable certainty that people in fact learn differently" (p. 24). (Discuss the SRA Reading Lab as an example of modular design.)

Christensen expects an answer concerning the differences in learning preference to come from neuroscientists. For most people, synaptic connections are presumed to underpin learning (to be "the underlying causal mechanism" [p. 24]), but the way in which synaptic facilitation at the cellular level aggregates to be interpreted as learning at the organismic level is yet to be explained. (We will talk more about simulation later in the course, but please take some time to play and learn with Children's Hospital Boston interative feature on the neuron.)

Rethinking intelligence and how we learn

What is intelligence? The link provides a wealth of variety from the web. Christensen focuses on the "multiple" aspect as delineated by Howard Gardner:

Intelligence is solving real-life problems, generating more problems, and making something or providing a service.

First level of complexity: A well-aligned teaching approach will accord with your intelligence(s), and will, therefore, be intrinsically motivating. (Any examples like "Zoey" that you have come across?)

Second level of complexity: Most people excel in only two or three intelligences, AND, within each, there are different learning styles: visual learners, those who need to verbalize, act, write, etc., AND, the preferred learning style is not constant across intelligences in the same person.

Third level of complexity: People learn at different paces from slow to fast [within their preferred learning style within their preferred intelligence].

If there is all this complexity, why are schools organized so lock-step?

For survival. As Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon (2009) explain it, in the face of overwhelming complexity, the only way for a teacher to avoid chaos is to develop set patterns that do not require the teacher to be constantly making multiple decisions. (Observe the process of standardization starting in this article. What are your standardized ways of teaching?)

Interfaces

Christensen described the place where the parts of a product or service fit together or interact with each other as an interface. There are two types of interfaces: interdependent and modular.

An interdepenent interface means that, if one thinks of some type of a product with two components where the characteristics of the way they fit together (the interface) cannot be predicted, an organization "must develop both of the components if it hopes to develop either component" (p. 29). The architecture of the interface is proprietary because any other organization making this product will choose its own best-way of making it. Since it has to make both components anyway, one organization isn't interested in what another organization's components are like, or how they fit together.

A modular interface architecture, on the other hand, "specifies the fit and function of all elements so completely that it does not matter who makes the components...as long as they meet the defined specifications" (p. 30).

Christensen uses the example of a light bulb to help explain the concept of a modular interface. As long as they keep the interface the same (the same thread on the same diameter of base) manufacturers can "play" with what goes on top of the base--for example, making it a compact fluorescent bulb or a red incandescent bulb, etc.

As you know if you've travelled, different countries have different light bulb interfaces, but (hopefully) the interface won't change within the country.

Or does it? There are different types of bulbs used for different purposes (Suggest some other examples of modular interfaces--particularly service interfaces.)

Christensen contrasted this with Henry Ford's problem when he was forced to use an interdependent design so the panels of the Model T would fit. Though Christensen doesn't emphasize this, I find it interesting that Ford didn't opt for an interdependent design; the properties of the available material forced it on him. (I want to mention this point here so I can come back to it later in terms of whether there are properties of humans that would necessitate an interpedent design.)

Customizing a product with interdependent architecture (might) require a complete redesign of the entire product or service every time.

Modularity, in contrast, "opens the system to enable competition for performance improvement and cost reduction of each module." (p. 31).

Christensen suggests that, as the underlying technology of a product matures, so does the level of modularity. In the early interdependent days of a product, consumers put with a lack of customization because customization is hideously expensive. However, at the "Dell" stage of computers, components are being made all over the world and "clicked" together. (Why is a Mac so much more expensive than a PC?) (Presumably, the modular stage is better--but why don't you use Linux?)

Applying this to schools

The dominant model in schools is interdependent in four ways:

1. Temporal: You have to study "this" in 7th grade so you can take it in 9th grade.

2. Lateral: Teaching a foreign language differently from English means the sequence of the English curriculum would have to change.

3. Physical: The layout of the building restricts the implementation of project-based learning.

4. Hierarchical: Union-negotiated work rules; centralized curriculum decisions; implications for teacher training.

There are vested interests supporting the interdependencies, even though customization is hideously expensive. Christensen states that "spending increases for special education...now accounts (sic) for over a third of the spending in many districts" (p. 34). (Is an IEP a good example of customization?)

Economic customization

"Teaching to multiple intelligences in a monolithic model (for example, by keeping track of student progress with real-time assessments and computer software) is fraught with problems" (p. 36). Christensen builds toward his end point: "schools need a new system." Along the way he makes some memorable statements. For example, "members of these intellectual cliques are often unaware of the extent to which their shared patterns of thinking exclude those with strengths in other kinds of intelligences" (p. 37). (What is the difference between the "shared patterns of thinking" that Christensen criticizes, and "disiciplinary perspectives" that are shared by the community of scholars in that discipline?)

Potential for customized learning

Teaching is not either monolithic, batch-processing OR customized. There are intermediate stages in moving to a student-centric model which is powered by emerging computer software.

Modularity and customization will reach a tipping point (Gladwell referred to a tipping point as a "social epidemic." How do you interpret this term?) and teachers will become guides on the side. (In this course, I am casting blended learning as one of the intermediate stages between "monolithic" and "customized.")

Introduction

This blog is a discussion forum for the students of ADMS 706 Advanced Supervision of Instruction in the School of Education at Virginia Commonwealth University. We are using

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, McGraw-Hill

as the text for this class. I will use this blog to reflect my way through Christensen et al., in the hope that you, my targeted readers, will be prompted to respond with your own insights.

The first thing that struck me in the introduction was that none of the four "high hopes" for our schools which Christensen lists (please forgive me henceforth for not continually adding the "et al.") directly refers to any subject matter. Of course, "maximizing human potential" is a pretty tall order. But, to borrow an earthy image from some forgotten source, this list is a little like your grandmother's night gown: it covers an awful lot. Is Christensen like those who are in favor of "critical thinking" without adverting to the fact that you have to have something in your head to think critically about?

Why do schools struggle to improve?

Christensen suggests several straw man answers to this question, which he then refutes.

1. Schools are underfunded

• Real spending per student has doubled over the last 30 years with no commensurate gain in achievement. (Verify this statement. )


• Comparing two schools in Kentucky (both with over 50% of students on free/reduced lunch) shows one doing 26% better than the other. (How impressed are you by this example?)

Christensen's Conclusion: It is not that money is irrelevant, but it is not in itself the deciding factor.
While this might be a "common sense" conclusion, demonstrating it is far from simple. A good place to start is with Wenglinsky (1997) who found that "expenditures on instruction and central office administration affect teacher-student ratios, which, in turn affect student achievement. On the other hand, capital outlays, school-level administration and teacher education levels were found not to be associated with student achievement" (Results, para. 6).

2. There aren't enough computers in the classroom

Spending on computers has increased dramatically. By 2003, the average number of computers available to support instruction (136) had doubled the 1995 average. Test scores have barely budged. (Verify this statement. )

Christensen's Conclusion: There must be a better explanation for why schools struggle.

3. The students and parents aren't engaged in education

This explanation resonates with many folk. They see baggy pants, caps on backwards, shovelfuls of bling, and kids hanging out on street corners. In addition, minority and English-language learners have increased from 20% of school students to 35% since the 1970s.

Christensen's Conclusion: Don't blame the kids (parents). The perceived estrangement from the educational process is spurious. Innovative approaches (e.g. Montgomery County, MD) have resulted in positive outcomes. (What are the curriculum implications of increasing diversity?)

4. The U.S. teaching model is broken

Ahhh. Perhaps here we approach the heart of the matter. Christensen contrasts the "lecture only" style with the "some lecture, some other" style. He links the first to "much of Asia," and the second to the U.S. (An interesting comparison, but before you "buy" this link, consider the TIMSS video study material, and the Japanese Lesson Study approach.) (What is the best teaching style?)

Christensen's Conclusion: The broken model explanation isn't sustainable.

5. Teachers unions are the problem

Unions force school districts to adopt practices which do not focus on students' needs.

Christensen's Conclusion: This may be true to a degree, but it is not a sustainable reason. For example, one school district with a strong teachers union is innovative and has students that outperform another school district with no teachers union. Charter schools do no better than public schools. (Do you think there is a link between the poor performance of children in school and teachers unions?)

6. All of the above are linked and thus constrain the system

Christensen's Conclusion: Not a viable explanation. All these issues are also true for other nation's schools.

7. The way we measure schools' performance is fundamentally flawed

True--but any measure is only an approximation of reality. (Discuss the philosohpy underlying this statement.)

Christensen Conclusion: He decides to go beyond just test score validity debates, and uses his own observation of Silicon Valley to launch an hypothesis that the U.S. is "clinging to its (technological) advantage because it has continued to be a magnet for the best talent in the world" (p. 6). But, he warned in the following sentence, "this too has begun to change." (Click here to read the complete The Economist article to which he refers.) (Compare and contrast this this current conversation with A Nation at Risk?)

The causes of educational malaise

Christensen's plan is to deliberately stand outside the "public education industry" (p. 6) and view it through a set of lenses that have been useful in a wide range of contexts. (Uh-oh...I sense a potential credibility gap...is this another set of solutions to educational challenges from the perspective of someone who has never taught for a day of his life?)

The fundamental problem is motivation.


Learning is a rigorous activity, and unless students (and teachers) are motivated, they will not remain focused on it. Extrinsic motivation (which is shown by the graphic to the left) makes students attend to learning even if it is boring and difficult. (What is the evidence relating to this claim?)

Christensen asserts that a prosperous economy inversely correlates with the proportion of students studying math and engineering. (Are you convinced of his assertion?)

Christensen re-asserts his belief that "prosperity can be an enemy to motivation to study topics tha are not taught in intrinsically motivating ways" (p. 9) by declaring that few children of world-class engineers etc. study engineering. (Why would one suppose that the children of engineers should be engineers?)

Prosperity isn't the only factor. There are "complicated cultural and familial influences at work as well" (p. 9). (What did Coleman actually say about the effect of schooling?)

Christensen concludes his introduction by providing helpful thumbnail sketches of the following chapters. His parting thought is "if we embark upon the promising path (outlined) in this book, we can make schooling intrinsically motivating and help our children maximise their individual potential to realize their most daring dreams." (p. 14).