Discussion of Chapters 2 & 3 of:
Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Media
and
Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns
Kathleen Lund
Ashford University
EDU 697
Prof. K. Throne
August 30, 2010
Critical Thinking Questions – Week 2
From the disruptive innovation of computer-aided learning to the connecting activities in the groundswell, the future of education lies with the technology tools of the Internet. The critical thinking questions for this week cover topics relating to the:Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Media
and
Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns
Kathleen Lund
Ashford University
EDU 697
Prof. K. Throne
August 30, 2010
Critical Thinking Questions – Week 2
• Shifting of schools to meet the needs of society
• Mistake of cramming computers into classrooms
• Component technologies of the groundswell, and the
• Social Technographics Profile
Disrupting Class: Chapters 2 and 3
Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson, in their 2008 book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will change the Way the World Learns, explain in Chapters 2 and 3 the ways in which schools have historically shifted to meet societies needs and explain why cramming computers into classrooms does not accomplish this.Chapter 2: Making the Shift
Society needs a base of workers educated enough to fill the jobs that keep the society operating. Society also needs to be able to fill the basic needs of its people for food, shelter, and medical care. Finally, society needs to be able to perpetuate itself politically and financially. To fill these needs, a society must train and educate its people. According to Christensen, et al, (2008), this country has given public education four jobs. Those jobs are to:
• Preserve the democracy and inculcate democratic values,
• Provide something for every student,
• Keep America Competitive, and
• Eliminate Poverty (Christensen, et al, 2008, pp. 52-64).
After 1930, schools shifted from being college-preparatory to offering comprehensive education (Christensen, et al, 2008, pp. 54-55). In the 1950’s, schools became avenues for desegregation and equal opportunity for females, the poor, immigrants, and the disabled (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 55). In the 1970’s, after the surprise of Sputnik (1957) and the rise in competition from Japanese companies, Americans began comparing themselves to other countries based on students’ scores on standardized achievement tests (Christensen, et al, 2008, pp. 57-58).
Now, the shift is that the measure of a school’s performance is the percentage of students who are proficient in the core subjects (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 62). The idea, according to Christensen, et al, (2008) is that, “No longer can public schools simply raise the average test scores in their schools; instead, public schools must see to it that every child in every demographic improves his or her test scores” (p. 62). Our educational system has risen to the challenges placed before it in each decade.
The disruptive innovation theory described by Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) explains the effects of sustaining and disruptive innovations upon the performance of a service or product over time (p. 46). Performance improves because of sustaining innovations that help whatever it is be done or made better, faster, or cheaper. As Christensen, et al (2008) say, “…disruptive innovation is not a breakthrough improvement (p. 47). A disruptive innovation comes into play by offering the product or service to those who could not afford it originally at a lower price and in a form that is easier to use than the original item (Christensen, 2008, p. 47). An example of a disruptive innovation would be the online communication tool Skype. Skype offers free chatting and teleconferencing for online calls all over the world. The on-ground local and long-distance services Skype offers are among the cheapest available. Skype did not start out attempting to compete with regular telephone companies but by offering online computer-to-computer calls. The early service was prone to dropped calls and poor audio. So, Skype was offering a cheaper, service of lesser quality to an area of nonconsumption – a disruptive innovation.
The point Christensen, et al, (2008) are making when they use the metaphor of rebuilding an airplane mid-flight is that schools have been asked to, in their words, “pursue the new metric of improvement from within the existing organization, which was designed to improve along the old performance metric” (p. 51). Each time our schools have met the challenge, they have been asked for something more. The new measures of performance both for students and for schools are forcing schools to rethink themselves
The 1958 Life magazine cover story proclaiming a “Crisis in Education” blamed the Soviets beating Americans into space on the (unproven) superiority of their schools. Proven or not, our schools rose to the challenge and provided more emphasis on math and science (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 56). Is there a crisis today? There is probably not one in terms of the challenges of the past. The crisis today is one of changing our thinking so that we are not trying to do better within the old system but instead bringing in disruptive change that will educate students better in a completely different way.
Chapter 3: Crammed Classroom Computers
There is no point in having three computers in a classroom of 35 students. One computer used by the teacher (perhaps using a projector or SMART Board) or laptops for the teacher and every one of the students would make more sense. Using a small number of computers as just another Center in the classroom is merely using computers to sustain the traditional teaching model (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 82).
Before the advent of virtual computing, I would have said there are definitely subjects, lessons, or concepts that cannot be taught by computer. Having seen the virtual labs in Second Life and knowing about the advances in interactive simulations for everything from medicine to weapons training, I have changed my opinion. I can see that even the most hands-on subjects can be taught primarily by computers with a side component of live practice.
I will describe the experiences of a few companies with disruptive innovation. First, however, there is a point that the authors make that I cannot make more succinctly, “ …unless top managers actively manage this process, their organization will shape every disruptive innovation into a sustaining innovation – one that fits the processes, values, and economic model of the existing business – because organizations cannot naturally disrupt themselves” (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 75). These tenets explain why bringing computers into the classroom has failed in so many instances to bring about any change in content acquisition or test performance. Unless school administrations and the educational system as a whole, adopt disruptive innovations, there will be no improvement. The way to do this is to employ disruption against nonconsumption (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 81).
Below are related ways (described by Christensen, et al, 2008, pp. 74-81) in which companies have done (or could have done) just that:
• Nypro – A global leader in precision-injecting plastics molding, Nypro responded to a shift in customer needs from large numbers of units of one product to needing a wider variety of parts, faster. The new machines were developed and offered to plant managers. Unfortunately, because the individual plant managers were stuck in the traditional business model. The sales force was still attuned to commissions based on large volume sales. The financial organization was also still attuned to keeping overhead low through high volume production of a narrow range of products. With this model still in place, almost all of the plants returned the new machines to the main headquarters once their initial lease was over.
• Merrill Lynch and Charles Schwab – In the late 1990’s, online trading started to disrupt the stock brokerage market by allowing large numbers of people to manage their portfolios without the help of traditional brokers. Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch countered by launching their own online trading. They did it in completely different ways, however. Schwab created a separate business unit for online trading. They were so successful that they eventually eliminated their original broker-based trading. Merrill Lynch, however, stuck with the traditional business model and set up an online trading unit within its core business unit – based, of course, on using brokers. They ended up with a system that helped their best brokers do a better job at what they do for their best (higher-end) clients. They turned the potentially disruptive innovation into merely a sustaining innovation.
• RCA and Sony- The Radio Corporation of America (RCA) saw transistors (the building block of solid state electronics as opposed to space-hogging, power-hungry, fragile vacuum tubes) appearing and licensed the technology. Instead of employing disruptive strategy and aiming it at a market that wasn’t using it (nonconsuming), they spent huge amounts of money trying to fit transistors into their current market. Sony came along and introduced the first battery-powered, pocket transistor radio. The reception and the sound was terrible compared to today’s digitally tuned radios, but the price, the size, and the portability made it a hit with teenagers (Rock and Roll was taking off then, too).
The experiences of these companies demonstrate why disruptive innovations must be employed against nonconsumption. The lesson in this for schools is that computers should be used for supplying needs that are not being filled by the current educational model. Online courses are already blossoming in schools for many purposes: credit recovery, graduation rescue, home-schooling, advanced placement (AP) courses, language courses, and nice-to-have classes (Christensen, et al, 2008, pp. 92-93).
Jaime Escalante, the Los Angeles math teacher who turned around students in a rough inner-city school by preparing the entire class for an AP exam, succeeded because he was an extraordinary teacher who believed in the abilities of his students. His impact on students might not be the same without his one-on-one involvement in their lives and the challenges they had to deal with outside of school. However, his ability to motivate and educate could be an inspiration to many through a podcast.
Computer-based education does not have to replace human interaction. However, much of the content in a course can be delivered digitally, freeing teachers to spend more time helping those who do need individual help. Teachers can become coaches and mentors instead of simply lecturers with no time to help more than a fraction of their students individually (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 39).
Jaime Escalante put enormous time and effort into that classroom of students. I do not know how many other classes he taught at the same time, but I would doubt that he was able to give all of his classes the same amount of time and energy. It is not realistic to imagine than anyone could. I have often heard teachers complaining that there is no time to help all of those who need it. Computer-based education can free teachers to give the help that is needed while allowing other students to forge ahead at their own pace.
Professor Jose Bowen explains (in a YouTube video embedded in a 2009 article by Jeffrey Young) that not every expert in a subject area is also an expert at teaching that subject (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18950891001?bctid=29848463001). He was talking about making podcasts of lectures in higher education for students to watch at their leisure in order to arrive at class ready for discussion or hands-on activities instead of another boring PowerPoint Lecture. A similar strategy could be used in secondary education through computer-based learning.
The Groundswell: Chapters 2 and 3
Chapters 2 and 3 of Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff’s 2008 book, Groundswell, Winning in a Society Transformed by Social Technologies describe the component technologies of the groundswell and the Social Technographics Profile that will allow us to examine how a group is participating in the groundswell. Chapter 2: Technologies
Li and Berhoff (2008) describe six groundswell technologies. This table will show ways in which they may be used to benefit education.
Ways in Which Groundswell Technologies Can Benefit Education
Groundswell Technology Benefit to Education
People creating: blogs, user-generated content, All three may be used in pedagogy and as aand podcasts means to deliver information and listen to
responses.
People connecting: social networks and virtual worlds Social networks are useful for surveys and
communication while virtual worlds/simulations
are used in many types of learning situations.
People collaborating: wikis and open-source Wikis are wonderful tools both in the classroom
and as a means of communication on all levels
from federal government to teacher teams.
Open-source software is bringing curricular
materials to students all over the world and
developing free software for many applications.
People reacting to each other: forums, ratings, Ratings and reviews are useful for constructive
ratings, and reviews. criticism as well as instructional development and
teacher reflection. Discussion forums are
excellent for classroom use, especially for those
students who do not feel comfortable speaking
out in class.
People organizing content: tags Tagging, especially on Delicious (they changed the
name from Del.ico.us last year) is good for
organizing a set of web sites for class work or for
educator uses.
People accelerating consumption: RSS and widgets RSS feeds and widgets (gadgets on Google and
Windows) make it easier to obtain and consume
social networking.
(Information gathered from Li and Bernhoff, 2008, pp. 19-34)
If I were to create a site called RateMyProfessor.com, this is how I would evaluate it using Li and Bernoff’s (2008) groundswell technology test:
Groundswell Technology Test Results for: RateMyProfessor.com
Groundswell Technology Test Questions Rating Answer
Does it enable people to connect with each other in new ways? YesIs it effortless to sign up for? Relatively – yes.
Does it shift power from institutions to people? Yes. The power is in being heard.
Does the community generate enough content The site probably would not generate enough
for it to sustain itself? ongoing interest for a single course. It might
if it continued on a course-by-course basis.
This might also be good for ongoing
performance evaluations by administrators.
Is it an open platform that invites partnerships? It could be. Comments could be allowed,
moderated, and responded to in a public
forum. Action taken as a result of comments
and publicized would help to create
partnerships.
The groundswell represents threats to the institution of education only as far as we support the existing institution. Education must change to continue to meet the needs of society. The groundswell may be perceived as a threat to traditions and ingrained habits of teaching. Open communication between and among students, teachers, parents, and administrators can only serve to create an environment of understanding and trust.
According to Li and Bernoff (2008), the principle of mastering the groundswell is to “concentrate on the relationships, not the technologies” (p. 18). Technology does not weaken or strengthen the principle. Mastery of the groundswell depends upon the extent of adherence to the principle. If emphasis is placed on the technology instead of on the relationships the technology can foster, then the principle is not being followed and the benefits of the groundswell cannot be attained. Technology can help us to focus on relationships to truly listen and respond to those with whom we are trying to connect.
Chapter 3: Social Technographics Profile
In a Google search of “top 100 education blogs,” I found a site listing 100 links for educators (http://www.f3program.org/explorers_guild/meetings/files/nov07/top-100-ed-blogs.pdf). After investigating several, I chose to compare the following sites.
This site: http://www.techlearning.com/section/Blogs is an amazing site for educators interested in staying abreast of technology developments. The video tab on the home page goes to a website full of educator videos with content ranging from speeches by educational gurus to demonstrations of incredible new technology. The site links to several other forums, including one for technology coordinators. There is a tab for blogs but comments are spotlighted and welcomed on most pages as well. This is a site for creators as well as critics.
This site: http://www.funnymonkey.com/blog is by an online open source software company that builds tools and resources for use in education. Blogs concerning educational topics are featured. While comments are invited below each blog, it does not appear that many have been published for recent blogs. This appears to be more for consumption (and criticism) than for creation because the blogs fewer in number than other sites I have seen and are written by members of the open source group instead of the public at large.
MTV’s Social Technographics Profile could be used to form an education campaign in the groundswell by taking advantage of the fact that young men and women are likely to be Joiners (60% participation in social networks) and the fact that this group also overindexes on Creators, Critics, and Collectors (Li & Bernoff, 2008, p.46). What this information translates into is that, to create an education campaign to reach this age group, the best strategy would be to create a social network the young people want to join that includes forums for Creators to upload content (like blogs), welcomes comments (Critics), and showcases items Collectors would find of interest (Li & Bernoff, 2008, pp. 46-47).
I am probably close to the top of Li and Bernoff’s (2008) Social Technographics Ladder. I read blogs; watch video from other users; listen to podcasts; and read forums, ratings, and reviews – the actions of a Spectator. I have and maintain a wiki, blog, and ning and visit those of others–the actions of a Joiner. I use RSS feeds, add tags to Delicious (my social bookmarking tool), and vote for Web sites online – the actions of a Collector. I do most of the actions of a Critic in that I contribute to a wiki, comment on blogs, and review products or services upon occasion. I publish a blog, publish my own Web page, have created and uploaded videos – most of the actions of a Creator. I intend to do even more creating in the future.
My reasons for being involved in groundswell activities match up fairly well with the reasons given by Li and Bernoff (2008) with a few exceptions. I do not look for friendship online or view the endless exhibit of human foibles on YouTube for entertainment. I also have motivations not listen in the text. The thirst for knowledge, for answers, for understanding is a large part of my motivation for utilizing these tools.
Making a Social Technographics Profile for other teachers, administrators, and PTA members would be useful to group these people according to the groundswell activities in which they participate. Taking a survey for this purpose would allow this group of people to be categorized by their status as Creators, Critics, Collectors, Joiners, Spectators, and Inactives. Once I knew these demographics, I could decide which type of social networking tool to use in order to connect with, listen to, and interact with the groundswell at my school.
Closing
Two quotations, one from each of the texts, are a fitting closing to this paper:If school administrators will change course, however, and first implement computer-based learning in places and for courses where there are no teachers to teach, then computer-based learning will, step by step, disrupt the instructional job that teachers are doing in a positive way, by helping students learn in ways that their brains are wired to learn and by allowing teachers to give students much more individual attention (Christensen, et al, 2008, p. 73).
…social networks will connect people with the groups they care about. Transactions will be constantly rated and reviewed. Tags, supplied by ordinary people, will reorganize the way we find things. Feeds will alert us to any changed content, and feed readers will be as much a part of the online experience as e-mail or browsers are now. It’s hard to imagine what this world will be like (Li & Bernoff, 2008, p. 235).
References
Christensen, C., Horn, M., Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell, Winning in a Society Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Young, J. R., (2009, July 20). When Computers Leave the Class, so Does Boredom. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Naked-Effort-Strips/47398/ Embedded video of Dr. Jose Bowen: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18950891001?
No comments:
Post a Comment