Disrupting Class Powerpoint

3,616 views
3,402 views

Published on

Some slides to summarize part of Disrupting Class book along with additional slides from Innosight Institute ongoing research.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,616
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
125
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
113
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Disrupting Class Powerpoint

  1. 1. Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns Michael B. Horn May 14, 2009 mhorn@innosightinstitute.org 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 1
  2. 2. Sustaining and Disruptive Innovations Incumbents nearly always win Performance Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 2
  3. 3. Disruptive Innovations create asymmetric competition Incumbents nearly always win Performance 60% on $500,000 45% on $250,000 Of Performance Different measure Time 40% 20% on $2,000 Entrants nearly always win Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 3
  4. 4. Disruption in business models has been the dominant historical mechanism for making things more affordable and accessible Yesterday Today Tomorrow: • Ford • Toyota • Chery • Dept. Stores • Wal-Mart • Internet retail • Digital Eqpt. • Dell • RIM Blackberry • Delta • Southwest Airlines • Air taxis • JP Morgan • Fidelity • ETFs • Xerox • Canon • Zink • IBM • Microsoft • Linux • Cullinet • Oracle • Salesforce.com • AT&T • Cingular • Skype • State universities • Community colleges • Online universities • Sony DiskMan • Apple iPod • Cell Phones 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 4
  5. 5. Expensive failure results when disruption is framed in technological rather than business model terms Tabletop Radios, Floor-standing Performance TVs Path taken by Of Performance Different measure vacuum tube manufacturers Time Portable TVs Pocket radios Hearing aids Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 5
  6. 6. The right product architecture depends upon the basis of competition IBM Mainframes, Microsoft Windows Performance Compete by improving functionality & reliability Compete by improving speed, responsiveness and customization Dell PCs, Linux Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 6
  7. 7. Insights from examining education through the lenses of this research 1. Conflicting mandates in the way we teach vs. the way we learn 2. Computers have failed to make a difference because we have crammed them into conventional classrooms • They must initially be deployed against non-consumption 3. Individualized, computer-based instruction requires a disruptive distribution model 4. Separation is critical. Chartered schools should be seen as heavyweight teams, not disruptive competitors 5. We have imposed disruption on our schools three times in recent history by moving the goalposts – the metrics of improvement. 6. 5/22/2009 Education research has notM. Christensen the way forward 7 Copyright Clayton shown
  8. 8. We all learn differently • Multiple intelligences • Talents – Linguistic, Mathematical, Kinesthetic – “Giftedness” is fluid • Motivations/interests • Aptitudes • Learning Styles • Different paces – Visual, aural, playful, deliberate – Fast, medium, slow • Depends on subject/domain • Ongoing cognitive • Research in practice science research – Scientific Learning – fMRI scans – Universal Design for Learning/CAST – K12, Inc. 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 8
  9. 9. Conflicting mandates in the way we must teach vs. The way students must learn Interdependencies in the Need for customization for teaching infrastructure differences in how we learn Multiple Intelligences Paces of Learning Standardization !! Customization !! Learning Styles Temporal Lateral Physical Hierarchical 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 9
  10. 10. Historically, most schools have “crammed” computer-based learning into the blue space Core Performance curriculum Path taken by Of Performance Different measure most schools, foundations and education software companies Time Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 10
  11. 11. Prime examples of non-consumption • Credit recovery • Tutoring • Drop-outs • Professional development • Advanced Placement and • Pre-K other advanced courses • After school • Scheduling conflicts • In the home • Home-schooled and • Incarcerated youth homebound students • In-school suspension • Small, rural, and urban • School bus commute schools Looming budget cuts and teacher shortages are an opportunity, not a threat 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 11
  12. 12. School boards have been moving “up-market” to focus limited resources in the “new” trajectory of improvement of program Importance Time Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 12
  13. 13. Perfect opportunity to implement online learning disruptively of program Political importance Time Time 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 13
  14. 14. The substitution of one thing for another always follows an S-curve pattern % new % old % 10.0 new 1.0 0.1 .01 .001 .0001 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 14
  15. 15. Online learning gaining adoption Online Enrollments (9-12 Grade) O n l i n e / O v era l l E n ro l l m e n t s ( 9 -1 2 G ra d e ) 10 1 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Enrollments up from 45,000 in 2000 to 1,000,000 in 2007 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 15
  16. 16. What are states doing? • 44 states have some form of online learning initiative • 25+ states have supplemental state-led programs – FLVS, Idaho Digital Learning Academy, MVU – 4 of these have 10K+ enrollments – Over a quarter grew by over 50% 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 16
  17. 17. What else can states do? Policy implications • Autonomous • Self-sustaining funding • Not beholden by the old metrics • Seat time  Mastery • Student: teacher ratio • Teacher certification • Human resources pipeline and professional development • Treatment and use of data • Portal/Based on usage and what works 5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 17

×