A World of Islands: Disrupting Class and the individualist vision

Clayton Christensen made his name by developing the theory of disruptive innovation.  That theory plots out how seemingly successful companies can be taken down--in fact, are almost always taken down--by new technologies that radically change the technological environment.  Why can't companies handle "disruptive innovations"?

When I first read about Christensen's ideas, their relevance to education was immediately obvious to me.  It was obvious to them, too, because in 2008, Christensen and two collaborators published Disrupting Class, in which they applied the theory of disruptive innovation to public schools in the United States.  I've finally gotten around to reading that book.

The theory of disruptive innovation remains, I think, a powerful framework for understanding how economic sectors, including education, can be transformed by new technologies.  It's true that Christensen and his colleagues seem to be walking back some of their boldest predictions.  In Disrupting Class, they predict half of high school classes will be online by 2019, with that number rising to 80 percent by 2024.  More recently, however, in their recent report, "Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive?" Christensen and his collaborators suggest that technology will be strongly disruptive only at the middle and high school levels, and even then, only in the very long term.  Despite those caveats, however, they remain committed to their core analysis, and I think they may be right.  And I have to say I'm not completely pleased about that.

A new vision for assessment

It's not that the vision they paint in Disrupting Class is so dystopian.  For example, I quite like their vision for assessment.  The foresee that technology will enable us to do away with our model of "fixed time, variable learning."  Under our current system, due to the rigidity that comes from the non-customizable nature of education today, all students study a topic for the same amount of time, then take the same assessment.  For example, my students might all spend four weeks studying the American Revolution.  At the end of that time, and only then, they'll all be assessed.  It doesn't matter if some students were able to master the material in three weeks.  It doesn't matter if some students still haven't mastered the material.  Everyone takes the test at the same time, even if their levels of learning are different.  Thus, "fixed time, variable learning."

The authors of Disrupting Class think technology will enable a system of "variable time, fixed learning."  Students will have customizable learning programs.  If a student masters a topic, she can test out of it, and move on to the next topic without having to wait for other students to catch up.  It's rather like the skills tree I wrote about in an earlier post.  Strong students don't have to get bored waiting for weaker students to get caught up. Weaker students don't have to get frustrated when class pushes ahead, even if they're not ready.

It's an appealing vision, as I note in my piece about teaching skills.  And technology may indeed make it possible.  To some extent it already has--Duolingo is pretty much what they have in mind, at least at a basic level.

Anti-intellectualism?

Still, there was something disturbing about the underlying tone of the book.  It came out in a variety of ways.  There is, for example, a note of anti-elitism, even anti-intellectualism, in the book.  One might think that the opinions of experts in a field--say, history or English or business--deserve some respect.  The authors, however, often paint experts as a sort of conspiratorial cabal, doing their best to hold back progress.  They write that textbooks are bad because they are chosen by "the most highly regarded experts...in the subject matter" (you'd think this would be a good thing) and because they "are best at teaching the material to the dominant intelligence of each field."  "Dominant intelligence of each field" is one way to put it; "disciplinary thinking" is another way.  And while it is certainly possible to overdo disciplinary thinking (to what extent does it matter if my students can "think like historians" so long as they can make meaning on their own terms?), there is still a disturbing notion of "everyone has their own truth" underlying their argument.

Digital serfs

That extreme subjectivity--for that's what I think is ultimately at the base of that anti-elitism--comes out in other ways, as well.   For example, they see the future of customizable education in "user networks"--facilitated networks in which users will generate the content and make it available for others to pick and chose what works best of them.  To me, this vision has major flaws.  First, there is the question of quality.  If Duolingo is an example of "variable time" learning, then the language website Livemocha seems to be a model for "user networks."  While the basic framework is put up by the site, much of the content comes from users--users comment on lessons, and provide each other feedback.  For a free site, it's not bad.  But it's hardly of the same quality as a French class.  Indeed, I found it less helpful than Duolingo.  So one problem with the "user networks" idea is the quality of the material that will be put up on these networks.  But of course, if you discount expert knowledge, you are sure to think that "the people" can put up information that is just as valuable as a so-called "expert."

Now, it's certainly true that knowledge is not limited to experts, just as it's true that I did in fact learn some French on Livemocha.  There's actually a more serious problem behind this "user networks" idea--who is going to pay for all this?  The authors themselves note that in user networks "participation in the network typically isn't the primary profit engine for participants."  In other words, all those people putting materials up on the web aren't making any money off of it.  But then how do they make money to actually live?  Is Facebook the future of education--"the people"--create the content for free, while the owners of the network make the profit?  Are we all to be "digital serfs"?

Just this week I was working with colleagues on putting together a website for our school to guide our students in research.  Using our own research cycle as the framework, we were able to comb the web and come up with a variety of excellent materials about how to do research (for example, I highly recommend the University of Toronto site).  But almost invariably, these sites were put up by schools and by the people employed there.  In other words, the materials could be free only because the creators of the material were being paid for their work in traditional education.  If we disrupt traditional education out of existence, how will they eat?  And if they can't eat, how will they be able to write all that great free material?

Learning together/Learning apart

I was also troubled by how their implicit praise of subjectivity and individualism plays out in their vision for fully-disrupted education: each learner has his own personalized learning plan, assembled from various components pulled off these user networks.  It seems to be a world in which students learns on their own, at their own computers.  True, they are still together in the same room, and they still can help each other and interact.  But it seems like much of the social aspect of learning is gone.

Society as a frictionless machine

Most troubling, however, was their vision for education as a business, or perhaps as a machine.  In the business model, the boss gives orders and the underlings follow orders.  In the machine, all the parts work smoothly together to produce output.  In either case, should work smoothly and run without friction.

From this point of view, the fundamental problem with the current system is that people and groups keep getting in my way.  Experts tell me what to think.  Unions block the reforms I think we need.  Other students slow me down and keep me from learning.  If only we could eliminate that troublesome friction that comes from interacting with other people!

That, presumably, is why the authors suggest that democracy is incompatible with real reform.  That, presumably, is why their ultimate solution to education reform is what they call "separation."  Interest groups getting in your way?  Teachers unions a problem?  Parent groups being troublesome?  Just leave them all behind and set up your own school where you can do what you want.  Because in the end, nothing should get in the way of me expressing my individuality.

There is a paradox behind their book: they want to create unity around individuality.  They want us all to agree--and all of us to be different.  We are unified in that we don't get in each other's way, and we are therefore "free" to express our own individuality with no interference from others.  In Zamyatin's dystopic novel We, people live in glass apartments so the entirety of their lives is open to public view.  All is collective, nothing is individual.  Disrupting Class seems to push in the opposite direction: learning is all individual, nothing is collective. They don't push it as far as Zamyatin's novel does--that's why there is much to like in what they write--but that tone of unrestrained individualism creeps in sometimes.

But people are people, and society is not a machine.  Friction is an inevitable part of living with others, and any approach to education, and educational reform, must take into account the messy but also wonderful world of human sociability.

What do I want to do with iPads? Tech Institute reflections

Thinking aloud about using iPads in the classroom:

My goal

I am most interested in using the iPads for student creation, as a means towards formative assessment.

Promising apps

In day 1 of our school's Tech Institute, I looked into a number of apps towards that end.  The following apps stood out:

1. Socrative.  Looks like a good vehicle for formative assessment--it's not really content creation, but it is a good form in-class formative assessment.

2. Here are some of the content creation apps I'm looking forward to exploring more: Explain Everything, Haiku Deck, Pic Collage, Voice Thread, iMovie, Book Creator.

And one concern

Lots of great tools available, that make it easy for students to quickly do short assessments.  But how to manage the increased workload?

How to teach skills

I want to teach skills in a way that will work.  Here are my two inspirations:

1. Duolingo.  As I've written before, I'm using Duolingo to learn French.  One can't rely on it alone, but it's pretty effective for basics, and I'm particularly taken with what they call the "Skills Tree."  The skills tree is an orderly sequences of skills/lessons which you follow through the course.  At certain points, you have limited choice on what to study.  At other points, there are certain skills you need to master before you go on to the next skills.  It is also possible to "test out" of certain parts of the skills tree.  At the same time, skills "weaken" over time, so it is necessary to constantly go back and refresh what you've learned

Here, for example, is my skills tree:

What do I like about this approach?  First, there is some student choice.  Second, it guarantees that you don't move on until you've mastered a skill.  That means that, at any point, the teacher can have a good handle on what a student can or can't do.

2. Jump math.  If the skills tree provides the frame, then Jump math tells how to fill the frame.  The New York Times has an interesting write-up about it.  The key idea I pulled out is the need to break down skills into "micro-skills."  Any given task is made up of many sub-tasks.  An expert doesn't even think about those sub-tasks anymore, but to a learner, those have to be made explicit.

So how would these be combined in practice?

For each general set of skills (reading, writing, research, etc.) teachers would create a skills tree.  The skills tree would create a sequence of skills that one would have to work through in order to be considered proficient.  Some of these might be sequential--e.g., you would need to master writing a thesis before you move on to writing topic sentences.  Some of these could be pursued simultaneously--e.g. work on sequence of sources at the same time as working on taking notes.  There would be some scope for student choice, but sequenced in such a way as to ensure that students were ready to learn at each step of the way.

Students would be assessed at each discrete skill, earning badges along the way.  If grades are necessary, the badges can be tied to a rubric, and the rubric tied to grades.  Badges would be carried from grade to grade, so teachers would have a good idea of what their students were proficient at, and what they needed work on.

To me, this approach has lots of advantages.  Teachers can use it to coordinate skills teaching across grades and across divisions; it would help them to figure out what to teach when.  They could use it to guide instruction: by breaking skills down into smaller, more discreet skills, teachers could more effectively target their instruction, and know what and how to assess more precisely.  They could use it to more effectively differentiate: they could know pretty exactly what skills particular students know and what they don't.  And they could use it to make large assignments less intimidating, more instructive, and more satisfying for students, especially weaker students: if a student got a C on the paper, he or she might still be able to say, "Yes, I got a low grade, but I mastered these three skills."

How to set up a Moodle review quiz

I've written already about my use of Moodle quizzes this semester, and how they seem to at least help students perform better on multiple choice assessments.  More evidence came in with our just completed final exams: students had the highest average ever, by far, on the multiple choice section of the exam.  And the additional good news is that, though I don't have hard data, the essays also seemed particularly strong--decent analysis, with a strong focus on specific evidence.  Presumably as a result of all this, my students did well on their final exams this year.  In the past, students have always done poorly on the second semester exams.  All three classes performed better on the second semester exam than they did on the mid-year exam (which is not the usual trend).

One thing I did for my students to help them prepare was to set up a review quiz on Moodle--students could practice on a selection of ten random question pulled from all the questions of the semester.  It's a nice tool, but it does take some planning.

First of all, you have set up your question categories correctly.  I created a nested hierarchy of questions.  Each set of questions about the daily readings got its own category.  All daily reading categories were subsumed under a unit category (for example, "Iranian Revolution").  Finally, all unit categories were put together under a "second semeseter" category.  Here, for example, is how my categories look:

Once you get your categories set up like that, it's easy to set up the review quiz.  Create a quiz, then when your editing the quiz, choose the "insert random question" option.  Just choose the category "Second semester."

Do this 10 times, and voilà, you have a 10-question review quiz.

My students used it heavily, so I assume they found it useful.  And, based on the data, it seems to have helped.

iPad pilot, week one

I'm just starting my school's iPad pilot.  The school has given me an iPad mini, to see how I can use it.  Since we're a 1:1 school, I wasn't at first interested in trying out yet another device.  The more I thought about it, the more interested I was in seeing what I could do with it.  I'm particularly interested in seeing what I can do once students get a chance to use the new iPad cart, especially in the area of content creation and assessment.

For now, though, it's just me, and since it's the very end of the year, I haven't had much of a chance to use it.  Nonetheless,  I thought I'd use this blog as way to keep track of and reflect on what I've been doing.  So here goes:

1. Typing: I thought the keyboard on the iPad mini would be annoyingly small.  In fact, while it is on the small side, I find that it is possible to almost touch type on it, when the iPad is in landscape mode.  That gives me some hope for content creation.

2. Apple TV: The school put Apple TV boxes on all our projectors earlier this year.  This week I got to use them plus the iPad to project wirelessly.  It was pretty cool, and extremely useful, to be able to project wirelessly.  I could project the Google spreadsheet students were working on, while also walking around the room and consulting with students with iPad in hand.

3. Portability: The brings me to one of the best point: portability.  While I had students working in groups on Google docs, it was extremely convenient to be able to walk around and carry my "computer" with me.  The faculty at my school is getting Mac Airs soon, but even they won't be as portable as an iPad, and the portability is very nice.

3. Google drive: I used the Google drive app to set up a spreadsheet (part of my students' exam review), but found it to be a little clunkier than Google drive on the laptop.  And I wasn't able to successfully share a document with students; I eventually had to use my computer.  So clearly I need to work on that.

4. Notetaking.  I'm reading the book Cultures of Learning (about the cultures of learning Asian vs. Western--I hope to write up a review here soon).  I decided to use the app Notability to take notes--hand-written notes, as if it were a pad of paper.  The iPad mini is on the small side for that, but it works fine.  Here's what they look like:

The handwriting is a little bit messy--messier even than my usual--but still very readable.  One cool thing is that I was able to insert a picture of a page of the book into the note, and then use tools to highlight it.  So that was pretty nice.  I can also save notes to Evernote, where I'm hoping that their text-recognition software might make even my hand-written notes searchable.

So that's a first take.  As we head into summer, I'll probably have less to say about the iPad, but expect more in the fall.

Some Thoughts on Writing vs Typing

Inspired by a conversation with a colleague last week, I've been thinking about writing vs typing--their effects on learning, on thinking, and on the brain.

This year I've been having my students start class with a prompt on Edmodo.  As an experiment, for the past couple of classes I have had my students hand write their answer to the prompt instead.  I took the opportunity to ask them which they preferred, typing or writing.  Somewhat to my surprise, responses were mixed.  Some students preferred typing, as it enabled them to get ideas down more quickly, and to write more.  Other students preferred writing, because they said that they had to think more carefully about what they write.  Since they write more slowly then they type (and than they think), they had to choose their words, and process more.

This accords pretty well with what I found on-line.  There is surprisingly little research about the effects of typing vs. writing in education, and most of that deals with early literacy, for example, at the elementary school level.  There do seem to be some studies (such as this one) suggesting that handwriting letters helps with letter recognition and therefore reading (and interestingly, some students said they definitely preferred writing in their foreign language classes, since it helped to form the foreign words and letters by hand).

There is much less about the effects of writing vs. typing once you get to more advanced readers, such as the high school students I teach.  The evidence is mixed.  I've seen one study which found that students learned better if they type notes, and other studies which suggest they learn better if they hand write their notes (for example this, and the paper called "The Pen is Mightier than the Keyboard--abstract buried in this document) .  Much of what I found sort of confirms what my students were saying: that they can write more if they type, but have to think more if they write by hand.  This infographic makes the point, for example.

I think it comes down to what the goal is.  Interestingly, I wonder if the ability to get lots of information down easily and quickly by typing is actually a downside to typing.  In taking notes, my students typically make the mistake of transcribing and/or trying to get everything down.  But notes are, in my opinion, a processing tool.  You don't take down everything precisely because that makes you think about what you are reading or hearing.  So I wonder if hand writing, by forcing students to not write everything, is thereby forcing them into the sort of processing that the slower form of writing by hand makes necessary.  If our goal is to get students to think, and writing by hand forces them to slow down and think, perhaps writing is better then typing for certain activities?

Nonetheless, I'm still not clear about what I would advise my students.  What would you say?  Writing or typing, and for what?

Photo credit: Brendan DeBrincat, Flickr

Why you should get more sleep, in two graphs

Because not getting sleep is as bad for your performance as getting drunk:

Image source: Harvard Business Review

The actual study cited in the image is here.