Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...
Disrupting Class Powerpoint
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. Sustaining and Disruptive Innovations
Incumbents nearly always win
Performance
Time
5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 2
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Perfect opportunity to implement online learning disruptively
of program
Political importance
Time
Time
5/22/2009 Copyright Clayton M. Christensen 13
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. 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. 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. 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
