Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Tom Hoffman
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in TIMSS 2007 on Jonesieblog
Yes, I though this would cause some problem for you folks when I saw the scores. Good luck.
Also, tell your traffic feed that I do NOT live in Cranston!
Also, tell your traffic feed that I do NOT live in Cranston!
1 reply
7 months ago
in Disrupting Class on Jonesieblog
I'm pretty familiar with Christiansen's work, but I haven't read this one, and I have a hard time figuring out how it could apply to the parts of education I'm interested in -- specifically urban secondary education.
I can very much see "disruptive innovation" applies to US post-secondary education -- there is a clear opportunity and need for a cheaper, more broadly accessible "worse is better" solution than our expensive four year colleges with fancy dorms, gyms, activities, etc.
OTOH, the interesting/difficult parts of primary and secondary education already have to do with serving the least desirable parts of the market (a hallmark of disruptive education) and doing it cheaply (ditto). These things are already (in the US at least) already as much "worse" as they are going to get, if you know what I mean. The overwhelming design constraint is already about doing it cheaply, and just about any innovation you can think of is more expensive.
Anyhow, I don't feel like reading this book myself, because I imagine he's just talking about other parts of education. Am I right?
I can very much see "disruptive innovation" applies to US post-secondary education -- there is a clear opportunity and need for a cheaper, more broadly accessible "worse is better" solution than our expensive four year colleges with fancy dorms, gyms, activities, etc.
OTOH, the interesting/difficult parts of primary and secondary education already have to do with serving the least desirable parts of the market (a hallmark of disruptive education) and doing it cheaply (ditto). These things are already (in the US at least) already as much "worse" as they are going to get, if you know what I mean. The overwhelming design constraint is already about doing it cheaply, and just about any innovation you can think of is more expensive.
Anyhow, I don't feel like reading this book myself, because I imagine he's just talking about other parts of education. Am I right?
1 reply
jonesieboy
I think it does apply exactly to the area you interested in Tom. I'm not sure if Christiansen has a solution, mind you!
His analysis is that the current leaders of "successful" schools will tend to try to improve education in terms of the current model of success - standardised test results. Meanwhile the world has moved on, and schools should be measured by the extent to which they develop the essential skills for the 21st century (ability to be innovative and creative, work collaboratively etc etc as well as numeracy and literacy skills).
He argues that the change towards schooling which performs better in terms of the new measures will begin in places which are failing miserably in terms of the old measures. These places have less to lose by changing!
This makes some sense to me, although I don't see any real clarity of thinking anywhere about exactly what the important skills for the future might be.
To give you a more concrete example from Christiansen, schools might consider using computer based learning resources as an alternative to face-to-face teaching. This seems like a terrible idea to me, but that's perhaps because I teach at a middle class school with a good reputation for getting kids through exams. If I were teaching at a school where very few students seem to gain anything from their schooling, I might see more merit in the idea, on the basis that it couldn't make things any worse.
It's not the particular solutions that Christiansen is suggesting (mainly computer based learning) that interest me, it's his analysis of where and why real innovation is most likely to take root.
His analysis is that the current leaders of "successful" schools will tend to try to improve education in terms of the current model of success - standardised test results. Meanwhile the world has moved on, and schools should be measured by the extent to which they develop the essential skills for the 21st century (ability to be innovative and creative, work collaboratively etc etc as well as numeracy and literacy skills).
He argues that the change towards schooling which performs better in terms of the new measures will begin in places which are failing miserably in terms of the old measures. These places have less to lose by changing!
This makes some sense to me, although I don't see any real clarity of thinking anywhere about exactly what the important skills for the future might be.
To give you a more concrete example from Christiansen, schools might consider using computer based learning resources as an alternative to face-to-face teaching. This seems like a terrible idea to me, but that's perhaps because I teach at a middle class school with a good reputation for getting kids through exams. If I were teaching at a school where very few students seem to gain anything from their schooling, I might see more merit in the idea, on the basis that it couldn't make things any worse.
It's not the particular solutions that Christiansen is suggesting (mainly computer based learning) that interest me, it's his analysis of where and why real innovation is most likely to take root.
Traffic feed is not very clever. Thinks I'm in Airdrie.