Clayton Christensen |

A debate over literacy played out in the New York Times on July 27, 2008 in the article, “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?”

It’s an interesting article that captures many viewpoints on the question, from the debate over whether online reading helps or hurts to whether it develops different thinking (in line with the Atlantic Monthly “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” article that I mentioned in my last blog) to whether reading online benefits different kinds of learners such as dyslexic students.

The quote from Yale professor Sally Shaywitz, the author of “Overcoming Dyslexia” and perhaps the foremost expert on that topic, is very interesting. She says, “When you read online there are always graphics … I think it’s just more comfortable and – I hate to say easier – but it more meets the needs of somebody who might not be a fluent reader.”

With the world increasingly moving online and our push for student-centric learning technologies in education, that quote certainly caught my attention, as did the article. Also of interest is Michigan State University professor Rand Spiro’s observation that “[young people] aren’t as troubled as some of us older folks are by reading that doesn’t go in a line… That’s a good thing because the world doesn’t go in a line, and the world isn’t organized into separate compartments or chapters.”

Also of interest is this blog post on the topic that references our work and says, “I think that this whole debate is based on wrong categorization. Using old frameworks to evaluate new phenomenon is fundamentally wrong.”

What do you think? What might be the correct categories and framing?

The headline says it all. That’s the potential finding from a Cornell study that found a statistically significant relationship between autism rates and television watching by children under the age of 3, according to a fascinating article by Gregg Easterbrook in Slate.

The effect of early childhood on the brain is significant and cries for more good research. In our book, we draw on Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley’s work that shows that one of the fundamental reasons some children struggle to learn is that they don’t hear enough words before they reach the age of 3 and benefit from “language dancing.”

This raises many questions. Among them: Could a busy parent simply turn on the television and put the infant in front of it so they could hear the requisite number of words? The answer from research is a clear no. That sort of “background noise” has insignificant impact on a child’s intellect. But this Cornell study raises some questions here – maybe sitting the child in front of the TV would affect the brain in other ways.

This also leads us to think that the existence of multiple types of intelligences has its roots in the process in early childhood where our neural pathways are emblazoned in the brain. Babies who hear “extra talk” perhaps have strong verbal-linguistic intelligence; maybe listening to music helps produce stronger musical intelligence. And being disproportionately exposed to certain things like TV perhaps has strong effects on the brain, too.

As we advocate for more online learning, we need to be cognizant of how the medium for our information could in fact change how we think. Nicholas Carr writes about this phenomenon in the July/August cover story for the Atlantic Monthly titled, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

Of course, if the real world is changing regardless of whether we think it is good idea, and if students need to think differently to cope in this new world, we probably need to change how students learn in schools to match that evolution. We might also wonder if students in fact learn differently now than did students of an earlier generation, and if this, too, calls for different forms of learning.

There is mixed research on this last question to be sure. What do others think?

Maine has instituted a bold program in its schools that provides every middle-school student with a laptop. The program is now moving into high school. The question of course is, for all the money, is it effective?

Results seem mixed. The difference doesn’t show up on test scores necessarily, according to this MSNBC article, but students are more enthusiastic about school.

What do you think?

My reaction is that it’s not the technology per se that improves learning, but is instead how you use the technology. Simply cramming computers into existing classrooms–-even in one laptop per child fashion–-doesn’t necessarily change the classroom by itself or allow for customized learning.

This is one of the core reasons we advocate implementing computer-based learning disruptively. This way all it has to be at the outset is better than the alternative—nothing at all— but over time it has its own space to redefine the interactions of learning between students and teachers and improve. It’s a slower process and more organic than the Maine one, but my guess is that it would ultimately be more effective, too.

Clayton Christensen and I just had a piece titled “Virtual Learning Hits Campaign Trail” published on the Huffington Post. You can read it at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-m-christensen-and-michael-b-horn/virtual-learning-hits-cam_b_119846.html.

In the piece we talk about how both presidential candidates are finally talking about education reform and about how Senator John McCain has embraced virtual learning as a part of his campaign platform. This last item really has the chance to move the needle forward in the debates around education reform — and, we hope, drive some consensus.

We’ll be checking the message board on Huffington Post to respond to comments there, but we’d also love to hear what you think here.

Previously on this blog I’ve written about how adult distance learning is proving itself as a fast-growing disruptive innovation. As many have pointed out to me, there are many other disruptive innovations in higher education that are fulfilling critical needs in our society, including community colleges.

It’s a disruption Clay Christensen has written about before (see “Disruptive Innovation for Social Change” in the December 2006 Harvard Business Review). The Christian Science Monitor is the latest to pick up on this growing disruption. In the August 4, 2008 article “Community Colleges: A Great Return on Investment,” Haas Graduate Business School professor Kathleen Connell chronicles the phenomenon of more and more students choosing to attend affordable community colleges instead of the traditional 4-year schools that are far more expensive.

Nearly half, or 6.5 million, of all undergraduate students now attend the roughly 1,200 community colleges out there, according to the article. And they bear the classic hallmarks of a disruptive innovation.

They are far more affordable, convenient, and accessible. $2,361 for tuition compared to $6,185 at public four-year institutions and $16,640 for out-of-state students. Students can live at home and attend. And they don’t have the conventional admission standards.

They also fill different purposes and can be judged on different metrics from traditional four-year schools as they target nonconsumers. They are far more market-driven, as the article makes clear; they educate 60 percent of new nurses and credential 80 percent of firefighters, law enforcement officers, and EMTs. Forty-one percent also offer online degrees, which often serves mid-career professionals – business leaders love them for retraining workforces, Dr. George R. Boggs, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) said. They also offer much smaller classes.

Of course, like any disruptive innovation, they don’t offer the same performance as the traditional offering right now, but continue to improve in other areas. Here, as the article points out, you lose out on the vast array of student activities and sports and lack a student community.

I’ll continue to write about disruptions in higher education, as the freer market leads to many more in this space, but we’d love to hear from others about what disruptions they are seeing in this space and how they might play out.

We wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times in response to David Brooks’s recent op-ed in the New York Times. Since the Times published this set of letters recently in response to the column, I thought I’d put our letter up here. It’s below.

Dear Editor,

In his July 29, 2008 column, “The Biggest Issue,” David Brooks points to a dire problem threatening the United States’ future: lack of educational progress.

The regression that he writes about afflicts many countries as they reach prosperity. As we recount in Disrupting Class, when countries reach prosperity, the extrinsic motivation for students and educators to tackle the hard subjects like science and engineering dissipates. The New York Times reported on this exact trend in its May 17, 2008 article, “High-Tech Japanese, Running Out of Engineers.”

To bring students back into the fold and into subjects like engineering, we must allow students to learn these subjects in ways that are intrinsically motivating. One way to do this is to customize the learning to the way each student learns best—something that computer-based or online learning has great potential to do.

Brooks is right that early childhood learning is vital. The problem, however, with many early childhood programs is that unless they employ an individual surrogate parent who has the instinct and aptitude to engage in hundreds of hours of face-to-face so-called “language dancing” for each child, the programs will not work and the result will be more wasted dollars.

Sincerely,

Clayton M. Christensen
Michael B. Horn
Curtis W. Johnson

We did also have a letter published in the Washington Post today. You can read it here.

“Computer software is too rules-based. It can’t really adapt to students. You lose too much if you rely on computer-based learning.”

This is one push back we hear against the vision of student-centric learning technology that we put forth in Disrupting Class.

We have many responses, of course, but one of them is that technology always starts at the low end of performance and, over time, predictably improves to do more complicated tasks and jobs. One might not be able to envision how it will improve and what it will be able to do, but we can say with certainty it will improve.

For example, what if computers could read student emotions and adjust accordingly in the future? Sound far-fetched? It might not be.

There are many examples of cognitive tutors that are emerging that can read student emotions. According to a recent article in eSchool News, University of Massachusetts researchers received a grant of $890,419 in June from the National Center for Education Research to advance technology that uses sensors to detect student emotions.

How does it work? According to the article:

“The tutoring program uses sensors placed in a student’s seat, in the computer mouse, and on a student’s wrist to detect arousal through skin conductance, a common measure for stress response. Conductance gives researchers a clear picture of the subject’s nervous-system activity. The program also will use cameras to detect smiles and facial expressions that connote negative feelings, such as anxiety or frustration.”

Just imagine the exciting possibilities here. What other research efforts and products are out there like this? How might this revolutionize learning?

In a telling sign of the growth of and the potential for online learning, for-profit Edison Schools Inc. has jumped on the bandwagon with the acquisition of Provost Systems Inc., a company that offers online courses and online learning management tools for schools, according to a July 1, 2008 article in Education Week.

Edison will also change its name to EdisonLearning to reflect its expansion beyond its controversial management of public schools. It will be able to offer online courses to students directly, as well as through existing schools and districts. According to the article and Edison’s CEO, Terry Stecz, Edison wants to become “the preferred partner for large urban systems, states, or cities.”

The article quotes Trace A. Urdan, the managing director of Baltimore-based investment bank Signal Hill Capital Group LLC, and a longtime analyst of the for-profit education industry, as saying that although “Edison’s new direction might not be motivated by a desire to minimize controversy, it could very well have that effect.”

“They started at the much more difficult end of the spectrum, and now they’re moving into the less controversial, arguably easier end,” Urdan said in the article. “It’s getting away from the idea of, ‘We’re here to do what you do better than you do’ and into, ‘We’re selling you something you need and don’t have.’”

This insight is a classic hallmark of disruption—and stands in sharp contrast to Edison’s initial approach, which was not disruptive. As Disrupting Class chronicles, disruption takes a simple product that is “good enough” and offers it in a place where the incumbent in a market place, in this case public school districts, are relieved that they don’t have to offer the product or service themselves.

Generally this happens as entrants target “non-consumption,” places where consumers have literally no other option, so the incumbents weren’t planning on offering them something anyway. As we argue in this book, this is precisely how and where online learning has gotten its start.

And there’s evidence that school districts are thrilled to be offering the options and moving more courses online. Just look at my previous post that quotes representatives from the LA and Chicago school districts if you want evidence. These are among the biggest and most troubled school districts in the country, and clearly they enjoy the disruptive approach of online learning.

Are people seeing other organizations make a similar pivot in the learning space?

Here is a link to information about Senator John McCain’s education plan. 

For the part about virtual learning, see in particular the last three paragraphs. I’ve copied them in below from his press release. I am curious to get people’s feedback and thoughts per my last post.

Senator McCain’s support of this online learning medium and recognition of the potential here is very encouraging. The last bullet point below is something he didn’t mention in his speech but is particularly intriguing given Senator McCain’s stated desire in his speech to make sure struggling students are no longer stymied from getting the funding for tutoring that they need by the established system in which they are currently stuck.

• John McCain Supports Expanding Virtual Learning By Reforming The “Enhancing Education Through Technology Program.” John McCain will target $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and support the development of online course offerings for students. These courses may be for regular coursework, for enhancement, or for dual enrollment into college.

• John McCain Will Allocate $250 Million Through A Competitive Grant Program To Support States That Commit To Expanding Online Education Opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.

• John McCain Will Offer $250 Million For Digital Passport Scholarships To Help Students Pay For Online Tutors Or Enroll In Virtual Schools. Low-income students will be eligible to receive up to $4,000 to enroll in an online course, SAT/ACT prep course, credit recovery or tutoring services offered by a virtual provider. Providers could range from other public schools, virtual charter schools, home school parents utilizing virtual schooling resources or district or state sponsored virtual schools. The Department of Education would competitively award the funds to a national scholarship administrator who would manage the student applications, monitoring, and evaluation of providers.

Senator John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for President, just finished delivering a speech at the NAACP convention. He spent a good part of the speech talking about the need to reform and improve public education.

One paragraph in particular caught my attention, as it’s all about virtual and online education. According to his Web site, he said:

“We can also help more children and young adults to study outside of school by expanding support for virtual learning. So I propose to direct 500 million dollars in current federal funds to build new virtual schools, and to support the development of online courses for students. Through competitive grants, we will allocate another 250 million dollars to support state programs expanding online education opportunities, including the creation of new public virtual charter schools. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of Advanced Placement math, science, and computer science courses, online tutoring, and foreign language courses.”

I haven’t dug through the details of this yet as it just caught my eye, but this isn’t the first time Senator McCain has talked about computer-based learning. Clearly he has caught on to the disruptive innovation that is beginning to enter so many of our nation’s school districts and that we chronicle in our book, Disrupting Class.

I’m not sure yet what the proper role for the federal government should be in online learning, but talking about it and making everyone aware of it is a big step forward in bringing this innovation to the market at large so all students can benefit from its exciting potential.

I’d love to hear from people about what they know about the proposal, whether they think it’s a good idea, what they would have the federal government do for online learning in an ideal world, and so on.