Rewind: Virtual School Symposium And Disrupting Class

Okay, back at the Virtual School Symposium one of the keynote speeches was delivered by Michael Horn (see Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change The Way The World Learns).  The speaker (and one of the co-authors of the book by the same name) was good enough to respond to the comments that I made in this entry.  I promised to return when I had some time to do justice to the discussion and it appears that today I do.

1) I agree with you. Learning styles in particular is a flawed construct, but we know that we do have preferences in these areas based on subject matter, and although these can certainly change over time, given that we bring different motivations, interests, and aptitudes to a subject matter — and certainly different paces — that also would form an argument for individualization of instruction. I didn’t dive fully into the cognitive research that is out there given the time (and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert here!), but basically no one has it correct right now. We are very far removed from actually understanding the cognitive processes and so forth, but we do know — and the evidence is clear — that we are wired differently from each other, so I would hope that a quibble with my illustration of that point would not undermine that more fundamental point here since I was clear that I merely was using these constructs to show this, not pin my argument on this construct or another one. All of them, with the exception of the very basic paces of learning depending on subject matter and so forth, have some significant flaws in them.

The key word here is preferences.  A preference is simply something we prefer, not something that is the only way we can do something or even necessarily the best way we do something.  There was an interesting study years ago, where a teacher told a random group of elementary students that they were the higher ability students and, sure enough, they became the higher scoring students in the class even though they weren’t at the beginning of the experiment (and someone help me here with the reference, as I recall it (and have it in my notes) from an educational psychology class from five years ago).

I think that most of us agree that people inherently learn differently.  But the research into learning styles, multiple intelligences, and even learning preferences is both unreliable and invalid.  However, something useful we have learned from this line of inquiry is that people’s supposed preferences change over time and even can be trained.  Given this, I wonder why more people don’t promote the notion that teachers and schools should do a better job working with students to help them learn in the ways that are more consistent with how the factory model of education operates?  For me, this would be a much more productive use of time, money and resources than trying to implement the findings of flawed research

2) I’m not sure how to talk through the second point. Clearly — and we state this in the book — one-on-one tutoring is its own “technology,” broadly defined (see the book for a definition). But it’s not just money that limits the ability of us to do this. As you imply, it’s not at all clear we could scale this up because of personnel. And it would also be inherently very unequal because of the variability of personnel and their matches with students and so forth. Plus, if done in the factory-model system we currently have, that would also co-opt it as the system makes time constant and learning variable. This is backwards. There are many other factors that lead to the interdependencies that I alluded to in simple fashion given the time — we discuss them more in depth in Chapter 5, but they range from the textbook creation and adoption process to the setting of curriculum. It is very interdependent and very thorny and the economics of every player in the value network requires customization. It is not at all clear either that online learning courses as currently being done will escape this, which we discuss in Chapter 5 of the book, although they seem to be up-front to break some of these interdependencies, even if not fully. A full-time tutor for every student would be wonderful though! I think that would be ideal. It’s just not feasible though.

Two of the interdependency issues that I didn’t see discussed in the book were the whole issue of local control over education and the way in which we fund education.  Dealing with the latter first, an education system that is funded based upon property tax dollars will always be inherently unequal.  Adding to the problem is a system that punishes in a financial way schools that need the most assistance because they don’t live up to expectations.  The problem is we can’t look to a business model, as many from your field (and many authors like yourself) tend to do.  Education simply can’t be run on a capitalist model, if it is it will end up just like the health care system in the United States – great for those who have money and power and social capital, and abysmal for those who don’t.

Looking at the former aspect, the whole issue of local control over education – this is one area where I believe the factory model does offer some guidance.  Let’s take an example from your own field, McDonald’s.  Let’s assume I think the Big Mac is a good burger.  I can be assured that a Big Mac I buy in Detroit will be roughly the same quality as one I would buy in Boston (or anywhere else for that matter).  The reason for this is that each individual McDonald’s isn’t allowed to put it own spin on what aspects of the Big Mac are the most important.  Applying this to education, schools in one district can be asked to focus upon things that schools in another district totally ignore.  While this can be useful for addressing local issues or problems, it also creates a system where a student in Georgia can have a 4.4 GPA (on a scale of 0 to 4.0) because school districts weight honors classes and Advanced Placement classes, while a student in another state who does just as well on their courses has a 3.6 GPA.  It also creates a system where curriculum opportunities are available in some schools, not in others.  And in more extreme cases, school districts almost eliminating social studies from the elementary and middle school curriculums to spend more time on subjects tested by their state for NCLB.

The problem is that in order to fix this, you have to do one of two things: scrap the system and build a new set of interdependencies or move to the capitalism model where those who have money and power and social capital, and abysmal for those who don’t.  I don’t see a feasible proposal in your book for the first, and being from the world of business I fear that it may be the second vision that is being promoted.

3) That’s where the computer-based learning enters the equation. And I think some of what you are implying is why I do not suggest it should be put in the core of schools tomorrow or competing when you have a great tutor in person. That’s why it should first compete against non-consumption, where the alternative is nothing at all. Disruptive innovations improve rapidly over time though, so it’s hard to imagine what will be here in 5, 10 years. But it’s also exciting — breaking basic constructs and moving to a learning is constant, time is variable system, for example, would do wonders. I’d be surprised if we disagreed there? I would be very happy to have the conversation with your dissertation co-chairs as well if you thought it would be useful and constructive. I don’t know that I would have any disagreements with them about computer-based testing by the way, but I didn’t mention that in my talk either, so perhaps that’s simply a typo.

It wasn’t a typo, but possible not enough information.  You had indicated something along the lines that the student would complete a computer-based test that would figure out what they knew and didn’t know, and then provide instruction for the stuff that the student did not know (as why provide instruction for the stuff that they already know).  So, that is where the computer-based testing aspect came in.  The dissertation co-chair of mine that I was referring to was Thomas C. Reeves, who in addition to having issues with the notion that the introduction of one-on-one computing would improve student learning, would also have major problems with your research chapter (many of which I share).

In terms of what we will happen five or ten years from now, when it comes to education I think it is easier to imagine that you think.  I’m sure you’re familiar with the old story, this guy is transported from 100 years ago to the present.  He walks into a factory and is completely confused by what he sees, as none of it is recognizable to him.  He leaves the factory and goes to a hospital, thinking that it will be more familiar but is just as amazed as everything is once again foreign to him.  Then he proceeds further up the street where he  walks into a school and sees the teacher in front the class talking and writing things on the board, the students in desks arranged in rows.  He thinks to himself, “Ahh, this I know!” I’m sure I took liberties with the actual text, but you know the story I’m talking about. Whether it is a good thing or not, schools haven’t changed that much (contrary to the arguments put forward in chapter two of your book).

- * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * -

As a way to bring closure to this response, and I do hope that Mr. Horn is able to reply again as I enjoy these kinds of dialogues (it is one of the reasons I blog), let me give you a heads up…  I’m in the process of reading or re-reading the book Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (as I read some portions prior to the Virtual School Symposium, but got frustrated and gave up on it) because Mr. Horn will be speaking to the Michigan Virtual University Symposium which I am attending on Wednesday (see MVU’s 5th Annual Online Learning Symposium).  So, over the next three days I’ll be posting my thoughts on a chapter-by-chapter basis – as I have seen some others do (one of which was quite good but I can’t locate anymore).  Then we’ll see if Mr. Horn is able to convince me in this second keynote.