EducationNews.org

Michael B. Horn,along with Clayton Christensen and Curtis W. Johnson have written a book entitled " Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns" published by Mc Graw Hill.In this interview, he responds to questions about the book, and the changing landscape of education.

1) Michael, first of all, you seem to think that over the next ten years, many high schools will be reverting to on line classes. What leads you to this hypothesis?

Online learning is bursting on the education scene with the classic hallmarks of a disruptive innovation. It is gaining traction at the high school level by competing where the alternative is no class or school at all. Online learning is also less costly than the current monolithic system, and it has some big technological benefits. You can scale online learning with consistent quality while providing customization for each student.

When these forces converge, as they have here, the substitution proceeds at a predictable pace. Doing the calculations with the available data leads us to believe that many high schools will move to online courses in the next ten years.

2)  Let me indicate that I have read every word of your book. You and your co-authors frequently refer to student's brains as being " wired " differently. What do you mean by this?

There are many controversies in the academy over understanding the differences in people's brains. Howard Gardner refers to multiple intelligences, for example. The Ball Foundation talks about people's different aptitudes. The underlying point with which no one disagrees is that people learn in different ways – be that intelligences, styles, preferences, aptitudes, paces, and so on. When we say people are "wired" differently, we are using the term loosely to make the basic point.

3)  When you refer to "wired" I seem to refer to "learning style or learning preference". Have you and your co-authors looked at different learning style inventories as possible aides to enhancing learning?

We have looked at an array of these rubrics, although we are not specialists in this field.

4)  Much of your work is based on Howard Gardner's ideas of "multiple intelligences". I have interviewed him twice about his work, and met him, but do you feel that on-line classes can really substitute for a competent, trained music teacher, or art instructor or specialist in one of the arts?

It's a good question. Initially, probably not. That's why disruptive innovations are not direct substitutes for experts by any means. They first compete where they are better than nothing at all – the only alternative. There they deliver a new value proposition – so you may not receive all the benefits of an expert music teacher certainly, but you didn't have that option anyway. You can now receive benefits like convenience, customization, access, and so forth. And then the innovation improves. Already music software programs have extraordinary capability. They can give students precise note-by-note feedback on how they are playing a piece of music; they are able to allow them to play in the setting of an orchestra so they can focus on blending and listening but then also remove the orchestra so they can just focus on their individual tone; and they can give students immediate feedback on rhythm, meter, and dynamics.

5)  Surely I agree with you that an on-line class is better for a motivated student than sitting in a study hall. But at what point do we need caring teachers and caring instructors that mentor and guide students and provide inspiration to students?

Importantly, we don't envision a world in the book where there are no human teachers involved. The online courses that are already emerging still have human presences – be they virtually or actually in person in the background. A human presence is vital for learning – to help motivate students, mentor them, provide them with a caring presence, and so on. Computer-based learning does what a computer can do best, which will allow humans to focus on what we do best. A teacher's role will likely shift over time from being the "sage on the stage" to the "guide on the side" to fulfill this mentoring and coaching role. It should allow for the transformation of the teaching profession into a much more rewarding role.

6)  Your book seems to suggest that the Internet and on-line classes will truly help students to cross class lines and barriers and assist with upward social mobility. How do you see this occurring?

If you think about it, relying on human capital exclusively is inherently unequal. Some students will receive better teachers than others. This fact has, sadly, often afflicted students in the poorest communities the most, for example. Computer-based learning allows you to scale consistent quality across all populations to give all people access to the very best learning opportunities at affordable prices.

7)  Your book is filled with vignettes of students who teachers seem to have difficulty reaching in that these teachers do not appear to be aware of " how best certain students learn " . Should colleges of education be teaching about Rita Dunn's learning style inventory, or Kolb's ideas or Gregorc's learning styles?

I think that is one of the clear implications of our book, yes, and it's a significant change.

8)  By the same token your book does approach the issue of overwhelmed teachers who are dealing with underprepared students. Should we not be doing much more on- going evaluation to make sure students are prepared for the classes that they take? Or perhaps some sort of formative evaluation?

Yes, we should be. The potential of computer-based learning to revolutionize assessment and evaluation is one of its most exciting features. Formative assessment to determine a student's unique needs is vital and can be baked into software. Similarly, the really exciting thing is that software can do constant, real-time assessment to deliver immediate results to the teacher and deliver targeted learning to students in the places and ways they actually need it.

July 24, 2008