Praxis Makes Perfect

See previous post for background (click here)

The first statement that Christensen et al  (in Disrupting Class) make is that children learn in different ways. They cite Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory as evidence that children have different modes of learning. Furthermore, they make the jump to education stating that the current system uses a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction that does not adequately serve different student needs. All of these are compelling arguments, which lead the authors to suggest a “modular” approach using technology, where students can get just-in-time, individualized instruction that cater to their multiple intelligences.

While I am not an educational, or cognitive psychologist by training I have a couple of initial critiques of the authors here. If I am mistaken in any of these points, please comment and point me to any resources that may help my own learning. My critiques in order:

1. I do not believe there is no solid evidence that multiple intelligences exist. There is a great theory, posited by Howard Gardner, which has gained much popularity in Education because it seems to make perfect sense. There are also numerous research articles that suggest mulitple intelligences are at play in children’s learning. However, I have yet to come across any studies that definitively prove ML.
2. So do children learn differently? It sure does seem like they do huh? However, I personally would stop short of calling it multiple intelligence. A kid who excels at sports is a kinestetic learner but not a visual learner? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps the kid who is a good football player has a unique body structure that allows him to run faster than others, and perhaps through dedicating more time to football (since he has natural physical gifts) he has trained his brain to master football concepts. However, that does not mean an athlete who is less naturally gifted cannot excel.
3. This is not multiple intelligences to me… Perhaps human beings have a certain balance of physical and mental capabilities. Some people may pick up running the 100m faster than reading a book… but if that same person invested enough time in reading a book, I’m sure they could (even if it took a bit longer than a good reader). What I’m suggesting is that yes, “children learn differently”, but all children (who are within a range of normal needs) could adequately learn something given enough time for their abilities to develop. Using this framework, instead of multiple intelligences, calls for very different uses of technology.
4. The authors of Disrupting Class suggest that online learning, and social media, have the potential to help children who learn differently. Using a ML theory, there are a couple of problems. How would you design online resources for a kid who is a “physical learner”? How about a kid who is “socially smart”, what would you design to help each of these children learn how to plot data points in a chart? If we start to think concretely about what we’d design online, using ML theory, I’m hard pressed to see any usefulness of the theory.
5. Instead if we suggest that children learn at a different pace, and some students need multiple perspectives on a concept in order to learn it, then online resources play a VITAL role. Perhaps one student could read a wikipedia entry on photosynthesis and understand it completely.  Perhaps another student needs to read the wikipedia entry, see a video on YouTube, and ask students on a Facebook group to explain it in their own words — before finally having that ah-ha moment. This process makes more sense to me, and using technology and social media to create different KINDS of educational resources would help different children learn in different “ways” and time-tables.

Thoughts?

A book that has received a lot of hype lately is Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen and others. I found the book to be extremely interesting, as the authors predict that online learning will expand to encompass 50% of the courses taught in K-12 education by 2019, and that social media (like Web 2.0 applications) will evolve to allow students to teach each other – disrupting the traditional models of school, teaching, and education.

While these are bold claims, some of their theories have merit. I’ll list them here today, and offer my own critiques in subsequent posts. The authors suggest 5 major points of discussion:

1. Children learn in different ways, as evidence by Howard Gardner’s work in multiple intelligences.
2. Disruptive innovations gain a foothold and revolutionize a market because they target a niche audience who normally could not consume a good.
3. Online learning is a disruptive technology because it often targets students with special needs. For example, students take online courses when their own schools do no offer a course (i.e. AP classes). Or students enroll in cyber charter schools because they have special needs: learning needs, behavioral needs, parents who want to have more involvement in their children’s learning, life situations such as competitive sports players etc. etc. These unique student populations are “non-consumers” because the alternative for them is a really inferior educational experience, or no education.
4. Computers in schools are not disruptive technology because they have been utilized to marginally “improve” an existing education structure. Larry Cuban has done amazing work documenting how computers are merely used as workbooks, supplemental activities, or replacements for things teachers already do. As a result computers add tremendous cost without adding much value in terms of educational benefit.
5. Computers “can” be a disruptive innovation, when used to create new learning situations. For example, social media platforms (i.e. Youtube, Facebook, eBay and infinite others popping up everyday) are disruptive innovations. Why? Because they open up new avenues for non-consumers. Before YouTube and home-video editing software, it was difficult for the normal joe schmoe to create and publish video. Now the barriers have been reduced, as non-consumers can more easily participate in media creation. Social media has similar potential for education. For instance, imagine students creating ways to teach each other some difficult topic, and sharing it on a web-based platform. The avenues for learning are increased, student no longer only need to rely on their immediate teacher or parent for learning assistance.