Related News
Home » Opinion » Book review
Why disrupting the class is good
By Wu Jiayin |
June 27, 2009, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
CALLS for reforming US education and customizing teaching are popular these days and the book "Disrupting Class" delivers factual and to-the-point criticism and suggestions on innovation.
Authors Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson creatively apply their own expertise in innovation to education.
Some of the approaches they suggest may be premature and not immediately applicable, but others are not just pie-in-the sky.
A major problem in US public education, they say, is the standardization, which gives it an inherent "factory model" of how to do things for maximum efficiency.
Arthur Kleinman, professor of medical anthropology, Harvard University, shares that view.
In his article published in Shanghai Daily on June 2, Kleinman blames US medical schools for focusing overwhelmingly on scientific and technological training while neglecting care-giving education.
"In medical schools ... the curriculum in both the basic science and clinical apprenticeship years places the greatest emphasis on understanding the biology of disease processes and high-technology treatments.
"The illness experience gets less and less pedagogic attention as the student progresses from classroom to inpatient ward and clinic," said Kleinman.
In fact, the authors believe that standardized learning to some extent goes against the way human beings actually learn things.
A 1980s research by Howard Gardner, an American psychologist, in "multiple intelligences" bears this out.
Gardner posited eight distinct intelligences, each with an aligned learning method. They range from fairly traditional areas, such as "linguistic" or "logical-mathematical" intelligence to "interpersonal" and "naturalist" intelligences.
While some traditional intelligences can easily be measured by standards, others depend on much more tricky factors and are thus not easily evaluated, Gardner found.
Hence the authors' conclusion: If schools are to function best, they need to focus on students' aptitude, provide "customized learning" and become "student-centric."
One way to achieve this, the authors say, is to make better use of computers and online technology.
This does not mean simply cramming the machines into existing structures, as most schools are doing today.
Rather, educators should use their imagination and apply "disruptive innovations" in their education models. For example, small schools can offer students online courses and parents can use computers for some homeschooling.
"When students learn through student-centric online technology, testing doesn't have to be postponed until the end of an instructional module and then administered in a batch mode," the authors suggest.
However, implementing extensive computer-based learning is difficult as cost is a major consideration. Each student needs a computer, courses need to be developed and textbooks changed.
Moreover, online education appears most suitable for students who are curious, self-starters and have will power and discipline.
Without supervision, many students would be playing Internet games instead of studying online.
Compared with computer-based education, the authors' proposal that parents participate more in their children's early education is more realistic.
According to the authors, family influences in the first three years of life greatly determine a child's intellectual capacity. The most important thing parents can do is to talk with their children, not at them.
The authors suggest that public schools add parenting classes to teach parents how to better communicate with their children.
Like any other reforms, the reform in an education system is bound to go through trial and error and continue to evolve.
What is regrettable, the authors say, is that "few reforms have addressed the root cause of students' inability to learn."
Authors Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson creatively apply their own expertise in innovation to education.
Some of the approaches they suggest may be premature and not immediately applicable, but others are not just pie-in-the sky.
A major problem in US public education, they say, is the standardization, which gives it an inherent "factory model" of how to do things for maximum efficiency.
Arthur Kleinman, professor of medical anthropology, Harvard University, shares that view.
In his article published in Shanghai Daily on June 2, Kleinman blames US medical schools for focusing overwhelmingly on scientific and technological training while neglecting care-giving education.
"In medical schools ... the curriculum in both the basic science and clinical apprenticeship years places the greatest emphasis on understanding the biology of disease processes and high-technology treatments.
"The illness experience gets less and less pedagogic attention as the student progresses from classroom to inpatient ward and clinic," said Kleinman.
In fact, the authors believe that standardized learning to some extent goes against the way human beings actually learn things.
A 1980s research by Howard Gardner, an American psychologist, in "multiple intelligences" bears this out.
Gardner posited eight distinct intelligences, each with an aligned learning method. They range from fairly traditional areas, such as "linguistic" or "logical-mathematical" intelligence to "interpersonal" and "naturalist" intelligences.
While some traditional intelligences can easily be measured by standards, others depend on much more tricky factors and are thus not easily evaluated, Gardner found.
Hence the authors' conclusion: If schools are to function best, they need to focus on students' aptitude, provide "customized learning" and become "student-centric."
One way to achieve this, the authors say, is to make better use of computers and online technology.
This does not mean simply cramming the machines into existing structures, as most schools are doing today.
Rather, educators should use their imagination and apply "disruptive innovations" in their education models. For example, small schools can offer students online courses and parents can use computers for some homeschooling.
"When students learn through student-centric online technology, testing doesn't have to be postponed until the end of an instructional module and then administered in a batch mode," the authors suggest.
However, implementing extensive computer-based learning is difficult as cost is a major consideration. Each student needs a computer, courses need to be developed and textbooks changed.
Moreover, online education appears most suitable for students who are curious, self-starters and have will power and discipline.
Without supervision, many students would be playing Internet games instead of studying online.
Compared with computer-based education, the authors' proposal that parents participate more in their children's early education is more realistic.
According to the authors, family influences in the first three years of life greatly determine a child's intellectual capacity. The most important thing parents can do is to talk with their children, not at them.
The authors suggest that public schools add parenting classes to teach parents how to better communicate with their children.
Like any other reforms, the reform in an education system is bound to go through trial and error and continue to evolve.
What is regrettable, the authors say, is that "few reforms have addressed the root cause of students' inability to learn."
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
