It’s time to catch up on my reading.

I’ve spent so much time finicking around with getting this blog the way I temporarily want it (with the clear understanding that ideally, it would be nothing like this, really, given the time…), that anyways, I’ve already fallen behind on posting about the articles I’ve been reading. The immediate challenge with that, of course, is that by the time I get to posting about them, I basically have to go back and re-read to figure out what all my little highlights and post-its were about (though Diigo clearly exceeds the delicious scope by having these mark-up features… a whole different beast…).

I’ve just re-read

By Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn

and there are things that are still sticking in my throat.

Naturally, I agree with his premise that student-centred learning is a more resonant philosophical approach than teacher-centred, but he also seems to be waving this flag of glory for students sitting in noise-cancelling headphones learning by a range of multiple intelligences that are all catered to by digital, screen-based means. First of all, I’m sitting here in noise-cancelling headphones now, trying to block out my partner’s Skype conversation with her sister and three-year old niece. The headphones aren’t useless, but I’m struggling to maintain my bubble of auditory serenity. Second of all, the pitch for multiple intelligences being served by a variety of screen-based means rings a bit false for me. I have no doubt that the grouchy construction worker helping the student in the article assemble mandarin sentences is far superior (in terms of range, immediacy and motivational capacity) to some of the textbooky teaching it’s meant to replace, but I think it’s delusional to imagine that it’s going to serve a whole new breed of learners. In a way I think it’s exactly the same learners who are successful with the textbooks who’ll likely be successful with this sort of software.

Generally, I think that the premise of the article rubs up wrong against my primary belief in the value of collaborative learning and hands-on experience. Making friends, finding co-conspirators, getting dirty, taking public risks… These seem to me to have a lot of value that’s hard to replicate or replace in the future classrooms described.

A crux of the article rests on the difference between innovations that sustain the status quo through incremental improvements, and those that disrupt it by reaching out to consumers (students) who wouldn’t be reached otherwise. My problem with it is that while that part of the premise rings true, perhaps the examples he proposes of disruptions, seem at times awfully sustaining.

I’m going to have to re-read it again.