Learning Platforms–Disruptive?
I’ve been re-reading The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen about technological change and company success– specifically disruptive technologies. Whilst being about 10 years old, it is still interesting and relevant.
As I read it, I can’t help thinking about the whole-sale introduction of learning platforms (read VLE’s) in UK schools. I wonder if DfES/ BECTA hope this technology will disrupt current practice? I am not sure–not in the first round anyway. In Christensen’s eyes a couple of the characteristics of disruptive technologies are simplicity and low cost. I am certain that for many schools it must seem like learning platforms are complex and expensive–in their procurement and deployment.
Christensen also describes a product life-cycle in which competition moves from features/performance through reliability, convenience and then, as the products provide more than the customers want, price. With the learning platform specification being defined centrally (the features), it will be interesting to see if this cycle occurs in a distorted way.
As ‘convenience’ assumes that the original features really are the ones required by the end-user, we might see an emerging picture where schools begin to use smaller, closely-coupled pieces of technology (including content and ePortfolios) assembled to meet their needs–i.e. they use the Internet as the learning platform. Here the VLE would be a container for binding these services together and controlling access. This is a different picture to the ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ scenario being painted at the moment.
Maybe, I’ll be wrong and the commercial suppliers will adapt their products as the market matures. There are schools up and running with VLEs and many who are dissatisfied with their current choice. I can’t help feel at the moment that we are still looking to automate existing practice rather than do things differently. That vision needs to be more clearly defined and communicated to teachers.
Hi Tim,
Interesting post – I guess we are all interested in the disruptive capacity of technology, but maybe we all want to disrupt in slightly different ways! What do you see as the disruptive potential of LPs?
Some thoughts:
1. Presumably the whole concept of disruptive technology is a ‘bottom-up’ notion. Does the book give examples of ‘top-down’ disruption? It sounds to me almost a contradiction in terms.
2. A favourite line of Becta/DfES is that the so-far disappointing results of educational ICT are down to institutional conservatism and that structural change must be tackled first (hence current focus on filling in planning matrices etc). I argued in my ‘Critique of Becta’s LP policy’ that institutional change is more often the consequence rather than prerequisite of innovation. Would it be fair to draw this conclusion from ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’?
3. Interesting description of technology life-cycle, with price savings coming last. Would you agree that to encourage innovation you should (1) encourage diversity of provision, (2) fund generously, (3) locate the buying decision as closely as possible to the user, to ensure a match to genuine user requirements? And that centralised ‘aggregated’ purchasing does the opposite on all three counts?
I think it is the teachers who need to voice the requirement and that what is required is teacher-teacher forums and content and tool review sites, rather than more centre-out best practice guides and targets. The ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ scenario followed, I think, (1) from Becta’s uncertainty as to what was required and (2) from their natural risk-aversion: when anyone came up with a another idea, the easiest response was ‘stick it in the pot’.
I completely agree with your view that the platform should be something that binds together interchangeable components: hence the importance of interoperability. I think there are two levels to this: (1) the components of the learning platform (including MIS-type functions). One of these LP components may be an LMS which is then itself responsible for (2) managing learning content. A tree sprouting out of a tree. The standards required at the two levels are most likely to be completely different.
All the best,
Crispin.