Disruptive Innovation or Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn (1962) introduced the concept of paradigm shift as a way to describe how a prevailing understanding in science is replaced with a new understanding in light of overwhelming evidence that the explanations currently being used to understand the world are no longer adequate. Although originally limited to science, the idea of a paradigm shift has been applied to other areas of understanding (e.g. the impact of the internet on economics).

A disruptive innovation, as espoused by Clayton M. Christensen, is an innovation that changes the way something is done, and has specific reference to economics. A disruptive innovation introduces a change that allows new markets and ideas to emerge that are usually (almost universally) resisted by existing institutions, but which can, when properly exploited by a new player, undermine and eventually destroy existing institutions. Kodak is a recent example of a massive institution that expended too much energy defending old technologies and failing to properly embrace the disruptive innovation represented by digital imaging.

So what is the difference between disruptive innovations and a paradigm shift in today’s HE world? From my perspective, we are facing a number of disruptive innovations in education that, taken as a whole, represent an underlying paradigm shift.

The Higher Education sector is facing upheaval. Innovations in how information is stored, organised, transmitted and retrieved have been disruptive to traditional libraries and publishing houses. We are beginning to see the innovations in communication having a significant impact on traditional scholarly publication (finally). The way information is packaged and delivered to students is being jostled about in traditional institutions. Non-traditional ways of reaching students have emerged in the form of on-line classes, courses and programmes (even if they simply try to replicate traditional teaching methods). Psychology is just beginning to disrupt the ways we think about teaching and learning. New models of thinking about the organisation and purpose of teaching and learning are being discussed. Gamification, experiential learning, skills based approaches, problem based learning, social networking and social learning – all innovations that challenge our ways of thinking about teaching and learning in the C21.

I would classify all of these as disruptive innovations. Taken individually, they represent new ways of thinking about or doing something that provide opportunities and new markets for education. Private providers are rushing to grab a piece of the emerging (and lucrative) educational pie that has resulted from these innovations (and others) and the inevitable upheaval that has followed.

The paradigm shift that I think is taking place in education is an overarching change in the way the world works, and is represented in many of the innovations we find so disruptive. Digitisation has moved us from an information scarce world to an information abundant world. The shift is from information scarcity to information abundance. The implications of that shift are enormous. We (society) has invested heavily and (eventually) embraced every innovation that has made information more abundant, and many of these innovations are milestones in the development of civilization. The great libraries, the discovery of inexpensive paper making techniques, the invention of the printing press, the transmission of sound and pictures, the advent of computing, and the emergence of the internet. We no longer live in a world of information scarcity, and we have and are watching the emergence of a world of information abundance.

The implications of this paradigm shift are only just beginning to dawn on a few of us. What does it mean to learn in a world where all there is to learn is freely available to you right where you are! Now!

You don’t have to go somewhere. You don’t have to be told what there is to be learned. You don’t have to be constrained by the availability of an expert. You don’t have to have your information filtered by anyone. You don’t have to have your learning organised by anyone else.

In this world of information abundance, why do we need to gather to centres of learning? Why do we need to listen to an expert when all they have to say is freely available? Why do we need to buy a textbook of organised and re-presented information? Why do we need to organise learning around a single subject? Why is memorised knowledge still the key to attainment in education when knowledge access is ubiquitous? Why do we sit and listen, by the hundred, to what we need to learn so we can parrot the information (and a bit more) back?

What is the value added?

There was a time when information was scarce, and the methods used to learn were appropriate. That time has passed, and we are participating in a paradigm shift. Embrace it, its going to happen anyway.

Education is Gamified

In very general terms, let me describe a game to you.

You enter the game and you decide on a number of scenarios to participate in. Within each scenario, you have a number of time limited tasks to accomplish, for which you receive varying levels of reward points, depending on how successful you are at the task. The individual task points accumulate within each scenario to provide you with some overall prize for each scenario. Many of the scenarios have various levels that you can complete, following roughly the same model of rewarded tasks. Finally, if you manage to successfully complete a number of scenarios, you finish the game, and get your big final reward. A brilliant game that can be a lot of fun, and is loaded with rewards and prizes along the way with a big one at the end.

Isn’t this our education system?

I have read a number of blogs (eg. here and here) and heard a number of talks, in the last year, about the gamification of education. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea, however, It strikes me that the principles of gaming have been derived from education, not the other way around. I think that some of the fundamental problems with education can be attributed to the built in gamification.

Students get caught up in the tasks, scenarios, and levels looking for the big reward at the end as though that is the only reason they are participating. Learning disappears into the pursuit of grades for assignments, classes and finally, a GPA or degree classification. In a game, it is the points and rewards that keep players engaged. Unfortunately, in education, it is the grades and degrees that motivate too many of our students.

So I ask, why should we be trying to introduce more gamification into education when it is already responsible for eclipsing learning for so many students?