Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free, Simple and Easy to Use: Disruptive Technologies, Disruptive Innovation and Technology Enhanced Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning

Part of the book series: Digital Education and Learning ((DEAL))

Abstract

This chapter examines the core theoretical framework for the book, summarizing Clayton Christensen’s work on Disruptive Innovation. The chapter also summarizes and analyses critique of Disruptive Innovation.

The chapter analyses the challenges posed to technology enhanced learning by Disruptive Innovation, arguing that technology enhanced learning in higher education has been misdirected to date because it has focused more on technologies than on practice. The chapter provides a grounding in Disruptive Innovation and identifies specific disruptive technologies in higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In LAK 12: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, L., & Campbell, J. (2012). From metrics to analytics, reporting to action: Analytics’ role in changing the learning environment. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies. Louisville: Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behara, R. S., & Davis, M. M. (2015). Navigating disruptive innovation in undergraduate business education. Journal of Innovative Education, 13(3), 305–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. (2014, June 21). Clayton Christensen responds to New Yorker takedown of “Disruptive Innovation”. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-06-20/clayton-christensen-responds-to-new-yorker-takedown-of-disruptive-innovation

  • Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 1(13), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camus, M., Hurt, N. E., Larson, L. R., & Prevost, L. (2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects on student participation, learning, and overall course performance. College Teaching, 64(2), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chena, C., Zhang, J., & Guoc, R.-S. (2016). The D-Day, V-Day, and bleak days of a disruptive technology: A new model for ex-ante evaluation of the timing of technology disruption. European Journal of Operational Research, 251, 562–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Mountain View: Center for American Progress and Innosight Institute. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college_execsumm.pdf

  • Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T., & van Bever, D. (2016, Fall). The hard truth about business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-hard-truth-about-business-model-innovation/

  • Conde, M. A., & Hernandez-Garcia, A. (2015). Learning analytics for educational decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortez, N. (2014). Regulating disruptive innovation. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 29(1), 175–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2015). Designing the new American University. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. The Journal of Product Information Management, 21, 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2006). From the guest editor: Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries. The Journal of Product Information Management, 23, 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • DaSilva, C. M., Trkman, P., Desouza, K., & Lindič, J. (2013). Disruptive technologies: A business model perspective on cloud computing. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(10), 1161–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, F., & van den Bosch, H. (2013). Massive open online courses: Disruptive innovations or disturbing inventions? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, S. (2016). Christensen updates disruption theory. Strategy and Leadership, 44(2), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., Clow, D., Macfadyen, L., Essa, A., Dawson, S., & Alexander, S. (2014). Setting learning analytics in context: Overcoming the barriers to large-scale adoption. LAK14: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 251–253). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2567592

  • Flavin, M. (2012). Disruptive technologies in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, M. (2015). Home and away: The use of institutional and non-institutional technologies to support learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1041404

  • Flavin, M. (2016a). Disruptive conduct: The impact of disruptive technologies on social relations in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 15(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, M. (2016b). Technology-enhanced learning and higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 632–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2014). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. (2006). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, G., Kopalle, P. K., & Danneels, E. (2011). The effects of mainstream and emerging customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of the Pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (2006). The innovator’s dilemma as a problem of organisational competence. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2015). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.

  • Hillis, K., Petit, M., & Jarrett, K. (2013). Google and the culture of search. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1221–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jisc. (2011). Emerging practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced institutional innovation. Bristol: Jisc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams-Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. Mc Connell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N., Blackley, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace! Computers and Education, 54(3), 776–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59, 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, N. (2014). The crossroads of academic electronic availability: How well does Google Scholar measure up against a university-based metadata system in 2014? Current Science, 10, 1661–1665.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. L. (2015). Analytics, goals, and strategy for social media. Library Technology Reports, 51(1), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2013). Foreword to the second edition. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, K. (2015). Today’s college students: Skimmers, scanners and efficiency-seekers. Information Services and Use, 35, 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, W., & Katsomitros, A. (2012). MOOCs and disruptive innovation: The challenge to HE business models. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id=929

  • Lawton, W., Ahmed, M., Angulo, T., Axel-Berg, A., Burrows, A., & Katsomitros, A. (2013). Horizon scanning: What will higher education look like in 2020? The observatory on borderless higher education. http://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id=934

  • Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (trans. Hall, M.J.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker, 90(17), 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, D. (2011). Second life is dead: Long live second life? Educause Review, 46(2), 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. O., & Williams, S. A. (2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange, P., & Rembiszewski, J. (2016). Customer related innovations in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 45(2), 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahenge, M. P. J., & Sanga, C. (2016). ICT for e-learning in three higher education institutions in Tanzania. Knowledge Management and E-Learning: An International Journal, 8(1), 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation; in need of better theory. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. (2008). Game-changing strategies: How to create new market space in established industries by breaking the rules. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, J. (2007). Clayton Christensen’s innovation brain. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-15/clayton-christensens-innovation-brainbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

  • Moore, G. (2004). Darwin and the demon. Harvard Business Review, 82(7–8), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukunda, G. (2010). We cannot go on: Disruptive innovation and the First World War Royal Navy. Security Studies, 19, 124–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, D., Schussler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, J. (2012). From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: What you really need to know about the internet. London: Quercus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng’ambi, D. (2013). Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: Towards a transformative pedagogical model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 652–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2009). New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and Policy Implications. Paris: OECD, CERI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambe, P., & Nel, L. (2015). Technological utopia, dystopia and ambivalence: Teaching with social media at a South African university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 629–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinsmith-Jones, K., Kibbe, S., Crayton, T., & Campbell, E. (2015). Use of second life in social work education: Virtual world experiences and their effect on students. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 90–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., Boroowa, A., Cross, S., Kubiak, C., Mayles, K., & Murphy, S. (2016). Analytics4Action evaluation framework: A review of evidence-based learning analytics interventions at the Open University UK. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robotham, D. (2012). Student part-time employment: Characteristics and consequences. Education and Training, 54(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G., Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., & Chase, A. M. (2015). The space for social media in structured online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J. (2011). The challenge of cost-effective technology enhanced learning for medical education. Education for Primary Care, 22, 66–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., & Gorard, S. (2016). Students’ use of Wikipedia as an academic resource – Patterns of use and patterns of usefulness. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., Fitzgerald, E., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Means, B., Remold, J., Rienties, B., Roschelle, J., Vogt, K., Whitelock, D., & Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating pedagogy 2015. Milton Keynes: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. LAK ’12: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver, 29 April–2 May, pp. 252–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarzynski, P., & Rufat-Latre, J. (2011). Lesson to jumpstart disruptive innovation. Strategy and Leadership, 39(1), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from?: Toward a cultural theory of reading author(s). Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sodexo. (2016). The Sodexo University lifestyle survey. London: Sodexo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmis, S. (2012). Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers. Computers and Education, 59, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P., Shephard, C., & Zhong, L. (2015). You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him learn: Smartphone use in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 713–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, H. W., Tang, Y., & Morris, B. (2016). Evaluation of iTunes University courses through instructional design strategies and m-learning framework. Educational Technology and Society, 19(1), 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1930). The socialist alteration of man. In R. Van Der Veet & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 175–184). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., Cowan, J., & Luetkehans, L. M. (2015). Transforming disruptive technology into sustainable technology: Understanding the front-end design of an online program at a brick-and-mortar university. Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2009). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zold, E. (2014). Virtual travel in second life. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition and Culture, 14(2), 225–250.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, UK

    Michael Flavin

Authors
  1. Michael Flavin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Flavin, M. (2017). Free, Simple and Easy to Use: Disruptive Technologies, Disruptive Innovation and Technology Enhanced Learning. In: Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning. Digital Education and Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57284-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57284-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57283-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57284-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation