Advertisement

Bidding the Waves Go Back: Engaging with Disruptive Innovation

  • Michael Flavin
Chapter
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)

Abstract

The book is interested in practice with technologies. Universities seek to direct technology usage through strategies but practice is primary.

The conclusion recommends the recognition of Disruptive Innovation in higher education and suggests means by which disruptive technology enhanced learning can be incorporated into universities. These means include technology enhanced learning strategies based on practice rather than on technologies; the rethinking of institutional technologies; and the welcoming of innovative practice.

The conclusion argues that universities will benefit from engaging with disruptive technologies, recognizing that disruptive technology use happens and that an accommodating approach will enable disruptive technologies to enhance learning and teaching.

Keywords

Technology enhanced learning Disruptive Innovation Learning and teaching strategies 

References

  1. Amador, P., & Amador, J. (2014). Academic advising via Facebook: Examining student help seeking. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Benson, A., & Whitworth, A. (2007). Technology at the planning table: Activity theory, negotiation and course management systems. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 4(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2014). An examination of undergraduate student’s perceptions and predilections of the use of You Tube in the teaching and learning process. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 17–32.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, D. (2009). Learning and virtual worlds. In Education 2.0? Designing the web for learning and teaching: A commentary by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. London: London Knowledge Lab, University of London.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Christensen, C., & Horn, M. (2013, February 20). Beyond the buzz, where are MOOCs really going? Wired opinion. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2013/02/beyond-the-mooc-buzz-where-are-they-going-really/
  14. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94–101.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.Google Scholar
  19. 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/
  20. Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lickyer, L. (2010). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  21. Daniels, H. (2014). Vygotsky and dialogic pedagogy. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 10(3), 19–29.Google Scholar
  22. Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. The Journal of Product Information Management, 21, 246–258.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 36(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eijkman, H. (2010). Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing Web2.0+ as a disruptor of traditional academic power-knowledge arrangements. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(3), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media and Society, 20(10), 1–20.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J., & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning, 6, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fewkes, A. M., & McCabe, M. (2012). Facebook: Learning tool or distraction? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flavin, M. (2012). Disruptive technologies in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Flavin, M. (2015). Home and away: The use of institutional and non-institutional technologies to support learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1041404
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flavin, M. (2016b). Technology-enhanced learning and higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 632–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flavin, M., & Quintero, V. (under review). UK Universities’ technology enhanced learning strategies: A disruptive innovation perspective.Google Scholar
  36. Gallagher, S., & Garrett, D. (2013). Disruptive education: Technology-enabled universities. The United States Study Centre, University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/resource/disruptive-education-technology-enabled-universities
  37. Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  38. Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2009). Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology: A revised approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  40. Horrigan, J.B. (2016). Lifelong learning and technology. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/03/22/lifelong-learning-and-technology/
  41. Hrastinski, S., & Aghaee, N. M. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information Technologies, 17, 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huizinga, J. (1971, original work published 1938). Homo Ludens. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Kim, J. (2012). The institutionalization of You Tube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content. Media, Culture and Society, 34(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e-learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Laurillard, D. (2014). What is the problem for which MOOCs are the solution? #ALTC Blog: News and Views from the ALT community. Retrieved from https://altc.alt.ac.uk/blog/2014/06/what-is-the-problem-for-which-moocs-are-the-solution/
  51. Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24. http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/29369
  52. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lawrence, K. (2015). Today’s college students: Skimmers, scanners and efficiency-seekers. Information Services and Use, 35, 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Leontiev, A. N. (1977). Activity and consciousness. In Philosophy of the USSR, problems of dialectical materialism (trans. Daglish, R.). Moscow: Progress. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm
  56. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (trans. Hall, M.J.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the Gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker, 90(17), 30–36.Google Scholar
  58. Livingstone, D. (2011). Second life is dead: Long live second life? Educause Review, 46(2), 61–62.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers and Education, 95, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation; in need of better theory. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education, 55(2), 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moore, G. (2004). Darwin and the demon. Harvard Business Review, 82(7–8), 86–92.Google Scholar
  65. Mukunda, G. (2010). We cannot go on: Disruptive innovation and the First World War Royal Navy. Security Studies, 19, 124–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nagy, D., Schussler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ng’ambi, D. (2015). Editorial: Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Disrupting teaching and learning practices in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Noss, R. (2013). Does technology enhance learning? Some findings from the UK’s technology enhanced learning research programme. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/docs/enhance.pdf
  69. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Lead and disrupt: How to solve the innovator’s dilemma. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 3–12.Google Scholar
  72. Queen Mary University. (2010). Learning, teaching and assessment strategy. London: Queen Mary University. Retrieved from http://www.qmul.ac.uk/docs/about/21996.pdf
  73. Rowe, J. (2014). Student use of social media: When should the university intervene? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(3), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 526–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sanders, J. (2011). The challenge of cost-effective technology enhanced learning for medical education. Education for Primary Care, 22, 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Timmis, S. (2012). Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers. Computers and Education, 59, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tower, M., Latimer, S., & Hewitt, J. (2014). Social networking as a learning tool: Nursing students’ perception of efficacy. Nurse Education Today, 34(6), 1012–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. (2014). 2014 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  81. University College Birmingham. (2015). Teaching, learning and assessment strategy 2015–2020. Birmingham: University College Birmingham. Retrieved from http://applications.ucb.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning-assessment-strategy
  82. University College London. (2016). Education strategy 2016–21. London: University College London. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/2016-21/index/edit/UCL_Education_Strategy_Final_Web.pdf
  83. University of Cambridge. (2015). Learning and teaching strategy 2015–18. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/lts_15-18.pdf
  84. University of Cardiff. (2013). University IT strategy 2013/14–2016/7. Cardiff: University of Cardiff. Retrieved from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/resources/UniversityITstrategy.pdf
  85. University of Edinburgh. (2014). IS technology enhanced learning strategy. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/imports/fileManager/IS%20Technology%20Enhanced%20Learning%20Strategy.pdf
  86. University of Exeter. (2009, rev. 2011). Technology enhanced learning strategy 2009–2015 (Revised September 2011). Exeter: University of Exeter. Retrieved from https://as.exeter.ac.uk/media/level1/academicserviceswebsite/studentandstaffdevelopment/educationenhancement/pdfs/Attachment_B_-_TEL_strategy_2010_-_2015_Sept_2011_revision.pdf
  87. University of Greenwich. (2013). Finding new ways to teach, learn and discover: University of Greenwich Information and Technology Strategy 2013–2017. Greenwich: University of Greenwich. Retrieved from http://www.gre.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/907553/IT-Strategy-Final.pdf
  88. University of Sheffield. (2012). E-learning strategy at the University of Sheffield, 2012–2016. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Retrieved from https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.408155!/file/e-learningstrategy2012-16.pdf
  89. 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
  90. Wang, F., & Burton, J. K. (2012). Second life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare.Google Scholar
  94. Wessel, M. (2016). How big data is changing disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/01/how-big-data-is-changing-disruptive-innovation
  95. Yang, D., Wen, M., Howley, I., Kraut, R. and Rose, C. (2015). Exploring the effect of confusion in discussion forums of massive open online courses. L@S 2015: Learning at Scale (pp. 121–130). Vancouver.Google Scholar
  96. Yuan, L. & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. JISC and Cetis. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Flavin
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations