Educating the Future with Disruptive e-Learning Solutions

Merija Jirgensons

Distance Education Study Centre (DESC), Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia

Keywords: Disruptive Innovation, Disruptive e-Learning, Discovery Driven Planning, MOOCs.

Abstract: e-Learning is having a strong impact on Higher Education. It is reinventing approaches to education and is

causing sharp debates among its practitioners about the future direction of learning. Advocates argue that e-

learning is a viable option to combat the high cost of higher education; that it extends educational

opportunities to a greater number of students; that it trains students for the emerging Knowledge Economy.

In fact, the e-learning education market has seen a continuous influx of new players; not only are traditional

universities going online, but for-profit universities are emerging, some having a global reach, and most

recently MOOCs (massive online open courses) that are offered as online education for free—many from

elite universities that were the last to go online. These developments have created debates over assessment

and accreditation. Educator Clayton Christensen calls e-learning “the great disrupted” that is transforming

the higher education landscape. Yet even with the steady increase of e-learning options, e-learning is still

regarded as inferior to traditional forms of learning. Critics regard is as too business and vocationally

orientated, unmindful of questions of quality. This paper looks at some of the issues surrounding the

controversy of e-learning options and makes some recommendations as to its improvement.

1 INTRODUCTION

e-Learning has challenged fundamental assumptions

about how we learn and what we learn; how learning

is to be delivered and how accessed. It has even

opened up a sharp debate about the purpose of

education; the values for which it stands and the

competencies that it aims to teach. To quote

Harvard Business School Professor Clayton

Christensen, e-learning is proving to be the great

disrupter of traditional education reinventing

approaches to learning (Christensen and Eyring,

2011; Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2011). The

process is already underway and appears to be

accelerating. The reasons are not difficult to find.

Caught between the pressures of rising higher

education costs, the need for high level skills for the

emerging knowledge economy, and rapid

technological advances, new learning approaches are

being invented that seek to take advantage of

technological innovations and shape them into

credible learning tools. E-learning has benefitted

from this trend and has sought to present options that

are viable and offer innovative solutions at lower

cost and engaging forms of delivery. Increasingly

new methods and approaches are being explored by

this media: hybrid learning, virtual learning, mobile

learning, and most recently MOOCs. At Riga

Technical University in Latvia, the eBig3 project

combined the communication technologies of

computer, mobile, and TV to gain broad public

interest. Most recently the project also offered

MOOCs (ERDF, eBig3). But education via

technology has incited much controversy as well as

debates over the direction of education in general.

Provoking such fundamental questions as: is

technology learning too business orientated? What

about humanistic values? What about quality? Is

traditional education too elitist? Should education be

more vocationally orientated? Or can we somehow

combine some of these values or even should we? Its

advocates claim that technology promises a fantastic

future for educational engagement. Technology

based learning, however, is too new for longitudinal

studies; at this point, positive studies seem to

generate critical studies and vice-versa. Yet the

technology will not go away; it continues to spew

out innovations apace. Therefore it is worthwhile to

look at Clayton Christensen’s--one of the most

respected e-learning advocates--arguments

supporting e-solutions. He claims that prevailing

trends signal that online options are the inevitable

Jirgensons M..

Educating the Future with Disruptive e-Learning Solutions.

DOI: 10.5220/0004846500650070

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 65-70

ISBN: 978-989-758-022-2

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

future of higher education (Christensen and Eyring,

2011: 328). Christensen has outlined his ideas in

considerable detail. These recommendations are

worth looking at although by no means do they settle

the controversy.

2 CHRISTENSEN’S DISRUPTIVE

E-LEARNING

Clayton Christensen is the author of “Disruptive

Innovation”, a theory that he first outlined in the

Innovator’s Dilemma (1997). He had originally

meant it to apply to business (he holds a joint

appointment at Harvard in technology and

management). The idea had come out of his

dissertation, and he had meant it to apply to the disk

drive industry. But the idea was quickly co-opted;

many managers believed the process described their

own experience. Christensen came to realize that

“Disruptive Innovation” described a general

business model. And because he was engaged with

computer technology, he recognized that the model

also applied to e-learning. The way disruptive

innovation works, is that it is applied in areas where

there is no competition. Slowly, and out of sight the

company / organization improves its product. Soon

there is an alternative product on the market that is

cheaper and of better quality than the dominant one;

and if the alternative product is more attractive to

consumers, the dominant product can be toppled.

This is what happened to Kodak with digital films,

or how Cannon managed to trump Xerox or Sony

with its transistors clobbered RCA’s vacuum tubes.

Christensen cautions against taking major

competitors head-on--a good way for a company to

get bloodied. Instead, he claims, disruptive

innovation works against non-consumption—it

stakes out a new territory—and improves its product

step-by-step. When by its success a product or an

approach is shown to work, it becomes a fait

accompli and may even come to dominate the

market (Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2011: 141)

As applied to e-learning, Christensen refers to it as

“disruptive e-learning.” It is the crux of his strategy

for effective education that is democratizing and can

reach almost anyone. He believes that disruptive e-

learning can bring about student centered learning

that he argues is the focus of quality teaching. He is

opposed to traditional learning because he regards it

as a monolithic, top-down approach or teacher-

centered and refers to it as batch learning

(Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2011:175).

Christen argues for a modular course design where

the parts are interchangeable. He also calls for

modified “majors” where students may become

experts in several areas instead of concentrating on

one and where independently designed course

“modules” allow them to move easily between

different subjects. Microsoft is an example of the

“batch system”, the programs are interdependent;

they are part of a system. If you use one, you must

use the entire system. Moreover, they are expensive

to build. Simplify—argues Christensen—the byword

that informs his disruption strategy. He claims that a

simplified modular architecture such as offered by

Linux allows for the building of separate modules. It

is cheaper and more flexible and the heart of

disruptive design. Its simplicity and low price allow

it to be customized by users. A modular approach

also gives students the flexibility to move on to the

next module without wasting time on concepts and

materials they already understand. It is an important

option for bringing about student centered online

learning. The next step in this strategy is to make use

of popular apps and user generated content. Among

these are those generally well known to the public

such as eBay, YouTube, Pixar for digital animations,

and Second Life for 3D applications. He

recommends technology platforms that are suitable

even for nonprofessionals such as QuickBase for

designing user generated content. Parents and

teachers can develop programs that will help their

children learn. This mixture of disparate content, he

argues, can have wider application because it can

become the basis for shaping successful e-courses.

Central to this thinking are teacher and student

networks such as teacher online sites to exchange

information and lesson plans and student self-help

and tutoring sites, such as Megastudy in South

Korea (Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2011: 134-

145). Mentoring, but especially peer mentoring, is

central to Christensen’s concept of student centered

learning. Christensen, like many teachers, feels that

students have difficulty in grasping the relationship

between theory and practice; that they memorize a

theory but have difficulty understanding how it may

be applied to real life solutions. Peer mentoring, he

feels, can help students break down complex ideas

and show how they work in various real-life

contexts. Peer support is especially important for at-

risk students who may feel stressed by academic

materials. A number of the peer support sites are

available online, and Christensen feels they should

be included in an e-course design. Christensen

admits that this disparate, user-generated content

looks more like tutorial tools rather than courseware,

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

but over time, he claims, these modules can be

configured into complete courses. Disruptive

innovation starts small and gradually builds up as

the demand increases. It is a grassroots approach to

e-learning that expresses an intriguing departure to

standard academic learning.

Since disruptive innovation never applies the

head-on attack, Christian recommends that this user-

generated learning should take effect on the fringes.

He points out that innovations when officially

presented are often co-opted by organizations and

rendered innocuous by official policy or pulled apart

in turf fights. Instead, he suggests, disruptive e-

learning should take root in places where there is a

“consumption gap.” Students re-taking courses to fill

a “credit-gap,” home bound schooling, assisting at-

risk students, tutoring and enrichment programs, or

making available courses that cannot be added to

the curriculum because of budgetary constraints.

Rural, small schools, urban low-income schools,

could benefit from such an approach. This e-solution

is an alternative when there is nothing at all and is a

case in point how disruptive innovation, or in this

case disruptive e-learning, is embedded into a

system and can provide an alternative, a richer

education experience than the one that existed

before. The learning of the future, Christensen

predicts will be driven by student-centered

technology innovations (Christensen, Horn, and

Johnson, 2011: 99).

3 HELPING AT RISK SUDENTS

WITH DISTRUPTIVE

E-LEARNING

Christensen is a dedicated social crusader. His

Innosight Institute is committed to applying the

transformative power of disruptive innovation to the

social problems of the day. Educational reform at

all levels he regards as crucial. He details the

Pathway program at Brigham Young University at

Idaho (Christensen is an alumnus of Bingham

Young University, Utah and remains closely

associated with the university’s activities) as a

model for upward mobility for the academically

challenged and at-risk student group. It is an online

program that requires weekly face to face meetings

and encourages peer interactions. It reflects the

indirect, non-aggressive approach of disruptive e-

learning that is the cornerstone of Christensen’s

thinking. The Pathway program seems a sensible

step by step plan for the inclusion of the

academically challenged and socially and

economically disadvantaged. Pathway runs parallel

to the regular university curriculum. The standards

of admission are low. It is intended for older, at risk

students who need to support themselves and a

family. The program designers understand that the

primary concern of these individuals is the need to

earn a living. The first part of the program offers

technical competence courses in basic accounting,

web media design, basic legal and library research,

skills that are immediately marketable. Upon the

successful completion of the program, students

receive a certificate. They may then go on the next

level that is an Associate Degree, and, if that is

successfully completed, a Bachelor’s (Christensen

and Eyring, 2011: 315). It is a Matryoshka doll

structure where each significant academic

achievement is nested within the next. It gives

students the option at the end of each learning level

to finish or to continue to a more advanced degree

while at the same time being able to provide for

themselves and their families. The cost of a

Bachelor’s degree is about $8,000, a fraction of the

cost what it would cost at a medium level, accredited

university (What is Pathway).

4 THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS

OF DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION

How relevant are Christensen’s ideas today in the

field of technological innovation? Jena McGregor

claims very. In her interview with Christensen for

Bloomberg Businessweek she describes him as is a

giant in the field of innovation thinkers (McGregor,

2007). What has changed since 1997 when the

Innovator’s Dilemma was first published is that the

landscape has gone global. It is in flux and the

behavior of the players is unpredictable. Yet the

notion of disruptive innovation still resonates

although the model is felt to be too simple to explain

this complex scenario. Moreover, Christensen did

not originally provide a solution for his model; he

only described phenomena that he had observed and

that is now being played-out on a global scale. The

Rita McGrath and Ian MacMillan model (McGrath

and MacMillan, 1995) presents a method to structure

phenomena when outcomes are uncertain and could

be used to structure disruptive innovation.

Traditional planning projected outcomes for

projects; if the outcomes matched the projections, it

was considered valid; if not, it was regarded as

deficient. But Discovery Driven Planning seeks to

EducatingtheFuturewithDisruptivee-LearningSolutions

promote innovation. It turns conventional thinking

on its head. It encourages the new in a controlled

way. Results are tested at benchmarks, assumptions

are questions and articulated and then the next steps

are planned from the results (McGrath and

MacMillan, 1995). It means a commitment to

continuous learning on the part of project managers.

Moreover, just because an innovation is in place

does not mean it will maintain itself in the future;

instead it must be reassessed on an ongoing basis.

Christensen feels when his ideas are combined with

those of Discovery Driven Planning a sounder

assessment of an innovation is arrived at as well as

its potential for success (McGregor, 2007). These

ideas could be applied to disruptive e-learning to

give it a more structured development that at present

seems erratic.

5 COUNTERING THE COST

OF HIGHER EDUCTION

WITH SUNDRY E-LEARNING

SOLUTIONS

Currently, there are many emerging models for

higher education. Most of these are online. Besides

online courses offered by traditional universities,

there are the for-profit universities mostly with

online options, some of which have become global

giants such as Laureate whose honorary chancellor

is Bill Clinton (Redden and Fain, 2013). This

development has also set up a credentials debate and

proposals for alternative credit assessment. Even

President Obama has entered the fray and made

recommendations to combat rising college costs that

include competency credit and MOOCs (Obama,

2013; Levin, 2013). Richard Vedder, author of

Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs So

Much (2005), argues for a pro-business, no frills

program that makes use of lower priced online

options such as the new entrants MOOCs, a three

year Bachelor’s program as in Europe, and most

controversial of all, a National College Equivalence

Test similar to GED for the High School

Equivalence test (Vedder, 2013). Needless to say,

such a reductionist program has elicited howls of

protest from educational purists who claim that these

HiTech reformers leave out questions of quality and

the importance of education as an intrinsic value

leaving only a thin vocational, pro-business veneer

(Walters, 2013). Moreover, they point out that the

proposed system of online reform would increase

student / teacher ratio 50:1; a dramatic increase that

is endorsed by pragmatists such as Christensen but

decried by the quality advocates. Yet there are issues

that reformers of all shades of opinion agree: (1) that

higher education costs are too high; (2) that there is

a proliferation of majors that are proving costly and

often force students to postpone graduation to meet

requirements; (3) that students are not prepared to

deal with the requirements of university courses and

need structured support embedded in the program

(What is Pathway; Christensen and Eyring, 2011).

These three points are the main challenges that must

be met to achieve realistic educational reform.

Technology must be a major driver, not only

because it helps to reduce costs, but even more so

because it gives students access to the emerging

Knowledge Economy and its potential for

innovation.

6 AND THE DEBATE GOES ON

In the mist of so much controversy the signals about

the future of e-learning are mixed, although

generally favorable for long-range growth. As many

as 69.1% higher education institutions in the United

States report that online learning is critical to their

long term strategy (Allen and Seaman, 2013). In the

United States where technological solutions to

learning are most actively embraced, online learning

has steadily increased over the past ten years, so

that currently thirty-two percent of the students are

taking a least one e-learning course. Yet last year

there was a perceptible leveling off of enrollments,

increases dropping from an 11.2% to 9.3% although

university officials agree that online learning is

critical to their long- term strategy (Allen and

Seaman, 2013). Europe has been more conservative

in adopting e-learning; in 2011 (published in 2013)

for the EU-27, 11% of their populations (ages 16 to

74) were engaged in online learning. In the same

time period, Latvia was one of the more active with

16% of its population (ages16 to 74) were engaged

in online learning, exceeded only by its Nordic

neighbors (European Commission, 2013). The most

recent entrants to the technology learning market are

MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses). They

have been touted as the next educational paradigm;

yet currently there is a great debate if they are

sustainable (Allen and Seaman, 2013). These are

open access courses that cut across a wide range of

disciplines including technology, philosophy and

even music. Besides course materials that include

various media formats, MOOCs seek to establish

online forums and learning communities similar to

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

what traditional e-learning courses already offer. An

interesting development in this regard is that the

elite universities that were slow to adopt online

learning, were first to jump on the MOOCs

bandwagon. Harvard as recently as 2013 and is

currently engaged in developing its first regular

online courses for the Business School—“we are

being disrupted online,” HBS claims (Nissen, 2013).

There are online listings of elite USA universities

that start with Harvard and MIT and include Apple’s

list that is a comprehensive MOOCs listing

(MOOCs). Most of these use Coursera or Udacity or

another popular platform. Currently there is much

debate if MOOCs are sustainable. Academics

generally think that MOOCs will cause much

confusion about university degrees and credentials

(Allen and Seaman, 2013). The shrillness of this

debate indicates that there is indeed a transformation

taking place and that the stakeholders have not

settled on the terms of the outcome.

In spite of resistance and challenges, the statistics

show a steady increase of e-learning for the future.

Christiansen no doubt is right that it will lead to a

disruption of traditional forms of learning as it

already seems to be doing. Transformations are

taking place that are affecting even the most highly

respected Higher Education Institutions. Yet barriers

and prejudices remain. Many people, including

academics, resist accepting e-earning as the equal to

face-to-face learning. Employers often regard it as

inferior. Moreover, the record of the retention rate of

on-line students has been poor. Many drop out

before finishing the course (Allen and Seaman,

2013). It is possible that these students are

academically poorly prepared and lack self-

discipline although other studies have shown that the

technology does not usually pose a barrier to the

current generation of students, but rather they may

lack motivation, study skills and have family

responsibilities (Concannon, Flynn, Campbell,

2005). The immediate issues that need to be

addressed in Higher Education reform is controlling

the costs and making education more affordable—an

issue that can effectively be addressed by e-learning.

The second issue is about the proliferation of course

for majors that often hold up graduation.

Christensen’s modular approach that is spread out

over several disciplines seems far more sensible to

replace the traditional major and gives students more

options in planning careers. And finally, users who

are at risk need help and support, including financial

support; they need a gradual, clearly benchmarked

program such as Pathway or another structured

approach to be able to succeed in a e-learning

environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was partially funded by the European

Regional Development Fund (ERFF), Project Jauzi

(Eng. Trans.: New User behavioural interpretation

algorithms to facilitate an efficient transfer of

knowledge within an e-ecosystem)

Nr. 2013/0071/2DP/2.1.1.1.0/13/APIA/VIAA/023.

REFERENCES

Allen, I. Elaine and Seaman, Jeff (2013) Changing

Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in

the United States, Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey

Research Group and Quahog Research Group.

http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changin

gcourse.pdf (accessed 10/09/2013)

Auguste, Byron G., Cota, Adam, Jayaram, Kartik,

Laboissière, Martha C.A. (November 2013) Winning

by degrees: the strategies of highly productive higher-

education institutions, McKinsey http://

mckinseyonsociety.com/winning-by-degrees/

(accessed 11-2-2013)

Christensen, Clayton M. and Eyring, Henry (2011) the

Innovative University, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Christensen, Clayton M, Horn, Michael B, and Johnson,

Curtis B. (2011) Disrupting Class, New York:

McGraw Hill.

Concannon, Fiona, Flynn, Antoinette and Campbell, Mark

(2005) “What campus-based students think about the

quality and benefits of e-learning,” British Journal of

Educational Technology 36(no. 3), 501-512

European Commission, EuroStat, Glossary: E-learning,

Information society statistics, http://epp.eurostat.

ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Informatio

n_society_statistics (accessed 28-12-2013).

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), eBig3,

synergetic approach with eLearning, TV and mobile

technologies to promote new business developments,

Project No. LV-LT/1.1./ LLIII-183/2011/26

Levin, Tamar (August 22, 2013) Obama’s Plan to Lower

College Costs, New York Times

McGrath, Rita Gunther and MacMillan, Ian C. (July-

August, 1995) “Discovery-Driven Planning,” Harvard

Business Review, Reprint 95406

McGregor, Jena, “Clayton Christensen’s Innovation

Brain”, Bloomberg Businessweek, June 15, 2007

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-06-

15/clayton-christensens-innovation-

brainbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-

financial-advice (accessed 10-10-2013)

EducatingtheFuturewithDisruptivee-LearningSolutions

MOOCS: Top 10 Sites for Free Education with Elite

Universities http://www.bdpa-detroit.org/portal/index.

php?Itemid=20&catid=29:education&id=57:moocs-

top-10-sites-for-free-education-with-elite-universities

&option=com_content& view=article (accessed 12-

10-2013).

Nissen, Max, “Now Even Harvard Business School is

Working On Online Courses,” Business Insider, Oct

10, 2013. http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-

business-school-online-courses-2013-10 (accessed

12-10-2013)

Obama, Barak President (August 22, 2013) President

Obama Explains his Options to Combat Rising

College Costs, The White House Blog,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/22/president

-obama-explains-his-plan-combat-rising-college-costs

(accessed 13-09-2013).

Redden, Elizabeth and Fain, Paul (Oct 11, 2013) “Going

Global,” Inside Higher Ed.

Vedder, Richard, “How to Slash College Costs,” CNN

Edition: International, Aug 23, 2013

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/opinion/vedder-

college-costs/index.html?iid=article_sidebar (accessed

12-10-13)

Walters, Garrison, (April 11, 2011) “More Degrees /

Dollars—Damn the Quality”? Inside Higher Ed

What is Pathway? Brigham Young University /Idaho,

http://www.byui.edu/online/pathway/what-is- pathway

(access 12-10-13)

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation