Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Michael Flavin
In a subsequent work, Christensen and Raynor (2003) change the term “disruptive technology” to
“disruptive innovation”, arguing that the disruption is not an intrinsic feature of the technology, but is
determined by practices within the organisation confronted by the innovation. Disruption, therefore,
emerges from usage. This paper, however, uses the term “disruptive technology” for clarity’s sake, as
the research is fundamentally interested in technologies for learning and teaching.
Christensen (2006) argues that it is not the case that innovators have mastery over a technology,
whereas established providers don’t. Instead, the established provider finds that the new technology
does not fit within its business model. Hence, it is undesirable, not unattainable. To apply this principle
to technology-enhanced learning in H.E., H.E.I.s have no technical issues with setting up social
networking technologies. Existing, institutional V.L.E.s have chat facilities. However, students are
electing to have their discussions elsewhere. It may be that students have already established an
online presence and identity via existing social networking technologies and therefore feel no need to
have a further online presence in an institutional V.L.E.. It may also be the case that institutional
V.L.E.s are perceived as less attractive and less interesting environments than the more popular
social networking technologies. In addition, students may prefer to hold discussions in environments
where the institution has no control, and no means of monitoring usage. Moreover, students may be
opting to blur the boundaries between a range of social, work and educational activities; this was one
of the conclusions drawn by Conole et al. (2008), in their survey of 427 students.
In Disrupting Class (2011), Christensen et al. take Disruptive Innovation theory and apply it to the
school system in the U.S., arguing that schools’ implementation of technology-enhanced learning has
followed the Sustaining Innovation path, instead of prompting a fundamental rethink of learning and
teaching: “Schools have crammed the computers into the existing teaching and classroom models.
Teachers have implemented computers in the most commonsense way – to sustain their existing
practices and pedagogies rather than to displace them” (p. 84). In this sense, Christensen’s argument
repeats the research findings of Blin and Munro (2008) in their study of technology-enhanced learning
in higher education. Where Blin and Munro conclude, “although use of the V.L.E. is widespread
within the university, little disruption of teaching practices… has occurred” (2008, p. 488), Christensen
argues, “traditional instructional practices have changed little despite the introduction of computer and
other modern technologies” (2011, p. 83).
Christensen concludes by arguing that disruption works not by confronting established practice, but
by doing something new: “A major lesson from our studies of innovation is that disruptive innovation
does not take root through a direct attack on the existing system. Instead, it must go around and
underneath the system” (p. 243). Hence, applying technology-enhanced learning within established
pedagogic models is a mistake, because the technology gets contorted to suit the existing pedagogy,
and thus only a small portion of the learning and teaching potential of the technology is realised.
3. The Community of Practice
The term Community of Practice was coined originally by Lave and Wenger (1991), who observed a
range of different learning communities, including Yucatan midwives, Liberian tailors, and Alcoholics
Anonymous in the United States. Lave and Wenger found that learning had a similar structure in each
case. Individual learners start on the periphery of communities and travel towards the centre. Good
progress relies on a supportive structure within the community.
Subsequently, Wenger (1998) argues that learning is about the formation of an identity rather than the
acquisition of a product, and focuses on learning as social participation. Wenger also argues that
learning is an unavoidable aspect of existence, is ongoing, and “may use teaching as one of its many
structuring resources” (p. 267). Recognising that learning is not contained in a classroom, we begin to
recognise how technology can facilitate effective learning, irrespective of the learner’s location (a
point also made by Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani [2010]) .
Wenger further argues that learning is controlled by the learning community, not by the external
drivers that prompted the formation of the learning community and adds, “Learning cannot be
designed. Ultimately, it belongs to the realm of experience and practice” (1998, p. 225). He later
argues “Learning is a matter of imagination” (p. 227) and: “In a world that is not predictable,
improvisation and innovation are more than desirable, they are essential” (p. 233). Therefore, learning
for Wenger is a creative process, not classroom bound, and an inevitable, ongoing fact of human
experience.
918