From “Pipeline” to “Learning Cycle”
I’m attending the Blackboard sponsored “Pipeline Matters Council” on improving K20 education.
We started off with a “pipeline” model that was limited in three significant ways:
- It was too linear, implying one ideal sequence through which students should progress.
- It didn’t adequately account for the multiplicity of entry and exit points in the learning cycle as students “churn” or “swirl” in and out of formal education.
- It wasn’t clearly focused on the ultimate endgame, i.e., workforce / life productivity.
The new model is much more dynamic and reflective of reality.
Click to Enlarge
We’re still working on the model, but the big question now is this: If this is the real (ideal) model, what about the status quo do we need to jettison and what new ideas, technologies, and modalities do we need to introduce to get better results?
Here are some of the group’s brainstormed ideas about what the ideal system would look like.
- Make curriculum dynamic rather than static
- Allow learning practice to shape policy, not policy shaping practice
- Flexible, individualized learning
- Adjust for societal, cultural differences
- Support multiple entry & (successful) exit points
- Modular & competency based
- Realigned incentives that emphasize authentic learning (aligned with career / job market requirements)
The bottom line is that we need to turn the current equation on its head. The status quo is satisfactory to the elites who created, run, and benefit from it, but not necessarily for the students. As @UrbanEducation pondered the other day, “How would education change, if kids had their very own well paid lobbyists?” How do we change the equation, focusing more on what value we add to our students lives and how we add it?
