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:

1. It was too linear, implying one ideal sequence through which students should progress.
2. 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.
3. 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?

It’s been over a month since I’ve blogged. At first my blog-silence was due to being busy with other things–wrapping up the semester, getting ready for the holidays, etc. Then I decided to take some time off, unstring the bow, so to speak.

Now as I get back into the swing of things, I realize I need to blog again. I jumped in to this blog last year thinking it would be a great way to share ideas and get feedback on things I was working on or thinking about. And it has been. But over the last month I’ve realized there’s another hugely important benefit of blogging. Keeping a blog has been a great way to organize my own thoughts, to force myself through the methodical process of making points more clear than when they’re just bouncing around in my head. And I’ve missed it.

So, whether anyone else has missed my musings or not, I’m returning to my regular routine of blogging at least once a week because it helps me sort through all of the chaff and make better sense of the complicated world I confront every day. And if I offer an insight or two along the way that helps you do the same, all the better.

And I’ve (re)learned an important lesson about the value of metacognition in the learning process . . .

When family members or friends ask me what I do for work, I have to weigh the benefits/costs of giving them a full explanation. I usually mumble something about academic technology and online courses and they’re content to leave it at that. Many of them still have the impression that I teach at BYU (which I do, on occasion, time permitting). My “real” (i.e. full-time) work is academic technology strategy. My official job title is Assistant to the Academic Vice President – Academic Technology. (Yeah, I know. It barely fits on the placard outside my office.) Essentially, I provide strategic advice and guidance for the Academic Vice President at BYU. Much like a provost at other institutions, the Academic VP at BYU oversees all of the colleges and academic support units, such as the Library, BYU Broadcasting and the Center for Teaching & Learning. He has a complicated, multifaceted job. And technology is an integral part of almost every function under his purview.

So how does someone end up with a job like mine? Well, obviously, the natural course would be to go off and get a doctorate in political science . . . At least that’s how it started for me. My plan was to get a PhD and become a faculty member somewhere, teaching and writing about American government and politics. But something funny happened on the way to my tenure track job. The arc of my career began to bend in grad school. Having always been something of a technology nerd, I thought it would be a great idea to start building web pages for my poli sci students at the University of Oklahoma in the mid-1990s. And it was pretty cutting edge stuff. I had to include instructions in my syllabi about downloading Netscape Navigator (via FTP) so my students could read the documents I posted for them online.

Along the way, I wasn’t offered some jobs I wanted, turned down a couple I didn’t want and, in hindsight, inexplicably decided to try my hand at an Internet startup (ThisNation.com). But my family wanted food, so I took a job at BYU as an Instructional Designer. I eventually became the Director of the Center for Instructional Design (now the Center for Teaching and Learning) at BYU. A little over a year ago, the Academic Vice President asked me to assist him with academic technology strategy and planning.

So here I am, attempting to provide useful insight and advice in a complicated and uncertain world. How can you tell when a technology is adding value to the faculty and students at your institution? How can you tell when you’ve selected the right product from the right vendor? Which new technologies should you implement to make your institution an even better place for teaching and learning? Well, those are all subjects for future posts.

For now, let me just say I love my job and the constant supply of interesting, complicated and challenging problems is provides for me to grapple with on a daily basis. Not a bad way to make a living.