Thank you for your insightful thoughts. To your point, the culture around technology in the classroom shifted very quickly without much explicit discussion. For example, when I was in undergrad (’12-’16), it was not required or expected that you bring a laptop to class. And most of the time, I did not. I had one course that was marked “BYOC” bring your own computer. But that was it. Now, it is expected and almost required that you bring an internet connected device to class for in class activities, assignments, or other aspects. When did this shift exactly occur? And how did it occur without being explicitly named?

While I am speaking about the undergraduate level, what are the expectations or requirements of K-12 students to have or bring an internet connected device in the classroom? How is pedagogy going to change to adapt to this new trend?

My apologies, Meredith. That comment was for a different blog post.

I appreciate how LATTC’s mission statement is straightforward and short. I prefer that over some of the lengthier missions I have seen. However, the shorter mission statement must compensate for the length by sacrificing detail. Without knowing anything about that school, I can get a gist for what they stand for. I liked how NC State provides information about its structure upfront – such as being a public land grant university.

I appreciate how BYU’s mission statement focuses on the student. It seems like they are focused on student development and growth. However, I like the level of details provided in the mission statement of Virginia Tech. I believe a mission statement should stand alone. If the mission statement was the only information someone had about BYU, it does not reveal anything about the structure of the university (public, private, religious affiliation, etc.) or the main arms of the university (teaching, research, outreach if applicable). I wonder how it could be expanded.
Also, do you know how has to approve the mission statement at BYU? I’m just curious.