Learning From Experience
In 2011, I was awarded a Doctorate in Education. Most would think that the award, the end prize would have been the life changing moment. But it wasn’t. Some would think that being referred to as Dr. Stokes would have added to my sense of being in ways that were transformational. Instead what happened was just the opposite. The extrinsic rewards seemed empty and trite.
The Choice
The process of attaining the degree was the transforming part. As I reflect on my decision to pursue an online degree I am both proud and satisfied with my learning and my accomplishments.
I chose to travel down the path of online learning for two reasons: I had 4 children at home and needed to work full time to maintain our income and I was offered a job at a local university that was willing to support my learning while I continued to teach.
I was afraid of the new experience, and concerned this would not provide me with the quality learning I wanted so desperately. After much reflection I began to see that this was an opportunity to grow my learning even more. The venue that was increasingly a part of the status quo in higher education and I wanted to experience it first hand as a student so that when I used this new platform as a teacher I would understand both sides of the learning design. Allen and Seaman (201o) noted the increase of enrollment in distance learning in higher education. They found that in the fall term of 2008 “more than 4.6 million students were taking online courses offered by higher education institutions in the United States, which represented a 17% increase in the number of students from the previous year.” (p. 21). This was the year I began my degree.
The Experience
As I participated in this learning process, I found new learnings in many parts of my program. Not only did I begin to accumulate vast amounts of research and sources pertaining to curriculum and design that could be used within my practice; but I began to see how online collaboration, synchronous and asynchronous communication allow creation of a learning commons or professional learning network. Although my digital literacy skills were lacking, I knew if I continued to work I would become an effective online learner.
The discourse within the process of learning in a different forum as well as participating in a terminal degree program, began to transform the skills and craft contained within my practice as an instructional and curricular designer. I was constantly learning information that would allow be to use the newest best practice and increased my digital literacy skills at the same time.
Competencies and Reflections
Reviewing the IBSTPI competencies within the professional foundations category, I find that many of these skills are evident within online learning and instructional design. The following are examples of my achieving the competencies during the doctoral process.
1. Communicate effectively in a visual, oral and written form.
The artifact Writing_Excellence_ChangesArtifactIDT captures my abilities to write and edit messages that are clear, concise and grammatically correct. Within the content of the paper, the ability to work as a team suing active listening, effective collaboration, and dissemination of a summary of content and action-report are each evident. The paper was written in an asynchronous fashion with the need for effective communication skills, negotiation of content and active listening. In addition, the table below shows the teams ability to summarize content and formulate the data into usable information. See a portion of the paper below the table.
| Name | Vision | Commitment | Management | Strength |
| Floyd | 34% | 32% | 34% | Vision and Management |
| Hendricks | 36% | 27% | 37% | Vision and Management |
| McCullough | 32% | 43% | 17% | Commitment and Vision |
| Mitchell | 34% | 29% | 37% | Management and Vision |
| Stokes | 40% | 33% | 27% | Vision and Commitment |
“Vision and management are areas of strength for Team C. To work effectively, Floyd,
Hendricks and Stokes must collaborate to set a vision for projects, while McCullough
and Stokes should support relationships to maintain group commitment toward outlined
goals. Floyd, Hendricks and Mitchell must be diligent in keeping the team on track and
focused on task. Regularly scheduled communication should be outlined to ensure
understanding and task completion by each team member.
Team Members’ Approaches
Andria Stokes Leadership Style
Stokes’ leadership style of a transformational leader dovetails with the Diamond Model
of leadership. Vision and commitment of followers are key components in this brand of
leadership. The leader is not only responsible for providing opportunities to think in a
conceptual form but also structures the organization into four interactive parts. These
parts include (a) the leader who provides strategic thinking and design, (b) outlining of
tasks to further the organization’s progress, (c) people within the organization and (d)
outside factors which influence the decisions and direction of the organization (Clawson,
2003).
In support of the diamond model of leadership, Stokes applies two contingency based
theories which enable her to lead successfully. Contingency models of transformational
leadership focus on using resources effectively. The leader must be astute in reading
situations, analyzing his or her followers’ behaviors and modifying his or her behavior to
support the situation at hand. Each model provides a different perspective on supportive
leadership. Nahavandi (2006) describes two of these models in his book The Art and
Science of Leadership; they are path-goal theory and cognitive resource theory. The
path-goal theory supports followers by having the leader remove obstacles which get in
the way of productivity. The cognitive resource theory focuses on the intellectual
astuteness of the leader while connecting his or her basic knowledge with past experience.
This allows guidance through decision making based on the leaders’ past experiences and
knowledge of current research.” (Floyd, Hendricks, McCullough, Mitchell & Stokes, 2007,
p. 4-5)
2. Apply research and theory to the discipline of instructional design.
The Research_Study_PlanPhoenixArtifactIDTPorfolio document clearly shows capabilities of explaining key concepts and principles related to instructional design, applies systems thinking to instructional design and performance improvement projects while applying concepts, techniques and theories of other disciplines to learning and performance improvement.
One example, found within the artifact, of key concepts and principles related to instructional design is using multiple learning theorists such as Rousseau and Vygotsky (both constructivist) to support the need for inclusion of complexity thinking within the instructional design process for the K-12 population. Hoadley and Van Haneghan (2012) review the importance of using learning theorists and sciences to support instructional design. In their chapter (“The Learning Sciences: Where they came from and what it means for instructional designers”) the authors provide a longitudinal perspective of learning science research and practical tools for instructional design. The tie between learning theory and instructional design can be described as creating a learning environment that has authenticity and relevance which are tied to goals, preconditions, methods, and create probablistic attainment of identified goals.
3. Update and improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes pertaining to the instructional design process and related fields.
Finally, the fact that I was participating in an online degree program with team competencies built into each course supports my acquisition of the following competencies: (a) professional development activities, (b) established and maintained contact with other professionals, (c) acquired and applied new technology skills in instructional design practices, and (d) documented and disseminated work as a foundation for future efforts.
References
Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United
States, 2009. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River: NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Floyd, S.M., Hendricks, L. S., McCullough, D., Mitchell, F., & Stokes, A. (2007).
Transformational leadership: A team evaluation. (Course Assignment). University of
Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.
Hoadley, C. & Van Haneghan, J. P. (2012). The learning sciences: Where they came from
and what it means for instructional designers. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.)
Trends and issues instructional design and technology (p. 53-63). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Pearson.
Reimagining Education 