In Ken Robinson’s TED Talk “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”, he states that instead of growing in creativity in school, we grow out of it. Dalile’s Blog, “How Schools are Killing Creativity” captures Ken Robinson perspective from a student’s point of view. She states, “I strongly feel that our methodologies in school are demolishing creativity. Students have lost their capacity of creation simply because our teaching methods don’t stimulate innovation and creativity.”

The traditional school curriculum may not stimulate innovation and creativity in school, but more districts are supporting students’ creativity through schools of choice.  Many schools district has several specialized schools that focus on the arts as well as academics. These non-traditional schools help stimulate students’ innovation and creativity by tailoring curriculums that promote creativity.  Encouraging the type of thinking that helps students deal well with novelty necessitates exposing them to novel situations. These may range from the imaginary to the realistic (Starko, 2013).

Dr. R. Keith Sawyer’s TED Talk, ” Schools That Foster Creativity”, states that “Today we are living in an innovation age, and creativity is more important than ever before in history. Graduates today need to maximize their own creative potential because jobs that don’t require creativity are outsourcing or automated.”

Many schools support creativity through schools of choice. These school help stimulate student’s innovations and creativity.

Brenda Jenkins, Teacher

ebjenkins@tx.rr.com

HSU Masters in Gifted Education Student

References

Dalile, L. (2012, April 10). How schools are killing creativity. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/line-dalile/a-dictator-racing-to-nowh_b_1409138.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Starko, A. (2013). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight, 5th ed.  New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Other source that support this blog:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-r-keith-sawyer/teaching-creativity_b_2258239.html

Creativity in schools, it sounds almost contradictive.  Stop and ask, what remains the goal of public education in the United States?  Based on the emphasis placed on state exams, one would likely conclude the goal of public education exists to teach students how to take English and Mathematics tests.  Where does creativity fit into the hierarchy of education?  That depends on the teacher.

Nieto (2015) pointed out that teachers feel a loss of professional autonomy and the pressure of high-stakes testing.  One might even ask, why become a teacher today?  Media reports compound a general lack of respect for the profession and educators take the brunt of their criticism (Nieto, 2015).  So why do teachers still teach?  Educators want to make a difference in children’s lives, and in today’s world of education, that demands creativity.

Educators possess the ability to allow for teaching creativity in their classrooms, but it takes creativity on their own part.  The U.S. education system does not support creativity.  If anything, it discourages it.  The system rewards memorization and understanding, not learning.  The word learning implies doing.  However, the state cannot test doing.  Ravitch and Córtese (2009) said, “American students consistently have ranked below those from Finland, Canada, Japan, and at least a dozen other industrialized nations on international tests of mathematics, science, and reading.”  When one takes a closer look at the national standards in these countries, they can see why.  “While American students are spending endless hours preparing to take tests of their basic reading and math skills, their peers in high-performing nations are reading poetry and novels, conducting experiments in chemistry and physics, making music, and studying important historical issues”  (Ravitch & Córtese, 2009).

For the U.S. education system to allow creativity, teachers must possess more autonomy.  Simply put, allow teachers to teach and stop worrying about a test.  Some argue that educators should start formal lessons in creativity, which would of course lead to formal testing of this skill and compound the problem further.  Children do not need lessons in creativity or testing over it.  Children possess natural creativity.  Our education system needs to trust that educators can teach and allow children to develop their creative abilities.  Sir Ken Robinson (2014) said, “I think great education is about creating conditions under which people want to learn and be encouraged and stimulated and provoked…Teachers can’t make children learn.  They have to create conditions where kids want to learn and teachers can do their job properly.”

Christine McGraw, Teacher

HSU Masters in Gifted Education Student

References

Developing individual talent and abilities: An Interview with Sir Ken Robinson. (2014). Language Arts, 92(2), 157.

Nieto, S. (2015). Still teaching in spite of it all. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 54.

Ravitch, D., & Cortese, A. (2009). WHY WE’RE BEHIND: What top nations teach their students but we don’t. Education Digest, 75(1), 35.

If you asked me ten years ago where I would be in 2018, my answer would be vastly different from my life now. I did not have plans to pursue a doctorate degree at all. My plan was to graduate with my Master of Library Science and work as an academic librarian for the rest of my working life. As we all know, life happens and things change. While I loved my job as a librarian, I wanted more. I wanted to make a greater impact. I wanted to leave higher education in a better place than when I entered it as an undergraduate 12 years ago. I wanted to be a leader. In addition to my changing hopes and dreams, I met a fellow librarian, who felt the same way. So, in 2015, we took a leap of faith together. I did not know what to expect. I did not think my life would change so drastically. However, on that faithful day in July 2015, I met the people who would become my best friends and biggest advocates. I met my cohort family. As we started this doctoral program together, we started to bond. We developed inside jokes as well as trust. We grew to love each other while we grew as leaders. Not only did I meet my cohort family, I also met the most caring faculty that I’ve ever known. They sincerely want you to succeed and they put in as much work as you do to help make it happen. I’m so thankful for the wonderful people that this program has placed in my life. I thank God every day for granting me this opportunity.

This choice has not been easy though, as it may sound so far. I have had my share of ups and downs, late nights, and tears. I’ve had to make sacrifices along the way. While I was abroad in Austria for the program’s residency requirement, my grandfather passed away. In my grief, I never felt alone; my cohort (and the 2014 cohort) surrounded me with so much love and support. They helped me through such a difficult time, and I was able to complete the residency and course requirements during a time of great stress. I had never known this amount of support before. Despite everything, after three years in the program, I can honestly say that the leap of faith I took in 2015 has resulted in my greatest adventure yet. This program challenged me to break out of my shell and show the world what I have to offer. I have pushed myself beyond what I thought I was capable of doing so many times throughout the years. I do not think I would have the confidence that I have today if it was not for this doctoral program. And, my adventure is not over. I still have another year of growth, learning, creating, and contributing to the field. I look forward to what the future holds.

So, if you’re on the fence about this decision, I hope my testimony helps you make a choice. I have no regrets about my choice, as I honestly believe that in pursuing a doctorate degree from Hardin-Simmons University, I have improved my entire being—mind, body, and soul. My advice is to open your heart to God’s call and make a difference in your life, as well as others’ lives. Take the chance and invest in your future. If you make the choice to join HSU, I promise it will be the greatest adventure of your life that you will not have to make alone.

Christy Tabors, MLS

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership

Hardin-Simmons University  

Leadership is a hot topic today.  From leaders who have served for many year to self-proclaimed experts, everyone shares what they think it takes to be effective leaders.  Some experts even espouse that “everyone is a leader”.  Now, that is difficult to believe.  How can everyone be a leader?  Don’t some individuals choose to follow and support the leader’s strategic goals?  Regardless, some people do rise to the top of an organization or mission to serve in a leadership role.  But are they prepared to do that well?  Do they have the knowledge and expertise to caste a vision, develop a strategic plan, enlist the best people to work with them, and guide the collaborative effort to move in a new direction or achieve the goal?

Hardin-Simmons University offers a Doctorate in Leadership program that provides academic study of leadership for men and women to become scholars and practitioners in the field.  Over the course of four years, these individuals develop the knowledge and expertise to lead well and wisely, particularly with an authentic Christian perspective.  With a cohort of men and women, many of whom are already serving in leadership roles, they consider models of leadership that function well in an ever-changing culture.  They analyze current and historical leaders to determine their effectiveness while also considering the ethics of their decisions and behavior.  They investigate the impact of servant leadership in today’s world while remembering the best servant leader, Jesus Christ.  They study leadership in varied settings from their workplace to travel course sites of Austin, Washington DC, and Austria and Germany. They culminate their study in an individual research study that results in a dissertation but also fulfills their passionate interest.  Along the way, they develop life-long friends and colleagues within and among cohort groups formed in the program.

Don’t you want to join this group of scholars?  Wouldn’t you like to be a better leader — and perhaps –teach others to lead well?  If so, visit our website at https://www.hsutx.edu/doctorateinleadership/.  Start the application process now – deadline is April 11.  Contact leadership@hsutx.edu if you have questions or need further information.

Start the journey with us in Fall 2018!

A critical issue facing higher education today: students entering college unprepared.  Some reports reveal that 40 percent of traditional first year students require at least one remedial course to help them prepare for college-level course work (Barnett et al., 2012). Other reports reveal that the most common remedial courses students need include math and/or English (Mattern et. al, 2013). In addition, the need for academic content remediation courses increases when students enter college without general learning strategies and coping skills necessary to navigate the college learning experience (Conley, 2007). Post-secondary and secondary education leaders must view improving the college-readiness of America’s students an issue that demands urgent attention. Click link for video that offers more information on the issue of college-readiness in the state of Texas http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/16/tea-says-texas-high-school-graduates-arent-ready-for-college/

The state of Texas provides a variety of examples of education and community leaders working together to improve college-readiness via organized programs. Cities across Texas such as Houston, Cy Fair, Dallas, Arlington, and El Paso provide either academic programs, which work to improve the academic readiness of students, or college knowledge programs, which work to increase knowledge of how to apply for college, pay for college, then navigate college life (Barnett et al., 2012). These programs share a commitment to the partnership of the local school districts, colleges and universities, and in some cases, nonprofit/for profit organizations in the community. Some of these programs provide one-time, regular events to improve college-readiness in students, while others provide multi-year programs.

Without a doubt college-readiness programs, like those in Texas, seek good intentions, but evaluating the effectiveness of these programs proves problematic because of the multi-dimensionality of the definition of college-readiness. With no single definition of college-readiness, programs often find themselves stretched in many directions to touch upon the many dimensions of college-readiness that include:  “…the level of preparation required for students to enroll and succeed without remediation in credit-bearing, entry-level, or general education course work at a post-secondary institution” (ACT, 2007; Conley, 2007). Other schools determine whether a student is college-ready based on the academic content knowledge and skills needed to pass college-level courses (McAlister & Mevs, 2012). Some universities even suggest that motivational or non-cognitive factors can be important determinants of success in college. These factors include maintaining a positive attitude toward learning and being able to persist when the going gets tough (Dweck, et al., 2011). Not one of these elements presents itself more, or less, important than the other, but one of these elements, arguably, contains the ability to impact college-readiness overall.

Perhaps the most defining college-ready characteristic rests in the ability to maintain a positive attitude and persist through the challenges of college. This characteristic fall under  Stanford University psychologist Dweck’s (2016) notion of growth mindset. “Growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. Although people may differ in every which way – in their initial talents and aptitudes, interest, or temperaments – everyone can change and grow through application and experience” (Dweck, 2016, p. 7). Growth mindset provides the missing element in college-readiness programs. For starters, the intentional application of growth mindset into college-readiness programs that already exist (like those in Texas) stand to reap significant leaps toward improving college-readiness simply by fostering growth mindset in students that participate in these programs. Consider a multi-year program that begins when students are still in middle school or high school, and incorporates academic readiness and college knowledge components paired with growth mindset to prepare them for the mental steadfastness college requires.

Project GRAD in Houston, Texas is an example of a multi-year, multi-faceted college-readiness program that has experienced great success. Visit Project GRAD’s official website for more information http://www.projectgradhouston.org/ . It would place minimal to zero financial burden upon Project GRAD to add growth mindset as an integral element of the work it already does in the low-income communities in Houston. For example, the College Transition Conference, an annual event that students attend the summer before they begin their first year of college to learn about the transition from high school to college, offers a realistic platform for growth mindset. Introducing growth mindset during this conference would allow students to begin to foster the mental steadfastness that the challenges of college require (both academic and nonacademic). One nonacademic challenge students may face include stereotypes. Dweck’s (2016) work reveals that students who possess growth mindset demonstrate a resilience that allows them to persist and succeed in the face of academic adversity caused by stereotypes. Consider that many women drop out of math and science because they do not feel like they belong in these fields. The programs provided via Project GRAD, aware of the stereotypes female students (and other minority groups) might encounter in college, can encourage participation in content area courses typically reserved for a certain group/type of student and then go a step farther and develop a growth mindset in students to persist past the stereotypes. The College Transition Conference provides just one opportunity, but Project GRAD is a multi-year program that provides students several opportunities to develop a growth mindset that can offset the stereotypes they may encounter in college.

Improving college-readiness should stand as an urgent issue for secondary and post-secondary leaders in education. Partnerships between community organizations, school districts, and colleges and universities (i.e. Project GRAD) offers a positive step toward improving college-readiness but room for improvement still exist. Understanding the multi-dimensional definition of college-readiness can provide a starting point to create programs that address each of the dimensions. But, also understanding growth mindset as a concept that binds all the dimensions of college-readiness together will lead college-readiness programs into a new level of success. In the same way, infusing growth mindset into already existing definitions of college-readiness results in a new, more relevant definition of college-readiness for the 21^st century. College-readiness: a pragmatic, deliberate ongoing process to challenge a student’s current knowledge and experiences for the express purpose of guiding their thinking (i.e. mindset) toward personal learning and improvement. A college-ready student with growth mindset accepts academic and non-academic challenges of college as part of the overall process toward personal greatness.

Amanda Melchor McCown, M.A. English, M.A. Education Leadership

English Department Chair, Lee High School, Midland, Texas

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program at Hardin-Simmons University

References

ACT. (2007). ACT college readiness standards 2007. Explaining what college readiness scores

mean. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Barnett, E. A., Corrin, W., Nakanishi, A., Bork, R. H., Mitchell, C., & Sepanik, S. (2012).

Preparing high school students for college: An exploratory study of college readiness

partnership programs in Texas (Research Report).

Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Research Report).

Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

McAlister , S., & Mevs, P. (2012). College readiness: A guide to the field (Research Report).

In 2012, I was working as the Leadership Development Coordinator at Angelo State University. Even though it was a position I fell into, I still gave the job all my effort, but not my heart. I dreamed of becoming an entrepreneur. At the time, I was ill equipped to turn my dream into reality. I was working in that position while my husband was finishing his physical therapy degree. I assumed I would go back to school for a business or marketing degree of some kind. I remember a specific conversation with my co-workers at Angelo State where someone mentioned the goal of earning a doctorate degree. When asked if I would ever earn a doctorate I promptly replied, ‘absolutely not’. In no way was I interested in that option. Little did I know that interaction was the first of many nudges from God along my path to where I am today.

My world changed completely when I opened my heart to God’s plan. I have this bad habit of trying to control everything which often closes my mind to new possibilities. When the opportunity to attend Hardin-Simmons University’s doctorate of leadership program arose I said yes. That was three years ago. I hardly recognize the person I am today in comparison to who I was when I started studying in this program. Through the reading, writing, discussion, and traveling I gained confidence and curiosity. This program taught me everything I needed to know to fulfill my dream of owning a business. I gained the confidence to move forward in an area that previously terrified me.

“The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.” -Sarah Ban Breathnach

“Never” is a word I used to say. If someone approached me four years ago with an image of the person I am today I would have responded in two ways. First, disbelief. Second, I would have felt intensely energized by the accomplishments. The simple decision to walk in faith instead of fear forever changed my life. I was afraid of the work, the time commitment, and the cost. Rather than allow my uncertainty to guide my decision, I listened to my heart and accepted the challenge of this doctorate degree. In return, I received the direction and confidence I needed to live the life I imagined through my business. I am forever grateful.

Lindsay Boynton, M.Ed.
Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership
Hardin-Simmons University

Corporatization of American higher education institutions produces multiple opportunities for unethical practices in recruitment and admissions as institutions compete for students. Viewing higher education through a business model lens helps to improve rankings and increase enrollment, however “is it wise to redirect the efforts” of staff and faculty away from the “core responsibility” (Natale & Doran, 2012, p. 187) of education? Treating education as a commodity designed to meet students’ and families’ expectations of career attainment opens the door to corporatization of American higher education (Blumenstyk, 2015; Selingo, 2013).  “The quest for high ethics standards in education is a goal never permanently achieved” (Johnson, 2012, p. 493) which constitutes a need for ethical considerations related to recruiting and admission practices, college matching, undocumented and international students, and institutional marketing strategies.

Unfortunately, higher education recruitment and admission practices have “become less fair, honest, and friendly” (Hodum, 2012, p. 38) leaving students and parents more vulnerable and anxious about the college experience. Higher education leaders must review past practices to insure ethical policies. The lowering of admission standards to accept high performing athletes and students from wealthy families must stop. Admission officers should strive for the ethical balance of equity and equality in recruitment admission practices. The concept of equity considers the difference between groups and the lack of equal treatment among groups. Equality offers impartial treatment (Caldwell, Shapiro, & Gross, 2007). Adopting equity and equality allows higher education professionals to support students in finding a good college match and increases the likelihood for student success.

American immigration and societal globalization creates a need for ethical considerations related to undocumented and international students. Approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from American high schools each year requiring attention to the “many unresolved issues confronted by state legislative, judicial, and academic officials” (Adams & Boyne, 2015, p. 62) related to the admission of undocumented students into higher education institutions. Admissions officers have a moral “obligation” to “sort out” (Muth, 2015, p. 50) international students with the skills to succeed from those who make fraudulent claims via unethical Independent Education Consultants (IECs). Regardless of citizen status, students interested in attending American higher education institutions deserve ethical treatment.

Higher education marketing practices also warrant increased considerations to insure ethical behaviors. The student-consumer paradigm and recent economic crisis create a need for competitive marketplace strategies to insure the survival of higher education institutions (Gibbs & Murphy, 2009; Hodum, 2012; Natale & Doran, 2012). Institution representatives must remain “apart from the vulgar and meaningless bustle of the great world” (Silber, 2012, p. 44) and portray ethical behavior in business practices.  All higher education professionals must insure the disbursement of accurate and complete information and data. Overall, “students deserve to be protected from unethical practices and behaviors” (Hodum, 2012, p. 39) utilized in higher education recruitment and admissions.

Recruiters and admissions professionals can combat unethical practices by adopting a platform of social responsibility in higher education and upholding personal and professional codes of ethics. Frequent assessments of the institution’s systems and practices through an ethics audit and the implementation of accountability measures will insure higher education institutions’ core values (Gibbs & Murphy, 2009). Unethical behavior in higher education institutions “betrays the values that form the moral basis for the educational process” (Johnson, 2012, p. 479) creating a danger for society and a continued need for ethical considerations.

How will adopting a mindset of social responsibility impact the future of higher education? View t

Social Responsibility

Bridgett Holmes, MA, MT-BC

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program

Hardin-Simmons University

Bridgett.R.Holmes@hsutx.edu

References

Adams, A., & Boyne, K. S. (2015). Access to higher education for undocumented and “dacamented” students: The current state of affairs. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 25(1), 47-62.

Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis? What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Caldwell, C., Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2007). Ethical leadership in higher education admission: Equality vs. equity. Journal of College Admission, 195, 14-19.

Gibbs, P., & Murphy, P. E. (2009). Ethical marketing of higher education: What might be done to encourage its adoption? Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 75-90.

Hodum, R. L. (2012). A normative code of conduct for admissions officers. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(160), 29-39.

Johnson, V. R. (2012). Higher education, corruption, and reform. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 4(1), 478-495.

Muth, P. (2015). Already guilty. Changing our perception of Chinese applicants. The Journal of College Admission, 228, 47-50.

Natale, S. M., & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 187-196.

Silber, J. R. (2012). Marketing higher education: The survival value of integrity. Journal of College Admission, 214, 40-44.

The college experience today differs greatly from the college experience of the past.  Prior to the mid-twentieth century when federal institutions began making comparisons among schools based on education and value, the presence of minimal student advising and student services led to low retention and graduation rates, even among the homogenous population (Thelin, 2015).  In the twenty-first century, students and parents demand posh and expansive living quarters, omnipresent technology, and creature comforts along with a well-rounded education (for further information, see http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/nightline-luxury-university-colleges-offer-water-parks-upscale-26174791).  Colleges battle between keeping tuition and fees affordable and catering to the students’ demands.

Roughly one third of high school graduates attend college.  Universities seek to mimic the population through diversifying the campus.  In the past, colleges relied on Affirmative Action as a way to diversify the student body.  However, recent colleges find alternative solutions to enhance diversity such as considering income, native language, grades, class rank, and overcoming obstacles (Carnevale & Rose, 2003; Gonzalez, 2014).  Nonetheless, Blacks and Latinos remain underrepresented on the American college campus.  Employers often require a bachelor’s degree for entry-level jobs.  This demand leads to a job-market over saturated with people holding a bachelor’s degree.  The supply of educated workers exceeds the demand; subsequently, college graduates find difficulty in obtaining a job remunerating enough to pay back student loans comfortably.  The inability to gain higher compensation as well as the vast number of students seeking a college degree fuel the debt crisis, which serves as America’s largest personal debt problem. (for more information see Student Debt Crisis at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sbBTyxNOMc)

If parents and students perceive college as expensive, then why do students continue to pour into campuses?  Students want the money and the college experience.  “A typical bachelor’s degree recipient earns about 66 percent more than a high-school graduate during a 40-year career” (Selingo, 2012).  Therefore, money motivates student consumers to obtain an undergraduate degree.  The experience also drives students.  The college experience involves  more than textbooks, homework, and classrooms.  Universities provide student services and social involvements to balance the education and provide a co-curricular transcript aimed at helping graduates secure a profitable job.  The college campus and student demands changed over the past few decades.  Savvy traditional students know what the college experience looks like.  Students today prefer expansive living quarters, entertainment areas, world-class cuisine, and shopping to compete with the homes, gyms, restaurants, and malls to which students are accustomed.  Additionally, universities wish to provide living-learning communities, fraternities, sororities, student government, and other service and causal organizations and activities to students.  These amenities and services in addition to technology hardware, software, and staff make it difficult for universities to curtail costs.

Colleges continue to compete for students and students continue to pursue a college education complete with the “experience.”  It remains difficult to assess the true value of a college education since college involves  more than exams and textbooks experienced with a sage on the stage.  The college experience provides students with leadership and inclusion opportunities, service projects, maturation time, and self-discovery.  The perceived value gap exists between what students and parents pay for tuition and fees versus the financial and societal gains of degree attainment.  Research shows that people who hold a bachelor’s degree tend to earn more over a lifetime career.  Therefore, while cumbersome, student loan debt should even out with compensation in a person’s working lifetime.  However, it remains difficult to assess the true value of an education when one considers the co-curricular activities, the leadership opportunities, the critical thinking skills, and the self-development.  As college student attendance and campus amenities grow, how will colleges find a balance to keep costs low and still please their customers?

Jasmine Majkowski, MA

Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program at Hardin-Simmons University

Adjunct Instructor, McMurry University and Hardin Simmons University

jasmine.m.majkowski@hsutx.edu

References

Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college

admissions. New York, NY: Report for the Century Foundation.

Gonzalez, M. (2014, July 7). How the University of Colorado overcame a threat to diversity. Retrieved

from http://www.tcf.org/work/education/detail/how-the-university-of-colorado-overcame-a-threat-to-diversity

Selingo, J. J. (2012, January 12). The value gap [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-selingo/the-value-gap_b_1201395.html

Thelin, J. R. (2015). Why did college cost so little? Affordability and higher education a century ago.

Society, 52(6), 585-589.

Adults encounter learning through life experiences, not necessarily according to a degree plan. Recognizing the wave of boomers who are about to crash onto the beaches of healthcare, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation partnered to inform the public of the dire need for baccalaureate degree nurses. The IOM (2011) points to nursing as a source of solutions to the future challenges in healthcare. http://www.thefutureofnursing.org/IOM-Report

The AACN, the “national voice of baccalaureate and higher-degree nursing education” challenges nurse educators to prepare flexible curricula in keeping with the fluctuations in the current healthcare environment. Relative to adult learners, the AACN encourages

Educational mobility–a process by which individuals complete formal and/or informal educational offerings to acquire additional knowledge and skills. To the extent possible, educational mobility should build on previous learning without unnecessary duplication of that learning and be focused on outcomes” (AACN, 2015, para. 3-4). http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/position/educational-mobility

Assessment of prior learning possesses the potential to impact the anticipated need for increased numbers of professional nurses. Kolb’s (1984) Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Model provide a scaffold for mapping the prior learning of adults. Action verbs developed from Bloom’s Taxonomy (Whittaker, 1989) create flags for identifying learning seen in conversation and writings of adult learners.

Granted, many challenges exist in bringing the recommendations of the IOM to reality. Buy-in of institutions of higher education which grant baccalaureate degrees remains essential to creating a path for nurses who already hold a license to practice but have need of higher education to attain the goal recommended by the IOM. Does the possibility exist to credential adult learners in a valid and attainable manner to practice professional nursing? Will the anticipated shortage of nurses have to touch us personally before a path for educational mobility becomes a consideration?

Tammie J. Coffman RN MSN OCN
Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program at Hardin-Simmons University
Instructor, Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing, a consortium of Hardin-Simmons University & McMurry University
tammie.j.coffman@phssn.edu