INTRODUCTION
This EDLD 5313 portfolio section represents my work in designing significant learning environments that support authentic learning, learner agency, collaboration, reflection, and growth. Each assignment connects to my broader innovation plan and demonstrates how intentional learning design can move students beyond compliance and toward ownership of learning. The assignments included in this section show the development of my thinking from learning philosophy and culture-building to instructional alignment, UbD design, and growth mindset planning.
FINAL
COMPILATION (Part B)
Creating Significant Learning Environments: Course Synthesis
Purpose of This Compilation
This section of my ePortfolio brings together the major assignments from EDLD 5313: Creating Significant Learning Environments. These assignments are not separate tasks; they represent connected parts of a larger instructional design approach. Together, they show how I am developing a learning environment that supports student agency, authentic learning, collaboration, reflection, and long-term growth.
My innovation plan is strengthened by this work because it shifts the focus from simply implementing a new tool, program, or activity to creating the conditions where meaningful learning can happen. A focus on significant learning environments requires me to think beyond content delivery and consider the whole learner, the learning culture, the role of assessment, the design of learning outcomes, and the need for authentic application.
EDLD 5313 Portfolio Navigation
1. New Culture of Learning Link:
https://echoedinsights.com/general-1#new-culture-of-learning
In my New Culture of Learning assignment, I explored how learning is most powerful when it happens through inquiry, imagination, play, collaboration, and authentic engagement. This assignment helped me understand that learning environments should not be designed only around information transfer. Instead, they should create space for students to explore, question, connect, and create.
This connects to my innovation plan because innovation requires a culture that supports experimentation. If students and educators are afraid to take risks or make mistakes, meaningful innovation will be limited. A new culture of learning encourages curiosity and allows learners to participate as creators rather than passive consumers.
2. Learning Philosophy Link:
https://echoedinsights.com/general-1#learning-philosophy
My Learning Philosophy explains what I believe about how people learn. I believe learning is active, social, reflective, and connected to purpose. Learners construct understanding through experience, feedback, collaboration, and reflection. This philosophy informs the way I design learning experiences and interact with students. This assignment helped me clarify that my role is not simply to deliver content but to design conditions for learning. My philosophy supports my innovation plan by emphasizing learner agency, meaningful engagement, and the importance of connecting learning to authentic contexts.
3. Learning Environment and Situational Factors / 3 Column Table Link:
https://echoedinsights.com/general-1#aligning-outcomes
The Learning Environment/Situational Factors Outline and 3 Column Table helped me translate broad learning goals into an intentional design plan. By examining situational factors, I considered the needs of my learners, the context of my organization, available resources, constraints, and desired outcomes. The 3 Column Table helped align learning goals, learning activities, and assessment activities.
This assignment was especially important because it helped me see that significant learning does not happen accidentally. It must be designed. The alignment between outcomes, activities, and assessment supports my innovation plan by ensuring that learners are not simply completing assignments but developing meaningful capabilities.
4. UbD Design Template Link:
https://echoedinsights.com/general-1#ubd-template
The Understanding by Design template allowed me to further refine my instructional planning by beginning with the end in mind. By identifying desired results, acceptable evidence, and learning experiences, I was able to think more clearly about what learners should understand and how they will demonstrate that understanding. The UbD process supports my innovation plan because it helps ensure that digital learning initiatives are not driven by tools alone. Instead, they are guided by learning goals, evidence of understanding, and purposeful experiences. This reinforces the idea that technology should support learning rather than become the focus of learning.
5. Growth Mindset Plan Link:
https://echoedinsights.com/general-1#growth-mindset
My Growth Mindset Plan explains how I will support students in developing resilience, reflection, and ownership of learning. However, the plan also acknowledges that growth mindset alone is not enough. It must be embedded within a significant learning environment that includes feedback, revision, authentic learning, student voice, and opportunities for self-assessment.
This plan supports my innovation work by helping learners become more willing to take risks, accept feedback, revise their work, and persist through challenges. These behaviors are essential for meaningful learning and for successful participation in innovative learning environments.
How Significant Learning Environments Influence My Innovation Plan
A focus on learning and creating significant learning environments has deeply influenced my innovation plan. It has helped me understand that innovation is not primarily about adopting something new. Innovation is about improving learning. If my plan does not increase student ownership, deepen engagement, support authentic application, and create meaningful opportunities for reflection and growth, then it is not truly innovative.
Creating significant learning environments requires me to consider the entire learning system. This includes culture, relationships, assessment, instructional design, feedback, learner agency, and authentic context. My innovation plan must therefore be more than a set of activities or digital tools. It must create a learning environment where students are invited to think, create, question, revise, collaborate, and take ownership of their learning.
This course has also helped me recognize the importance of alignment. My learning philosophy, growth mindset plan, 3 Column Table, UbD template, and innovation plan must all work together. If I claim to value student agency but design rigid, teacher-centered activities, then my practice does not align with my philosophy. If I claim to value growth but provide no opportunities for revision, then growth mindset becomes only a slogan. If I claim to value authentic learning but assess only isolated recall, then I am not creating significant learning.
The most important shift in my thinking is that I now see my innovation plan as part of a larger learning ecosystem. The goal is not simply implementation. The goal is transformation. By creating a significant learning environment, I can support learners in developing the mindset, skills, confidence, and agency needed to become self-directed learners.
Self-Assessment Rationale
Self-Assessment Score: 94/100
I am assigning myself a score of 94/100 for Assignment 5 because my final submission meets the expectations for the highest performance range. I have actively participated in every activity and discussion throughout the course. Responded to and gave feedback to my peers. Additionally, I developed a revised and academically grounded Growth Mindset Plan that does not treat growth mindset as a stand-alone intervention, but instead situates it within the broader context of creating significant learning environments. I addressed the limitations of growth mindset research, including the concern that mindset interventions alone have limited impact, and I explained how my approach will integrate feedback, revision, authentic learning, learner agency, and assessment as learning.
My submission also addresses the required guiding questions. I explain how I will help learners develop a growth mindset, how I will model the message of “yet,” how feedback/feedforward can improve student attitudes toward revision and reduce grade fixation, how growth mindset may influence cheating, and why grit must be used carefully rather than as a justification for excessive workload or unsupported struggle. I also explain why growth mindset is not enough and how I will move learners toward a broader learner’s mindset.
For Part B, I organized the major EDLD 5313 assignments into a cohesive portfolio structure and explained how each artifact contributes to a larger instructional design strategy. Rather than presenting the assignments as disconnected products, I connected the New Culture of Learning, Learning Philosophy, 3 Column Table, UbD Template, and Growth Mindset Plan to my innovation plan and to the larger goal of designing significant learning environments. I also included places for direct links so the reader can easily navigate to each artifact without searching for my work.
This work demonstrates depth, synthesis, academic rigor, and clear application to my professional context. I am not assigning myself a perfect score because I know the plan will continue to improve as I receive feedback and implement it with learners. However, I believe a 94/100 is justified because the submission is complete, reflective, research-supported, clearly organized, connected to my innovation plan, and designed for an authentic professional audience rather than only for the instructor.
References
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new
psychology of success. Random
House.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning
experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J.
L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what
extent and under which circumstances
are growth mind-sets important to academic
achievement? Two meta-analyses.
Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–
571.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617739704
Growth Mindset Plan (Part A)
Developing, Promoting, and Sustaining a Learner’s Mindset
Audience and Purpose
The primary audience for this Growth Mindset Plan is my professional learning community, instructional colleagues, campus leaders, and other educators who are interested in creating learning environments where students become more self-directed, resilient, reflective, and willing to take ownership of their learning. The purpose of this plan is not simply to promote the language of growth mindset, but to embed growth-oriented thinking into a broader significant learning environment that includes authentic learning, meaningful feedback, student agency, collaboration, and reflection.
In EDLD 5313, my understanding of growth mindset has expanded. I no longer view growth mindset as a stand-alone intervention or motivational slogan. Instead, I see it as one part of a larger learning ecology. Growth mindset can support significant learning, but only when it is connected to intentional instructional design, assessment for and as learning, authentic challenges, psychological safety, and opportunities for learners to act on feedback. In other words, students do not develop a growth mindset because we tell them to “try harder.” They develop it when the learning environment consistently gives them opportunities to revise, reflect, receive feedback, make choices, learn from mistakes, and see effort connected to effective strategies.
Why Growth Mindset Alone Is Not Enough
Carol Dweck’s theory of growth mindset emphasizes the belief that intelligence and ability can be developed through effort, strategies, feedback, and persistence (Dweck, 2006). This idea has had a major influence on education because it challenges fixed assumptions about talent and achievement. However, more recent research complicates the idea that simply teaching students about growth mindset automatically produces strong academic gains. For example, Sisk et al. (2018) conducted a large meta-analysis and found that growth mindset interventions have limited overall effects, though they may be more meaningful for specific groups of students or when implemented under the right conditions.
This matters because it reminds educators that growth mindset cannot be treated as a quick fix. If growth mindset becomes a poster, a slogan, or a one-time lesson, it loses its power. Students may learn to repeat phrases such as “I can’t do this yet” without actually changing how they learn. Even worse, growth mindset can be misused when educators unintentionally communicate that students’ struggles are simply caused by a lack of effort. That approach ignores the importance of instructional design, access, relationships, prior knowledge, feedback, culture, and opportunity.
Therefore, I will modify my use of growth mindset by embedding it within a broader learner’s mindset approach. A learner’s mindset includes the belief that growth is possible, but it also requires learners to develop the habits, strategies, self-awareness, and agency needed to direct their own learning. Growth mindset is the starting point; learner’s mindset is the larger goal.
My Updated Growth Mindset Plan
1. Create a Significant Learning Environment
To help learners develop a growth mindset, I must first design a learning environment where growth is actually possible and visible. This means creating conditions where learners have opportunities to make meaningful choices, engage in authentic learning, revise their work, collaborate with others, and reflect on their progress.
In my innovation plan, this means moving away from compliance-based tasks and toward learning experiences that connect to real problems, authentic audiences, and meaningful outcomes. Learners are more likely to persist when they understand the purpose of their work and see how it connects to their lives. A significant learning environment supports growth mindset because it communicates that learning is not about performing perfectly the first time; it is about developing understanding through inquiry, practice, feedback, and revision.
2. Teach Growth Mindset Through Strategy, Not Slogans
I will explicitly teach students that growth is connected to effective strategies, not just effort. Saying “try harder” is not enough. Students need to learn how to try differently. This includes teaching learners how to:
-
Set specific learning goals.
-
Monitor their progress.
-
Ask for useful feedback.
-
Use mistakes as evidence.
-
Revise based on feedback.
-
Reflect on what strategies worked.
-
Identify what they still need to learn.
-
Collaborate with peers as learning partners.
The message of “yet” will be framed as a bridge between current performance and future growth. For example, instead of saying, “I am not good at this,” learners will be encouraged to say, “I have not mastered this yet, so I need to identify what strategy, feedback, or support will help me improve.”
This distinction is important because “yet” should not be used to minimize struggle. Instead, it should help learners name the gap between where they are and where they are going.
3. Model Growth Mindset Publicly and Authentically
If I want learners to develop a growth mindset, I must model it myself. I will do this by being transparent about my own learning process. This includes sharing examples of when I revise my work, change my thinking, ask for feedback, and learn from mistakes. I will also model reflective language such as:
-
“This did not work the way I expected, so I need to adjust my approach.”
-
“The feedback helped me see a gap I had not noticed.”
-
“I am still learning how to do this effectively.”
-
“My first version was not my best version.”
Modeling growth mindset matters because students are more likely to adopt learning behaviors when they see adults practicing them consistently. If I present myself as someone who already has all the answers, I reinforce fixed thinking; whereas, if I present myself as a learner, I invite students into a culture where growth is normal, pursued and celebrated.
4. Use Feedback and Feedforward as Learning Tools
Growth mindset becomes more meaningful when students learn to accept, interpret, and act on feedback. In many traditional learning environments, feedback is experienced as judgment. Students receive a grade, focus on the score, and move on. In a significant learning environment, feedback must become feedforward: information that helps learners improve their next attempt.
To support this shift, I will:
-
Provide feedback before final grades whenever possible.
-
Use peer feedback protocols.
-
Give students opportunities to revise.
-
Ask students to explain how they used feedback.
-
Separate early feedback from final evaluation.
-
Encourage students to view feedback as part of the learning process.
This approach also has implications for cheating. When students are overly focused on grades, cheating may become more tempting because the goal is performance rather than learning. A growth mindset environment reduces this pressure by emphasizing mastery, revision, and progress. If students believe they can improve and are given legitimate opportunities to revise, they may be less likely to see cheating as their only path to success.
5. Reduce Grade Preoccupation Through Reflection and Mastery
Students often become preoccupied with grades because grades are treated as the primary evidence of learning. To limit this preoccupation, I will help students focus on mastery, progress, and reflection. This does not mean grades disappear, but it does mean grades are not the only conversation.
I will use reflective questions such as:
-
What did I understand better after this assignment?
-
What feedback did I receive, and how did I use it?
-
What strategy helped me improve?
-
What evidence shows that I am growing?
-
What do I still need to work on?
Grit also plays a role, but it must be understood carefully. Duckworth (2016) defines grit as passion and perseverance for long-term goals. However, grit should not be used to justify unrealistic workloads, ignore systemic barriers, or suggest that students should simply endure ineffective learning conditions. In my learning environment, grit will be connected to meaningful goals, appropriate support, and purposeful persistence. Rigor should not mean doing more work; it should mean engaging in deeper, more meaningful learning.
6. Prevent Growth Mindset From Becoming a Fad
To prevent growth mindset from becoming a fad, I will avoid reducing it to posters, catchphrases, or isolated lessons. Instead, I will embed it into the culture, assessment practices, and instructional design of my learning environment.
This means:
-
Designing assignments that allow revision.
-
Praising strategy, reflection, and improvement rather than intelligence.
-
Helping students analyze mistakes.
-
Making learning goals transparent.
-
Supporting collaboration and peer feedback.
-
Connecting growth mindset to authentic learning.
-
Avoiding deficit language about students.
-
Recognizing that motivation is shaped by environment.
Growth mindset must be practiced, not advertised. If the structure of the course rewards only speed, compliance, and correct answers, then growth mindset language will feel false. The environment must match the message.
Moving From Growth Mindset to Learner’s Mindset
The growth mindset is a good start, but it is not enough. My larger goal is to help students develop a learner’s mindset. A learner’s mindset includes growth-oriented beliefs, but it also includes agency, curiosity, reflection, self-assessment, collaboration, and ownership. Learners with a learner’s mindset do not simply believe they can improve; they know how to take action to improve.
This connects directly to the COVA approach: choice, ownership, voice, and authentic learning. When students are given meaningful choices, they begin to see themselves as active participants in learning. When they take ownership, they become responsible for progress rather than passive recipients of instruction. When they develop voice, they learn to communicate their thinking with confidence. When they engage in authentic learning, they understand that learning has purpose beyond the classroom.
My Growth Mindset Plan is therefore not a separate initiative. It is part of my broader effort to create a significant learning environment where students become self-directed learners who can reflect, revise, collaborate, persist, and contribute meaningfully.
Understanding by Design
References:
Aebersold, A. (2019). The active learning institute: Design and implementation of an
intensive faculty development program. Journal of the Center for Teaching and
Learning, 11, 24–38.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Cowden, L. (2026). Creating significant learning environments: Learning outcomes
planning for the CRUX blended learning course in cardiac sonography [Unpublished
manuscript]. Internal program document.
Edmunds, S., & Brown, G. (2010). EAective small group learning: AMEE Guide No. 48.
Medical Teacher, 32(9), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.505454
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Frank, J. R., Snell, L. S., Cate, O. T., Holmboe, E. S., Carraccio, C., Swing, S. R., … Dath, D.
(2010). Competency-based medical education: Theory to practice. Medical Teacher,
32(8), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190
Hsiang-Te Tsuei, S., Lee, D., Ho, C., Regehr, G., & Nimmon, L. (2019). Exploring the
construct of psychological safety in medical education. Academic Medicine, 94(11S),
S28–S35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002897
McLeod, P., & Steinert, Y. (2015). Twelve tips for curriculum renewal. Medical Teacher,
37(3), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.975191
Norman, G. (2009). Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Medical Teacher, 31(9),
807–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903049814
O’Shea, C., Reeves, S., & Bhat, M. (2023). Designing competency-based curricula in allied
health education: A review of best practices. Journal of Allied Health, 52(1), 45–53.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Taylor, D. C., & Hamdy, H. (2013). Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and
teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Medical Teacher, 35(11), e1561–
e1572. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153
Whitehouse, M. (2014). Using a backward design approach to embed assessment in
teaching. School Science Review, 95(352), 99–104.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
Aligning Outcomes, Assessment and Activities
Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG)
Students in the CRUX Blended Learning Course will become confident, reflective, and clinically prepared novice cardiac sonographers who can independently connect anatomy, transducer manipulation, image‑plane formation, and optimization principles to produce diagnostic‑quality echocardiographic images in real patient encounters.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Foundational Knowledge
1. Identify cardiac structures in standard echocardiographic views.
2. Describe the relationship between anatomy, transducer position, and image-plane formation.
Application
3. Apply introductory 2D optimization principles (frequency, depth, gain, focus, sector width, TGC / LGC, dynamic range, power) during guided practice.
4. Analyze image quality using appropriate cardiac sonography terminology.
Integration
5. Connect CRUX visual models to hands-on scanning behaviors in lab.
6. Integrate anatomy, probe movement, and machine controls to improve diagnostic quality.
Human Dimension
7. Collaborate with peers to interpret images, provide feedback, and refine scanning technique.
8. Demonstrate professional communication and reflective practice.
Caring
9. Develop commitment to best practice, producing optimized, diagnostic-quality images that support optimal patient care.
Learning How to Learn
10. Use reflection and instructor feedback to identify next steps for improvement and self-directed learning.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Labeled image review
• Guided notes
• Mini-lectures
• Vocabulary practice
• Pre-lab reflection prompt Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Instructor-guided scanning practice
• Image critique discussions
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Labeled image review
• Guided notes
• Mini-lectures
• Vocabulary practice
• Image comparison activities • Pre-lab reflection prompt Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Instructor-guided scanning practice
• Peer coaching using checklists
• Image critique discussions
• Real-time optimization practice
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Guided notes
• Image comparison activities • Pre-lab reflection prompt Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Instructor-guided scanning practice
• Peer coaching using checklists
• Image critique discussions
• Real-time optimization practice
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Guided notes
• Pre-lab reflection prompt Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Peer coaching using checklists
• Image critique discussions
• Real-time optimization practice
• Collaborative problem-solving
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Guided notes
• Pre-lab reflection prompt Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Image critique discussions
• Real-time optimization practice
Asynchronous (CRUX-based) • Guided notes
• Pre-lab reflection prompts Synchronous (Lab-based)
• Instructor-guided scanning practice
• Peer coaching using checklists
• Image critique discussions
• Real-time optimization practice
• Collaborative problem-solving
LEARNING ASSESSMENT
Formative
• Low-stakes oral quizzes
• Image-plane oral matching
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflection Summative
• Written explanation of image-plane formation
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
Formative
• Low-stakes oral and written quizzes
• Optimization checklist
• Peer feedback participation
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflection Summative
• Image critique: scan assignment
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
Formative
• Peer feedback participation
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflection Summative
• Image critique: scan assignment
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
Formative
• Peer feedback participation
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflection Summative
• Image critique: scan assignment
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
Formative
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflection Summative
• Image critique: scan assignment
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
Formative
• Low-stakes quizzes
• Image-plane matching
• Optimization checklist
• Peer feedback participation
• Guided notes submission
• Weekly reflections Summative
• Image critique: scan assignment
• Written explanation of image-plane formation
• Lab performance evaluation • End-of-unit competency check
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.).
McGraw-Hill. Teaching for Quality Learning at University
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Hilty, D. M., Chan, S., Torous, J., Luo, J., & Boland, R. (2022). Competency-based education for
clinical training in health professions: A systematic review. Medical Education, 56(3), 243–
258. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14692
O’Shea, C., Reeves, S., & Bhat, M. (2023). Designing competency-based curricula in allied
health education: A review of best practices. Journal of Allied Health, 52(1), 45–53.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
My Learning Philosophy
Learning as Transformative, Relational, and Constructive:
Designing Significant Learning Environments in Cardiac Sonography
Liberty Cowden, Professor and Caring Learning Facilitator of Cardiac Sonography
Click Below To View PDF with
Annotated Bibliography
Why I Teach the Way I Do
My learning philosophy is grounded in the belief that education is fundamentally about human growth, intellectual, professional, and personal. As a professor of cardiac sonography, I design learning environments where students develop clinical reasoning, psychomotor skill, reflective judgment, and professional identity through authentic practice. My philosophy is shaped by constructivist, cognitivist, sociocultural, and humanistic theories, and it is expressed through CRUX, my flipped‑lab imaging innovation that prepares students for hands‑on scanning through structured modeling and intentional practice.
This philosophy is written for my colleagues, clinical partners, and future collaborators who will engage with my innovation plan and help shape the next generation of cardiac sonographers. It is a living document, one I will revisit, refine, and expand as my practice evolves.
My learning philosophy begins with a simple but foundational belief: learning is an active, relational, reflective, and transformative process that emerges through meaningful engagement, authentic practice, and purposeful feedback. Learning is not the passive absorption of information, and teaching is not merely the transmission of content. Instead, learning is a dynamic interaction among the learner, the environment, the task, the facilitator, and the learning community.
This philosophy aligns with Harapnuik’s view that educators should see themselves first as learning facilitators rather than simply as teachers. From this perspective, the educator’s primary responsibility is not to control every aspect of instruction but to create significant learning environments in which learners are empowered to take ownership of their growth, exercise agency, and develop the capacity to learn how to learn (Harapnuik, n.d.-a). This idea is especially meaningful in my role as a cardiac sonography professor. Cardiac sonography students must develop psychomotor skill, clinical reasoning, diagnostic pattern recognition, communication, professionalism, and confidence under pressure. These abilities cannot be developed through lecture alone. Students must observe, practice, question, receive feedback, reflect, revise, and try again.
My current innovation plan, CRUX, reflects this philosophy. CRUX is designed to support a blended cardiac sonography learning environment by providing structured pre-lab modeling, guided digital resources, and opportunities for students to prepare more intentionally before hands-on scanning. However, CRUX is not meant to replace authentic lab experience or clinical learning. Rather, it is intended to strengthen students’ readiness for those experiences by helping them build foundational understanding, reduce cognitive overload, revisit difficult concepts, and engage more confidently in lab-based practice.
In this learning philosophy, I describe my beliefs about learning, the relationship between teaching and learning, myself as a learner, the difference between a learning philosophy and a teaching philosophy, and the theoretical foundations that shape my practice. I also explain how these beliefs influence my innovation plan and my role as a change agent within my program.
Beliefs About Learning in General
I believe learning is an active, constructive, and relational process. Students learn best when they engage with meaningful tasks, reflect on their experiences, and receive timely, supportive feedback. Learning is not the passive absorption of information; it is the active construction of understanding through doing, thinking, questioning, and connecting.
Learning is also deeply human. Students bring prior experiences, emotions, fears, and aspirations into the learning environment. Effective learning environments honor these realities by providing psychological safety, autonomy, and meaningful opportunities for growth.
Learning Is Constructive and Experiential
I believe learners construct understanding through active engagement with ideas, tools, people, and experiences. This belief is grounded in constructivist and experiential learning traditions. Dewey’s The School and Society argues that education should be connected to life and that students learn best through collaborative, hands-on experiences rather than through passive absorption of disconnected facts (Dewey, 1899/2017). Dewey’s view is highly applicable to cardiac sonography education because sonography is not learned only by reading about anatomy, physics, or pathology. Students learn by applying those concepts while scanning, interpreting images, troubleshooting artifacts, and reflecting on the quality of their decisions.
For example, a student may understand mitral valve anatomy in theory but still struggle to obtain an appropriate parasternal long-axis view or recognize how transducer angle affects the image. Real learning occurs when the student connects conceptual knowledge to physical movement, image interpretation, and clinical judgment. In this sense, cardiac sonography requires students to construct knowledge through repeated cycles of experience and reflection.
Piaget’s constructivist theory also informs my belief that learners build new understanding by connecting new information to existing mental frameworks. Contemporary analysis of Piaget’s theory emphasizes the importance of cognitive structuring and developmental readiness in learning (Nkosi et al., 2026). In my context, students need opportunities to build schemas before being expected to perform complex scanning tasks independently. CRUX supports this process by helping students preview scanning protocols, anatomical relationships, and image expectations before entering the lab. This pre-lab exposure gives students a mental structure they can build upon during hands-on practice.
Beliefs About the Relationship Between Teaching and Learning
Teaching and learning are not opposing forces; they are interdependent. Teaching is not the delivery of content, it is the design of experiences that make learning possible. My role is to create conditions where students can explore, practice, make mistakes, and grow. I am a facilitator, coach, and mentor, not merely a presenter of information.
This aligns with Harapnuik’s (n.d.-a) assertion that educators must focus first on learning rather than teaching. When learning is the priority, teaching becomes a responsive, adaptive, and relational act.
Teaching Is the Design of Learning Environments
My philosophy requires me to think differently about teaching. Teaching is not simply explaining content well. Teaching is the intentional design of environments where meaningful learning can occur. Harapnuik’s work on creating significant learning environments emphasizes the importance of shifting attention from teacher-controlled instruction to learner-centered conditions that promote ownership, authenticity, and deep engagement (Harapnuik, n.d.-a; Harapnuik et al., 2018).
In my practice, this means designing learning experiences that align outcomes, instructional activities, feedback, and assessment. If I want students to become clinically competent cardiac sonographers, I must provide opportunities for them to practice the kinds of thinking and performance required in the profession. This includes interpreting anatomy in motion, adjusting scanning technique, communicating professionally, and making informed decisions under realistic constraints.
Teaching Is Coaching, Not Performing
In the sonography lab, I am not primarily a performer; I am a coach. While demonstration has value, students do not become competent scanners by watching me scan. They become competent by scanning themselves, receiving targeted feedback, reflecting on that feedback, and trying again. This view is supported by Bruner’s concept of scaffolding, in which a more knowledgeable guide provides structured support that is gradually reduced as the learner gains competence (Wynne et al., 2026).
Scaffolding is essential in cardiac sonography because students are developing multiple forms of knowledge at once: anatomical knowledge, spatial reasoning, psychomotor coordination, image critique, and clinical decision-making. My role is to provide enough support to move students forward without taking ownership of the learning away from them. At times, I may model a technique. At other times, I may ask guiding questions, provide corrective feedback, or step back so the student can problem-solve independently.
Teaching Must Support Transfer
Learning is meaningful only if students can transfer it beyond the classroom or lab. In cardiac sonography, transfer means applying knowledge and skill in clinical settings with real patients, variable anatomy, time constraints, and professional expectations. Dewey’s emphasis on connecting school learning to life reinforces my belief that educational experiences should mirror the authentic conditions in which knowledge will be used (Dewey, 1899/2017).
Therefore, I design learning activities with clinical transfer in mind. CRUX supports transfer by helping students connect digital modeling to lab practice and then to clinical performance. The goal is not simply that students “know” the protocol; the goal is that they can perform, adapt, explain, and improve.
​
Beliefs About Myself as a Learner
I learn through curiosity, experimentation, and reflection. I am most engaged when I am solving real problems, creating meaningful work, and connecting ideas across disciplines. I value autonomy, authenticity, and purposeful practice, principles that directly shape how I design learning environments for my students.
As a learner, I thrive in environments that challenge me, respect me, and allow me to take ownership of my growth. I strive to create the same conditions for my students.
I Learn Through Inquiry and Iteration
As a learner, I am most engaged when I can ask questions, test ideas, and revise my thinking. I learn through inquiry and iteration. Harapnuik’s Inquisitivism resonates with my own learning journey because curiosity has often driven my growth more than compliance has (Harapnuik, n.d.-b). I learn best when I can explore a problem, try a solution, evaluate the result, and adjust my approach.
This is also how I approach instructional design. CRUX emerged from a practical instructional problem: limited lab time, inconsistent student preparation, and the need for stronger modeling before hands-on scanning. Rather than accepting this challenge as fixed, I began asking how a blended learning model could better prepare students for lab and clinical performance.
I Learn Through Authentic Problems
I am motivated by authentic problems that matter to students, patients, programs, and the profession. This aligns with Dewey’s experiential philosophy and Papert’s constructionism. Papert’s constructionist theory emphasizes that learners develop understanding by creating public, shareable artifacts and engaging in meaningful problem-solving (EBSCO, n.d.). Although Papert often discussed artifacts such as computer programs, models, or designs, the principle applies to my own learning as an educator. CRUX is an artifact of my learning. It represents my attempt to construct a practical solution to a real instructional challenge.
As I build, test, and refine CRUX, I am not simply implementing a tool; I am learning through the process of making. This constructionist perspective helps me see innovation as both product and process. The tool matters, but the thinking, feedback, revision, and collaboration around the tool matter just as much.
I Learn Through Reflection and Collaboration
I also learn through reflection and collaboration. Haave’s (2015) discussion of learning philosophies challenged me to think more intentionally about how I learn, why I learn, and how my learning changes me. As a faculty member, I must model the reflective habits I want my students to develop. This includes seeking feedback, evaluating my assumptions, and revising my practice.
Collaboration also strengthens my learning. Conversations with colleagues, students, clinical partners, and peers in this program help me refine my ideas and identify blind spots. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory reminds me that learning is shaped through interaction, language, and shared activity (Nkosi et al., 2026). I do not develop as an educator in isolation. I grow through participation in a professional learning community.
Learning Philosophy vs. Teaching Philosophy
A learning philosophy and a teaching philosophy are related, but they are not the same. A teaching philosophy describes how an educator approaches instruction, classroom management, content delivery, assessment, and student support.
A learning philosophy describes how the educator believes learning happens and what conditions make meaningful learning possible.
For me, a teaching philosophy focuses on what I do. A learning philosophy focuses on what learners experience, construct, practice, reflect upon, and become. This distinction is important because it shifts my attention from performance to impact. I may feel that I taught a lesson clearly, but the more important question is whether students learned, applied, and transferred the intended skills.
Haave (2015) argues that students benefit from developing learning philosophies because it helps them move beyond seeing courses as hoops to jump through. I believe the same is true for educators. When I clarify my learning philosophy, I become more intentional about the environments I create. My learning philosophy guides my teaching philosophy, not the other way around.
Theoretical Foundations:
The Learning Theories That Shape My Practice
I Am Primarily a Constructivist With Constructionist, Sociocultural, Experiential,
Humanistic, and Cognitivist Influences
I identify most strongly as a constructivist because I believe learners actively build understanding through experience, reflection, and interaction. The main theorist traditionally associated with constructivism is Jean Piaget, whose work emphasized cognitive development, schema formation, and the learner’s active role in constructing knowledge (Nkosi et al., 2026). However, my philosophy is not limited to Piagetian constructivism. My work as a cardiac sonography educator requires a broader, integrated learning philosophy that also draws from Dewey, Vygotsky, Bruner, Papert, Mason, and Harapnuik.
John Dewey —
Experiential Learning
Learning through authentic experience and reflection.
Lev Vygotsky —
Sociocultural Theory
Learning is social; scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) guide growth.
Dwayne Harapnuik —
COVA , CSLE & Learner Agency
Choice, Ownership, Voice, Authenticity; and creating significant learning environments.
Jerome Bruner —
Discovery Learning
Learners construct knowledge through discovery, guided inquiry, and scaffolding that supports them as they move from novice to independent performer.
Seymour Papert — Constructionism
Learning through making, doing, and experimentation.
Charlotte Mason — Whole‑Person Learning
Habits, curiosity, meaningful ideas, and reflective practice.
Piaget:
Schema Formation and Cognitive Readiness
Piaget’s influence appears in my belief that students need to build mental frameworks before they can perform complex clinical tasks effectively. Sonography students must organize knowledge about anatomy, physiology, ultrasound physics, pathology, protocols, and image orientation. Without strong schemas, they may feel overwhelmed during scanning because too many cognitive demands are competing at once.
CRUX supports Piagetian constructivism by helping students develop preliminary schemas before lab. When students preview scanning expectations and visual models before hands-on practice, they enter the lab better prepared to connect theory with action.
Vygotsky:
Social Learning, Scaffolding, and the Zone of Proximal Development
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory contributes to my belief that learning is mediated through social interaction and guided support. Contemporary comparisons of Piaget and Vygotsky suggest that the two theories are complementary rather than competing, especially in modern learning environments that require both individual cognitive structuring and socially mediated experience (Nkosi et al., 2026).
In my practice, Vygotsky’s influence is visible in peer coaching, instructor feedback, guided lab practice, and collaborative reflection. Students often progress when they work within their zone of proximal development, supported by someone who can help them do what they are not yet able to do independently.
Bruner:
Discovery Learning and Scaffolding
Bruner’s theory strengthens my belief in guided discovery and gradual release. Students need opportunities to discover patterns, test strategies, and solve problems, but they also need structure. Scaffolding helps learners engage in tasks that are challenging but not impossible (Wynne et al., 2026).
In cardiac sonography, this means I may initially provide substantial modeling and prompts, but over time I expect students to assume increasing responsibility. CRUX supports this progression by offering structured preparation before lab, while lab time allows students to move toward independent performance.
Dewey:
Experience, Reflection, and Real-World Relevance
Dewey’s experiential philosophy contributes to my belief that learning should connect to life and practice. He argued that schools should function as active environments where students engage with meaningful problems rather than passively receive facts (Dewey, 1899/2017). This aligns directly with clinical education.
In my learning environment, students must connect classroom knowledge to real clinical tasks. Learning must be authentic because the profession itself is authentic. Students are preparing to care for patients, collaborate with healthcare teams, and contribute to diagnostic decisions.
Papert:
Constructionism and Learning by Making
Papert’s constructionism extends constructivism by emphasizing learning through making tangible, shareable artifacts (EBSCO, n.d.). His work influences my belief that learners deepen understanding when they create, test, revise, and share something meaningful.
In cardiac sonography, the “artifact” may not always be a physical object like a robot or computer program. It may be an optimized image, a completed scan protocol, a reflective lab journal, a case presentation, or a student-created study resource. These artifacts make thinking visible and provide opportunities for feedback, discussion, and revision.
Charlotte Mason:
Habits, Attention, Curiosity, and
Whole-Person Learning
Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy contributes to the humanistic and habit-forming aspects of my learning philosophy. Cooper (2023) describes Mason’s continuing relevance through her emphasis on meaningful ideas, disciplined habits, observation, curiosity, and whole-person development.
These principles are highly relevant in sonography education, where students must develop careful attention, disciplined practice routines, and professional habits. Mason’s influence reminds me that I am not only training students to perform technical tasks. I am helping form future healthcare professionals. Their habits of attention, curiosity, compassion, and reflection matter.
Harapnuik:
COVA, CSLE, and Learner Agency
Harapnuik’s work provides the most direct framework for how I design learning environments. His emphasis on creating significant learning environments and providing choice, ownership, voice, and authentic learning opportunities informs both my learning philosophy and my innovation plan (Harapnuik, n.d.-a; Harapnuik et al., 2018). In my context, this means students should have opportunities to prepare, practice, reflect, and demonstrate learning in ways that connect directly to clinical performance.
COVA is especially important because it moves learners from compliance to ownership. My goal is not simply for students to complete assignments. My goal is for students to become self-directed, reflective, clinically competent learners who can continue growing after graduation.
How My Learning Philosophy Influences My Innovation Plan
My innovation plan, the integration of CRUX into a blended cardiac sonography curriculum, is a direct expression of my learning philosophy. CRUX exists because I believe students need more than information; they need structured opportunities to prepare, practice, reflect, and transfer learning.
CRUX is grounded in the following beliefs:
-
Learning requires modeling, practice, feedback, and reflection.
-
Students need agency and ownership in their preparation.
-
Cognitive load must be managed intentionally.
-
Learning environments should be authentic, significant, and psychologically safe.
-
Technology should enhance learning rather than distract from it.
-
Students need opportunities to connect classroom learning to clinical performance.
-
Learning is strengthened through collaboration, coaching, and reflection.
CRUX supports significant learning by helping students prepare before entering the lab. This matters because lab time is limited and cognitively demanding. When students arrive with greater familiarity, they can spend more time applying, troubleshooting, and refining rather than simply trying to remember basic steps. This blended model allows digital learning to support, not replace, human interaction, hands-on practice, and clinical feedback.
Theoretically, CRUX reflects multiple dimensions of my philosophy. It is constructivist because students build understanding through active engagement. It is sociocultural because lab learning includes peer and instructor support. It is constructionist because students create visible products of learning, such as improved images, scan protocols, reflections, and case-based explanations. It is experiential because students learn through authentic scanning practice. It is metacognitive because students are encouraged to reflect on their progress and learning strategies.
Name, Title
My Role as a Change Agent
​​
My learning philosophy also shapes my role as a change agent. Implementing CRUX is not simply a technology initiative; it is a cultural and instructional shift. It challenges the assumption that demonstration-heavy instruction is sufficient for developing clinical competence. It asks faculty and students to think differently about preparation, ownership, feedback, and practice.
As a change agent, I must model the same learning mindset I expect from students. This means remaining curious, reflective, evidence-informed, and open to feedback. It also means recognizing that change can create resistance. Some faculty may worry that blended learning will reduce hands-on time, increase workload, or make instruction less personal. My responsibility is to communicate clearly that CRUX is designed to enhance lab learning, not replace it.
My role as a self-differentiated leader is to stay grounded in the purpose of the innovation while remaining connected to the concerns of others. I must advocate for student-centered learning while listening carefully to colleagues, collecting data, refining implementation, and building shared ownership. This requires both conviction and humility.
I am committed to:
-
Designing learning environments that support deep and transferable learning.
-
Helping students become reflective and self-directed learners.
-
Challenging instructional routines that promote dependency rather than ownership.
-
Using data, student feedback, and faculty collaboration to refine CRUX.
-
Supporting colleagues as partners in innovation.
-
Modeling lifelong learning in my own professional practice.
Ultimately, my role as a change agent is to help create a program culture where students are not merely taught but are supported in becoming capable, confident, reflective cardiac sonographers.
Conclusion
​
My learning philosophy is a living document that reflects my beliefs about learning, teaching, leadership, and innovation. I believe learning is constructive, experiential, social, reflective, and deeply human. I believe teaching is the intentional design of environments where learners can engage in meaningful practice, receive feedback, reflect on their growth, and transfer learning to authentic contexts. I believe students need agency, psychological safety, and opportunities to develop as whole people, not simply as performers of isolated tasks.
CRUX is not just a digital tool. It is a manifestation of my learning philosophy. It embodies constructivism, constructionism, experiential learning, scaffolding, metacognition, learner agency, and the creation of significant learning environments. As I continue refining CRUX and expanding my blended cardiac sonography curriculum, this philosophy will remain the foundation of my work as an educator, learner, and change agent.
My goal is not simply to help students pass courses or complete scan competencies. My goal is to help them become confident, capable, reflective healthcare professionals who understand how they learn, believe in their capacity to grow, and continue improving long after they leave my classroom.
References
Cooper, H. (2023). Charlotte Mason, history and outdoor education and her relevance today. Education 3–13, 51(5), 623–635.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2157590
Dewey, J. (2017). The school and society. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53910
(Original work published 1899)
EBSCO. (n.d.). Seymour Papert and constructionism. EBSCO Research Starters.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/seymour-papert-and-constructionism
Haave, N. (2015, October 23). Developing students’ learning philosophies. Faculty Focus.
https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/developing-students-learning-philosophies/
Harapnuik, D. (n.d.-a). Learning philosophy. Harapnuik.org. http://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=95
Harapnuik, D. (n.d.-b). Development and evaluation of inquisitivism as a foundational approach for web-based instruction.
Harapnuik.org. https://www.harapnuik.org
Harapnuik, D., Thibodeaux, T., & Cummings, C. (2018). Choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities.
Harapnuik.org. https://www.harapnuik.org/
Nkosi, T. M., Maseko, N. K., Dlamini, S., Khumalo, A. P., & Mokoena, Z. R. (2026). A comparative analysis of Jean Piaget’s and Lev
Vygotsky’s theories of cognitive development in the perspective of contemporary education. International Journal of Theory
and Practice in Education, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.60153/8j8m8805
Wynne, S., Robinson, C., & O’Connor, D. (2026). A Brunerian theoretical framework for early childhood education: A review of
Jerome Bruner’s theoretical contributions to early childhood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 58(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-026-00502-3
New Culture of Learning
In this assignment, I explain how creating a significant learning environment can support my Crux innovation plan, a flipped-lab, indexed imaging library designed to improve clinical readiness in cardiac sonography education. Drawing from A New Culture of Learning, Fink’s significant learning framework, and the COVA model, I argue that Crux is not simply a technology tool but a cultural and instructional shift toward learner ownership, coached practice, feedback, and authentic clinical preparation.
My EDLD 5305 Innovation Plan, Crux: A Flipped-Lab, Indexed On-Demand Imaging Library to Improve Cardiac Sonography Clinical Readiness, can be accessed here: Final Innovation Plan
