From Assignment to Ownership

​When I first began the Applied Digital Learning program, I did not fully understand what it meant to have authentic ownership over my work. Coming from a clinical background without a formal degree in education, I often questioned whether I truly belonged in a graduate program focused on learning theory, instructional design, and leadership. That quiet uncertainty shaped my earliest innovation work. My initial innovation proposal focused on blended learning, not because it addressed the deepest need within my profession, but because it felt manageable and familiar. At that stage, I was completing assignments well, but I was not yet leading change.

Over time, as I progressed through the program, my confidence and clarity began to shift. Through EDLD 5302, the Growth Mindset work and blog reflections pushed me to question long-standing assumptions in surgical technology education, particularly the idea that strong clinicians automatically become strong educators. I began recognizing that the instability I had observed in program leadership was not an isolated issue but part of a larger systemic gap.

In Leading Organizational Change, that realization gained structure. The Why–How–What framework (Sinek, 2009) helped me articulate why educator preparation matters. The Influencer Strategy and Six Sources Matrix (Grenny et al., 2013) showed me that turnover is influenced by more than individual resilience; it is shaped by social and structural factors. The 4 Disciplines of Execution (McChesney et al., 2016) challenged me to think in terms of focused, measurable goals rather than general improvement.

Yet the most significant internal shift occurred through Creating Significant Learning Environments and the COVA (Choice, Ownership, Voice, and Authentic learning) framework (Harapnuik et al., 2018). COVA (Harapnuik et al., 2018) forced me to confront whether I was truly choosing a problem that mattered to me or selecting one that felt safe. During a brief pause in the program for family reasons, I found myself in conversations with colleagues about the real challenges facing surgical technology educators, especially those stepping directly from the operating room into leadership roles without formal preparation. Those conversations clarified what I had been hesitant to name.

The real problem was not instructional delivery. It was educator readiness.

That realization was uncomfortable. It meant pivoting away from my original innovation plan and admitting that my first idea did not go deep enough. It required me to trust my professional instincts and accept that addressing a systemic leadership gap would be more complex and more visible.

As I moved into Digital Enviornment Resources and Instructional Design in Online Learning, the work became more refined and grounded. Writing the publication outline and journal article allowed me to articulate the urgency of structured onboarding for surgical technology educators in a scholarly voice. Designing instructional modules and conducting usability testing required me to think beyond passion and into systems, quality, and accessibility.

Where I Am in the Project

At this point, the Surgical Technology Educators Program (STEP) exists as:

• A clearly defined innovation framework

• A completed literature foundation (currently being revised and expanded)

• A structured action research design

• A drafted prototype leadership module

• A publication-ready article

• An outlined implementation strategy

What remains is significant but intentional:

• Development of fully interactive modules

• Embedded assessments

• Stakeholder surveys

• Pilot testing

• Accreditation alignment documentation

My projected timeline includes pilot implementation in Fall 2026, followed by evaluation and revision in Spring 2027. I am intentionally pacing this work because I have learned that sustainable change cannot be rushed without compromising depth.

What I Have Learned Through This Process

This innovation project has required more vulnerability than I anticipated. Early in the program, I often looked for reassurance that I was “doing it right.” Through COVA (Harapnuik et al., 2018), I learned that authentic ownership requires releasing that constant need for validation. It meant trusting my professional experiences and recognizing that I had insight worth contributing.

I have also learned that resistance, both internal and external, often signals that the work matters. The hesitation I felt was not about capability; it was about visibility. Addressing leadership gaps within my own profession commands courage and humility.

What has worked well is the iterative nature of the program. Revisiting the project across multiple courses allowed me to refine rather than rush. Grounding the work in backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) and significant learning principles (Fink, 2013) ensured that STEP is not simply a training course but a structured leadership development system.

What I could have done better is begin structured stakeholder data collection earlier. While lived experience informed my direction, broader early input would have strengthened initial validation. I also could have embraced uncertainty sooner rather than defaulting to safer ideas.

Promotion and Communication

Moving forward, I plan to promote STEP through professional conferences, collaborative networks, scholarly publications, and conversations with stakeholders.

This work is still developing. It is not complete, and I am not presenting it as finished. Instead, this update reflects a growing clarity about the problem, the process, and my role within it.

Looking Ahead

Knowing what I know now, I would begin future innovation work with earlier stakeholder engagement, defined benchmarks, and clearer data plans. I would also remind myself that meaningful innovation often begins with discomfort.

This project continues to evolve, and so do I. What began as an assignment has become a commitment, not yet a final product, but a developing effort to strengthen surgical technology education in sustainable and measurable ways.

References

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Influencer: The new science of leading change (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill  Education.

Harapnuik, D., Thibodeaux, T., & Cummings, C. (2018). Learner’s mindset: The COVA approach to learning.

McChesney, C., Covey, S. R., & Huling, J. (2016). The 4 disciplines of execution: Achieving your wildly important goals. Free Press.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin Group.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.