Scholarship, Practice, and Leadership:

The University of Phoenix Online School of Advanced Studies Model

The model in Figure 1-1 depicts the mission of the University of Phoenix School of

Advanced Studies. A dynamic model, it is continually evolving. The bases of the model are

classical conceptions of doctoral level scholarship. This model includes the traditional

expectations of high rigor from a culture of inquiry, and expected academic and applied

contributions.

Figure 1-1. University of Phoenix Online, School of Advanced Studies, Scholarship, Practice,

Leadership Model.

From Scholar-Practitioner-Leader model (SPL). [PowerPoint slides] by A. Coe, 2008, Presented at the University

of Phoenix Full-Time Faculty Meeting, November 13, 2008. Adapted with permission.

Rigor has been systematically described by Daggett (2005) as combining the level of

underlying knowledge (the equivalent of the University of Phoenix culture of inquiry) with the

degree of application. Increasing knowledge moves upward through six levels. These are
Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Application is

seen as increasing from knowledge in one discipline, to applying knowledge in one discipline, to

applying knowledge across disciplines, then to real-world predictable situations, and finally to

applying knowledge to real-world unpredictable situations.

This frame work defines four levels of rigor and relevance to apply “to standards,

curriculum, instruction, and assessment” ( Daggett, p. 2). The four levels were described by

Daggett,

In thinking about ways to incorporate the Rigor/Relevance Framework in instruction and

assessment, it is helpful to consider the roles that students and teachers take. When instruction

and expected student learning is in Quadrant A, the focus is on teacher work. Teachers expend

energy to create and assess learning activities—providing lesson content, creating worksheets,

and grading student work. In this scenario the student becomes a passive learner.

When instruction and expected learning moves to Quadrant B, the emphasis is on the

student doing real-world work. This work involves more real-world tasks than Quadrant A and

generally takes more time for students to complete.

When instruction and expected learning falls in Quadrant C, the student is required to

think in complex ways — to analyze, compare, create, and evaluate. Traditionally, this has been

the level of learning that students graduated from high school with.

Quadrant D learning requires the student to think and work. Roles have shifted from

teachercentered instruction in Quadrant A to student-centered learning. Quadrant D requires that

students understand the standard or benchmark being taught thoroughly, but equally important,

they must also understand and conceptualize relevant applications for the content being covered.

(p. 3)

A unique component of the University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies

scholarship, practice, and leadership model is that it recognizes and includes both the cognitive
and affective domains of learning. The School of Advanced Studies strives to develop learners

who gain knowledge and internalize their knowledge and their learning in practical terms.

Through this process learners develop a personal meaning of both and become able to discuss

their understanding. This meta-cognitive introspection and awareness positions SAS learners to

integrate their advanced studies in a uniquely powerful way. This skill is based in part on the

insights of Kegan (2001) who noted one cannot know something in an exclusively cognitive or

affective way, one must experience the awareness developed from their own introspection.

Countering the traditional thinking that expects a division and tension between scholars

and practitioners, the University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies encourages learners to

internalize their scholarly academic learning. Learners do this by translating formal knowledge

into personal insights integrated with their life experiences and individual beliefs. Their

informed knowledge as related to their unique personal insights is communicated by informed

discourse in and out of class.

Many learners have commented on how challenging they find the initial reflection and

deep review of their long-held assumptions and biases. The challenge is further complicated by

the requirements University of Phoenix learners must maintain an objective stance, relate their

written descriptions to the topics assigned by their various facilitators in classes, and provide

details describing their thinking and their processes for arriving at their conclusions. This all

must be done as scholarly writing in plain English with substantiation.

Part of the reason is that scholarly writing is different from most other writing they have

learned to do. Scholarly writing depends little on opinions and mainly on the chain of scientific

evidence provided by previous studies.

One learner noted this in her comment, "After thinking about it for a great amount of time, I
realized that doctoral writing is a different animal than even writing at the master’s level . . . . I

was not writing a report on a disease process or an issue, nor was I giving my opinion on a

particular subject. What I needed to do was analyze and explore a concept from several

viewpoints and make the concept more defined and clear" (D. Foster, personal communication,

November 11, 2008).

This is an extremely important insight.

The University of Phoenix’s scholarship, practice, and leadership model grew out of

research on the domains and sub-domains represented in assignments, examining the differences

between course objectives and core competencies in the doctoral degree programs, contrasting

the objectives with Bloom’s revised taxonomy, and examining the focus of assignments in the

final year of the programs (Burdick, Coe, & Key, 2008). The tri-partite structure makes writing

in UOP classes more demanding than the typical undergraduate or Master’s level paper. Learners

discover it is important to think about much of their study and writing from these three

perspectives. By practicing this thinking and the reflection of experience and practice, it becomes

second nature and helps learners become better decision makers and leaders.  Competence as a

scholar, practitioner, and leader enables graduates to know and act appropriately as informed

leaders in their fields.

What does each of these perspectives contribute?

The Scholarly perspective develops the chain of scientific or research based thinking

about the learner’s chosen topic. This is the most disciplined and exacting view. It is important to

cite other researchers and their ideas accurately. Learners quote exact content and provide

accurate references to sources. Also, learners are faithful to both what the original author said
and the context for the original comments. They remember, “A quote out of context is often a

‘con’” (S. Briscoe, personal communication, October 25, 2008).

The Practice perspective provides learners the opportunity to associate what they have

read or studied about a topic to their professional field. This perspective is applied analysis.

When taking this view learners ask, “How does what I have read apply to my work as a

professional?” Most research needs translation and interpretation to be useful in application.

With the practice perspective, learners translate what they have read into how they will apply or

practice the knowledge. This is a critical step because in most fields today there is a criticism that

we often do not “practice what we know.” That is, our research has demonstrated certain

relationships or processes work or do not work but often these findings do not affect the practice

of professionals who continue to use the approaches from the past. The practice focus of the

University of Phoenix model addresses the concern that unapplied research is often wasted

effort.

The Leadership perspective is the final key component for the UOPX School of

Advanced Studies model. One aspect making the UOPX program unique in higher education is

this commitment first and foremost to developing leaders. In fact, the mission of SAS is:

. . . To develop leaders who will create new models that will explain, predict, and

improve organizational performance. These leaders are scholar-practitioners who conduct

research as a foundation for creative action, influence policy decisions, and guide diverse

organizations through effective decision-making.

For University of Phoenix doctoral learners, the continual challenge is to apply reading

and learning to personal growth and development as a leader. At the highest levels of rigor and

relevance the learner and leader integrates their analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge
with application of their knowledge to real world predictable and unpredictable situations. Some

questions learners internalize in the process include:

 How might this help provide better direction and meaning to those who report to me or

might report to me?

 How does this information contribute to a sense of optimism and hope? Or, how can I

interpret this meaningfully to those around me?

 Have I honestly understood and represented the writer’s thoughts? Will others trust my

interpretation? Does what I have written and how I have prepared it contribute to my

reputation as someone who does good work and can be trusted?

 Does what I have written address my audience in a way that shares meaning. Does it

“honor” my readers by being my best work? Does it engage them sincerely in considering

the topic from their perspective and from my own?

 Is what I have written “results oriented?” That is, was I simply a reporter or did I engage

my readers and invite some action? Or, if that is not appropriate, what action or results do

I plan because of this effort?

The journey of learners in the SAS doctoral program is one that challenges assumptions

and biases, changing their thinking and creating a new world view. Every class and assignment

builds on the objectives learners have as they internalize the scholarship, practice, and leadership

model and become introspective and extrospective professionals and leaders. This internalization

is NOT the same for every learner but evolves out of a back and forth interplay between

knowledge, beliefs, and practice.

Internalization is vital to the model since it is through this internalization the model

becomes a lived experience for SAS learners. This deeply felt understanding makes the SPL
model much more than simply another theoretical or academic model. The experience of the

model becomes embodied in the learner’s thinking and reflection. Awareness and incorporation

of the SPL model within the SAS programs is a extension and direct application of the

hermeneutic phenomenological human science approach advocated by Van Manen (1990) in

“Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.” SPL is not

simply another explanation, but rather, a deep sense and awareness reflecting a different kind of

thinking for doctoral learners. The application of the model also addresses Argyris’s (1978)

encouragement that by bringing learners’ “espoused theories” (their advocated positions) into

closer alignment with their “theories in use” we inform and improve professional practice.

It is an exciting, challenging journey for University of Phoenix doctoral learners.

Argyris, C. et al. (1978). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burdick, J., Coe, A., & Key, E. (2008, November 13). Bridging the divide. [PowerPoint slides]

Presented at the University of Phoenix Full-Time Faculty Meeting.

Coe, A. (2008, November 13). Scholar-Practitioner-Leader model (SPL). [PowerPoint slides]

Presented at the University of Phoenix Full-Time Faculty Meeting.

Daggett, W. R. (2005). Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance.

International Center for Leadership in Education. Downloaded November 25, 2008, from

www.leadered.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf

Kegan, R. (2001). In over our heads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.