Running head: ARTIFACT H Lindsey Pierce 27 February 2013 SDAD 579: Capstone Seminar Erin Swezey Artifact H: Assessment

of Program Learning Outcomes

This artifact presents a self-assessment of my mastery of the Student Development Administration (SDA) programs learning outcomes, numbers two through seven. For each learning outcome, I provide: my own understanding of the definition and dimensions; a connection to student development or other related theories; examples from my coursework in the program; relationships to readings from my Capstone Seminar; illustrations of relevance to my current professional practice; and implications for future professional practice. Learning Outcome #2 simply reads: Understanding students and student issues. I conceptualize this in a few different ways. Firstly, understanding students and the issues they face requires being familiar with student development theories and concepts, which serve as a framework. Acknowledging and appreciating diversity among student identities, needs, and interests is another significant aspect of this learning outcome. Finally, addressing current issues concerning students, both generally and among specific populations is a culminating component in demonstrating ones understanding of students and student issues . Among the top theories that I find useful for interpreting Learning Outcome #2 are Baxter Magoldas theory of self-authorship, critical learning/identity theories, and Astins Theory of Student Involvement. Baxter Magoldas theory emphasizes the importance of students being instrumental in their own development. She fosters a belief that students are the experts of their own experiences and should therefore be given ample opportunities to direct their own learning. Critical theories of learning and identity development, such as feminist theories, critical race theory, and LGBTQ identity development theories, acknowledge that student s identities intimately impact their development, particularly when they embody marginalized or underrepresented identities. Furthermore, Astins theory of student involvement posits that the more time students invest in their education, the more successful they will be in meaningful development. This theory informs the services and programming that student affairs professionals provide for students, bearing in mind that if students are not investing much time in certain programs or services, they may not be particularly relevant in addressing student issues, as currently configured. I demonstrated a commitment to Learning Outcome #2 in a paper I wrote for SDAD 578: Student Development Theory, Research, and Practice, which was about instituting mandatory advising checkpoints for all students attending community college. This paper was based on feedback from students in my workplace regarding advising services, best practices in the field, and Astins theory of student involvement. One of the primary purpos es of my proposal was to better address students academic needs, especially those who were being ignored or inconvenienced by existing advising services, such as long-distance students, full-time working students, and students pursuing professional-technical programs of study. One of the texts for SDAD 579: Capstone Seminar that relates most to this learning outcome is Wests (2004) Democracy Matters, in which he stresses how imperative it is for both educators and students to utilize their democratic voice in life and in higher education. I connect this idea to the

ARTIFACT H

need for recognizing students agency and soliciting their input when attempting to ad dress their needs and interests, similar to Baxter Magoldas theory of self -authorship. To always speak on behalf of students, instead of allowing them to speak for themselves, is not to genuinely understand them. I solicited student input myself in my 200-hour internship at Lake Washington Institute of Technology when I edited the Enrollment Services websites. The whole reason for editing the sites was to make them more navigable for students, so naturally, I asked several students to view the websites and tell me what they would like to stay the same and what they would like to be changed. I received valuable feedback especially from veteran students, who told me that it was too difficult to find information about veterans services on the website. There fore, my coworker and I added a link to this information on the home page, where it was easily accessible. For future professional practice, I intend to continue asking students directly for their perspectives, whether through formal assessment or informal conversation. I also intend to have student development theory inform my work, while keeping in mind that different student populations may have differing needs and interests. Learning Outcome #3 is to exhibit professional integrity and ethical leadership in professional practice. To me, this learning outcome is threefold: being aware of and practicing personal goals and values; being aware of and adhering to the goals and values of ones department/institution and other constituencies; and seeking to integrate and align personal goals and values with those of the department/institution and other constituencies. I believe many theories are relevant to Learning Outcome #3, but especially Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development. Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development is especially pertinent to being aware of ones own ethical foundations, while still leaving room for consideration of others. The final stage he identifies as the crux of moral development is being able to define the principles that promote justice, with a consideration of individual rights and democratic processes (Crain, 1985). In MBA 512: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility, I am routinely required to take a moral stand on controversial case studies, while considering alternative perspectives. This is truly an exercise in moral development because it reveals the relative nature of ethics, while also showing me that it is still important to take a stand. For example, our most recent case study involved the genetic modification of animal products, which has significant costs and benefits for different stakeholders. I had to mediate my own feelings about the matter with those of businesses, other consumers, the environment, and the government. I find that Palmer (1999), whose work we read for Capstone, has a lot to say about professional integrity and ethical leadership. On one hand, he says to his readers, Let your life speak, acknowledging the worth of our individual experiences, gifts, and values (pp. 3-4). And on the other hand, he notes, [T]he ancient human question Who am I? leads inevitably to the equally important question Whose am I?for there is no selfhood outside of relationship (p. 17) . I love this quote because it signifies that our actions always affect others and that we therefore have a responsibility to consider the needs and values of others in our decision-making. I make ethical decisions every day in my current workplace. I have encountered a number of instances in which it seems the culture and values of my department are not wholly consistent with my own. In some cases, I have challenged them, asking my supervisor questions like, Is my coworkers disrespectful behavior going to be tolerated in this office? And in other cases, I have

ARTIFACT H realized that some battles are not worth fighting and that sometimes a change in perspective is necessary on my part. For example, trying to empathize with this particular coworker and connect with her on an interpersonal level are approaches I have taken to navigate the difficulty of working with her. In my future professional practice, I hope to never lose my personal and professional integrity, standing up for what I believe are my core, uncompromising values. However, I also want to balance them with the values of my coworkers, students, and campus community, striving for a cohesive relationship between personal and communal ethics.

Learning Outcome #4 is articulated as: Understanding and fostering diversity, justice and a sustainable world formed by a global perspective and Jesuit Catholic Tradition. This learning outcome is a bit notorious among SDA students for being loaded with complex concepts. So, doing my best, I understand it as: an awareness of my own identities, influences, and impacts on others and my environment; seeking knowledge to fill areas of ignorance, including theories, stories, social systems, and existing problems; and applying personal and social/global contexts and knowledge to professional practice and decision-making. Once again, I think critical theories of race, gender, sexuality, and other identities are especially germane to this learning outcome because they acknowledge that social systems of power and privilege have a great influence on how students learn and navigate their environments, while also advocating for systemic change. Other illustrative theories for this learning outcome include Freires (1970) concepts of problem-posing education and praxis and the Jesuit Catholic tradition of servant leadership. Freire makes a pointed distinction between a banking method of education, in which information is deposited into students without their active participation, and the problem-posing method, in which students are inspired to critically evaluate what they are learning. The Jesuit Catholic tradition incites its followers to be people for others, acting as responsible stewards of the earth and humanity. This means not only acknowledging but also acting upon the inequities that exist in our society and our world, using our influence as leaders to effect positive change for and with those with less power. For EDUC 515: Multicultural Perspectives, I wrote a culminating paper about my personal story and perspectives in relation to multiculturalism and diversity. In it, I discussed my experience being in a relationship with a Korean international student and the intercultural learning I have gleaned from it, which includes empathy for the marginalized experiences of racial minorities. I also talk about the class privilege that is evident in higher education, such as the promotion of study abroad without discussion of how to pay for it. Additionally, I engage with concepts like intersectionality, essentialization, and homogenization in relation to identity development. I address Learning Outcome #4 by articulating an awareness of my own identities, a desire to learn more about what I do not know, and a commitment to enacting multicultural competence in my life and work. In Capstone, I read the work of Parks (2000) and also had the opportunity to see her speak about mentoring in higher education. Parks writing about faith inspired me to define my own faith as a belief in the interconnectedness of all things. This means that I share both a special affinity with and a fundamental responsibility to all people and living creatures in my environment, both locally and globally. Furthermore, my faith is one that acknowledges and appreciates difference among people, while not losing sight of our common humanity. Therefore, the relationships I build and the endeavors I pursue in life and in work are centered on a desire for solidarity and sustainability, and I believe this illustrates the fourth SDA learning outcome.

ARTIFACT H

An example of how I practiced this learning outcome in my current workplace is when I was tasked with compiling and analyzing survey data for the advising department, and I noticed that many students were either ignoring or expressing defiance or confusion around the demographic survey questions, such as race. I quickly realized this was because the response categories were very limited, excluded significant racial identities, and did not allow the option of selecting more than one race. I proposed to my supervisor that the survey responses be revised, and I provided supplemental research on national standards for race categorization. She approved the changes, and now we are receiving much more demographic information from students. The implications of Learning Outcome #4 on my future professional practice are to continue to utilize my own perspectives and those of others to identify areas in which diversity and equity are not being upheld and then do my part to instigate change. Learning Outcome #5 identifies the need to adapt student services to specific environments and cultures. This has been touted as a unique learning outcome to the SDA program, and it is one that I find especially important. I define it as: understanding how contextual and environmental conditions influence student learning and development; recognizing how institutional mission, values, and constituencies influence campus culture; and assessing student services to ensure they are meeting students needs and interests. I feel that Kuhs (2009) and Hirts (2006) discussions of the importance of institutional type on student affairs practice are most relevant to this learning outcome. They argue that the mission, philosophies, student populations, and culture of an institution play a huge part in how student affairs practitioners provide programs and services, as well as how they build relationships. Therefore, higher education personnel should choose institutional types wisely. In SDAD 577: Foundations of the Student Affairs Profession, I wrote a professional philosophy paper that included a section about the importance of institutional environment. In it, I cited Kuhs (2009) discussion of the impact of mission and philosophies on student affairs practice, giving an example of how it is detrimental when the espoused mission and philosophies are not upheld in actuality. I also acknowledged that while it is important to push boundaries in order to create change, institutional cultures can sometimes limit what kinds of change can occur. In Capstone, we read a chapter of Hirts (2006) book, Where You Work Matters, in which she writes about how important it is to consider institutional type in our vocational discernment process. Having experience with several different types of higher education environments, I related to many of the characteristics she points out, such as level of bureaucracy, connection to students, and intrinsic/extrinsic rewards. However, I also found dissonance with several of the descriptions she provides, which tells me that ultimately, each institution is unique. Doing an internship at a two-year technical college taught me the importance of adapting student services to different environments and cultures. Though many similarities exist between traditional community colleges and two-year technical colleges, I found that their differing program offerings and career pathways influenced how I conducted outreach with prospective students. I learned that it was essential to appreciate the technical college for its unique purpose, emphasizing its value to students, instead of trying to depict it as a traditional community college. In my future professional practice, I intend to select workplaces that are relatively consistent with my own values, while recognizing that there will always be certain drawbacks and limitations in each environment. I

ARTIFACT H hope to gain familiarity with and appreciation for the mission and culture of my chosen institution, as well as the specific student populations I serve.

Learning Outcome #6 reads: Developing and demonstrating skills in leadership and collaboration. This outcome is strongly emphasized in the SDA program, and I define it as, first, understanding my personal leadership style and qualities, and then being able to adapt my personal leadership style and qualities to differing environments and teams. Finally, I see it as recognizing my own limitations and those of any single area of student affairs and forging partnerships to maximize success. Various leadership theories are important to my understanding of this learning outcome, such as Golemans (2005) work on emotional intelligence and Kelleys (1992) theory of effective followership. Goleman (2005) asserts that emotional intelligence, rather than intellect, is the most important factor in becoming a successful leader. Being emotionally intelligent signifies an ability to exhibit: self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, and relationship management. Kelleys (1992) work on followership argues that followers are critical to the success of a leader and that leaders and followers work together in a mutually influencing relationship. In EDAD 570: Leadership in Education I, EDUC 513: Adult Learning, and MGMT 575: Leading With Emotional Intelligence, I engaged in assessments, reflections, and discussions about my personal learning and leadership styles, understanding the values, beliefs, histories, and perspectives that inform my leadership, while also realizing that an adaptable, balanced leadership style is often most effective. I also learned that I especially value a collaborative and inclusive leadership style that democratically draws upon the input of all members of a group and seeks partnership across difference. One of the texts we have read extensively in Capstone is Amey and Reesors (2009) Beginning Your Journey, which offers a wealth of advice for new student affairs professionals. A consistent theme I have noticed in this book is to be able to find allies and collaborate across departments in order to effectively navigate the challenges of working in higher education. This theme is consistent with my definition of Learning Outcome #6. In my current workplace, I have been the only staff member working in the Womens Center for more than a year, due to budget cuts and uncertainty among the administration about the future of the Womens Center. However, I am only able to spend four hours per week there, which severely limits what I am able to accomplish. Therefore, I have actively built partnerships with other staff and departments on campus to maintain the visibility of the Womens Center and its services. For example, I have worked closely with the faculty coordinator of the Women and Gender Studies Department to advocate for more funding and staffing for the Womens Center, and I have created extensive resource lists that identify important programs and services for students provided by other campus and community organizations. In my future professional practice, I want to continue to recognize and utilize my own leadership skills, adapting them to fit different teams and objectives, and collaborating with others to achieve stronger delivery of programs and services. Learning Outcome #7, which was recently added to the program, is to utilize assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to improve practice. I conceptualize this outcome as: using research to determine student population(s) of focus and intended outcomes of a program or service; utilizing technology to perform assessment to determine whether the program or service is

ARTIFACT H meeting the intended outcomes; and evaluating assessment results and developing a plan of implementation.

While many different theories could be applied to this learning outcome, depending on the area of student services being targeted, the Jesuit tradition of reflective practice and Barr and Keatings (1985) Program Planning Model are particularly appropriate. The Jesuits are known for encouraging reflection in order to make meaning of our experiences. This is truly the basis of assessment, as we should not just assume that the programs and services we provide to students are inherently functional and meaningful, but should prove this by collecting and reflecting upon evidence. Barr and Keatings (1985) Program Planning Model provides a step-by-step guide to program planning and implementation, which includes: providing context, articulating goals, developing a plan, implementing the plan, and conducting assessment and evaluation. An example from coursework that I used previously in this artifact is also pertinent to Learning Outcome #7, and that is my program proposal for mandatory academic advising checkpoints in community college. In it, I discussed the need for mandatory advising, citing best practices, theory, and student feedback, and I articulated the intended outcomes of the advising checkpoints. I then suggested specific strategies for enacting this proposal, including increased use of modern technology. Ideally, in real life, these strategies would be implemented with proper resources and assessed for effectiveness. In Capstone, I presented about Learning Outcome #7 with a couple of my classmates, and we referenced the reading we did from McClellan and Stringers (2009) The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration, pertaining to assessment and program-planning. Specifically, Barr and Keatings (1985) model, as described above, was useful, and so was Brescianis (2009) chapter on the history, purpose, approaches, and strategies for assessment. My internship at Lake Washington Institute of Technology was largely centered on research, assessment, evaluation, and technology. I was responsible for compiling and analyzing enrollment data to determine the most predictive variables for student enrollment, followed by a summary report that evaluated the findings and made recommendations for recruitment. I then implemented some of the recommended strategies, including editing the Enrollment Services websites and creating a landing page for prospective students. My internship roles followed the process outlined in my definition of Learning Outcome #7, which is something I plan on carrying with me into my future professional practice. Conclusion If I had to pinpoint a time that I was at my best in most or all of these six program learning outcomes, I would say it was during my internship. In it, I demonstrated an understanding of students and student issues through conducting enrollment assessment, implementing the findings to improve recruitment, and conducting outreach, which allowed me to understand what motivates students to choose a particular college. I learned more about my own ethical foundations and those of the institution, which at times made me feel aligned with the colleges purpose and values and other times not. I demonstrated a commitment to diversity and social justice by soliciting input from certain underrepresented students, like veterans, and using their input to make changes in service delivery. In my outreach for the college, I learned important lessons about adapting student services to the environment and culture of a technical college, which is very different from other institutional

ARTIFACT H

types. I practiced leadership and collaboration by taking on roles that were consistent with my own skills and abilities, while also working with colleagues to accomplish important tasks. Finally, I conducted probably the loftiest assessment and evaluation I have ever done in professional practice, which gave me confidence in these abilities and inspiration to implement them in future professional practice.

ARTIFACT H References Amey, M. J. & Reesor, L. M. (2009). Beginning your journey: A guide for new professionals in student affairs. Washington, DC: NASPA.

Barr, M. J. & Keating, L. A. (1985). Introduction: Elements of program development. In M. J. Barr & L. A. Keating (Eds.), Developing effective student service programs. San Fracisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bresciani, M. J. (2009). Implementing assessment to improve student learning and development. In G. S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 526-544). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Crain, W. C. (1985). Kohlbergs stages of moral development. In Theories of development (chapter 7). Retrieved from http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Hirt, J. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Kuh, G.D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. In G.S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 59-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. J. (1999). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. West, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.