Running head: AREAS FOR GROWTH 1

Learning Outcome Narrative: Areas for Growth

Quynh-Nhu Tran

Seattle University
AREAS FOR GROWTH 2

Adapting Practice to Meet Changing Contexts

One of the ways that I define myself is as a lifelong learner. I recognize that context has

both a deep impact on my work and is constantly changing; if I am to be an effective student

affairs practitioner, I need to be flexible in my approach and innovative in the ways that I address

issues (Artifact B). While I have always enjoyed learning as a means of better understanding the

world around me, I have not always been skilled in quickly adapting. When I apply Perry’s

Perry’s Intellectual and Ethical Development scheme to my own intellectual development, I find

that I have a strong attachment to black and white thinking, even as I now recognize that there is

hardly ever just one “right” answer (Evans et al., 2010). This desire for order and clear direction

was further supported within my retail career where my professional identity was formed within

a corporate, bureaucratic environment with static rules and a tightly controlled environment that

rewarded binary thinking (Manning, 2013). I need to cultivate a professional practice that is

nimble and responsive to changing contexts, and I will do this work across three sub-areas: (1)

meeting new student needs; (2) recognizing the impact of the institutional type, structure, and

systems; (3) using data to guide decision-making.

Adapting to Meet New Student Needs (LO 1, 2 and Artifacts A, C1, C2)

In adapting to meet new student needs, I will need to be knowledgeable about the history

of student affairs, current about developing issues within the field, and in touch with students and

their concerns (LO 1, 2). Learning about the past and present context of higher education was

particularly important for me since I was coming from a different professional field and had been

outside a college or university for 10 years. SDAD 5810: The History of American Higher

Education showed two major implications for current day student affairs practice: (1) many of

the foundations, structures, and theories of higher education were built with one type of student
AREAS FOR GROWTH 3

in mind, an upper-class, White, cis-gender male, which is problematic given the needs of

increasingly diverse student bodies; and (2), much of what we consider as emerging concerns

such as student activism, changing demographics, and increasing college access, are factors that

higher education has been responding to throughout its history. Because many of the issues of

higher education are built into its structure, my practice must seek to change systems, not just

individuals (Artifact C2). Recognizing that foundational theories such as Austin, Tinto, Perry,

Chickering were created after study on mostly upper-class, White, cis-gender males (Evans et al.,

2010) informs me that I must adapt these theories to fit the students that I work with by bringing

in theory that is identity specific (Artifact C1). With the knowledge that much of what I may face

as a practitioner is cyclical, not only might I be able to anticipate “new” problems and have more

time to purposefully plan a response, I can also look for successful (and unsuccessful) responses

in the past to inform my decision-making so that I am not reacting blindly.

However, as a practitioner I cannot only look to the past, I must also seek to understand

the present and be aware of what is impacting students now (LO 2). One of the best ways to do

this is by staying current with research within the field; this was one of the reasons that drove me

to work as a graduate research assistant to Dr. Thai-Huy Nguyen’s research on community

college students aspiring to transfer into STEM fields at a four-year college or university

(Artifact A). Research, particularly studies that involve qualitative and ethnographic methods,

provide a unique opportunity to learn deeply about student experiences and the challenges they

face (EDUC 5000: Introduction to Educational Research). Assisting Dr. Nguyen in creating a

literature review and reading scores of studies, I was able to see from other researchers how one

translates and adapts theories and frameworks given the specific student populations and
AREAS FOR GROWTH 4

contexts that one is working with (Artifact A). I look forward to continuing my work with Dr.

Nguyen so that I can better see student issues and recognize where action may be needed.

Adapting Based Upon Institutional Structure (LO 9 and Artifacts A, C3, D, F, G)

Initially coming in to the program, I was limited in terms of my knowledge about law,

policy, finance, and governance and how those factors might impact my work (LO 9). I had gone

to a smaller-sized, private university with a close religious affiliation for my undergrad and was

now about to attend a similar institution; my knowledge of higher education was tied to a very

specific institutional type. Additionally, because of the time gap between the two experiences,

what little information I had about that type of institution was likely outdated. Therefore, it was

important for me to get work in other institutional contexts, which is why I sought professional

opportunities at both a community college and a public four-year university setting (Artifact A).

Working at these schools gave me exposure to different organizational frameworks at play;

comparing and contrasting advising processes between South, UWB, and SU where differences

in policies and systems stemmed from differences in governance structures, missions, and

financial contexts confirmed the need to understand these factors (Manning, 2013).

It became quickly apparent the enormous ramifications of declining state funding

combined with falling enrollment. At South, the most constant source of student complaints

stemmed from course cancellations, and much of my work was spent mediating student concerns

and helping them plan their educational pathways given program closures and limited scheduling

options (Artifact A). Compounding this issue were mismatches between organizational

preferences that varied by department. To coordinate successful dialogue between advising,

deans, and faculty members and create structure for program teach out, I had to be adaptive to

differing conceptions of appropriate roles and responsibilities according to collegial and

AREAS FOR GROWTH 5

bureaucratic frameworks (Artifact A; Manning, 2013). Working at UWB also showed the

importance of knowing the governance structure to identify important stakeholders. By

understanding through reporting structures which groups held sway in decision making, the

Integrated Learning team knew that deans and faculty should be a targeted audience; the

assessment project needed to include visualizations showing data specific by school and major if

it was going to have a large-scale impact (Artifact C3, D, G).

I still have much work to do in understanding law and in managing budgets versus acting

within the parameters of budgetary concerns. While I have experience from retail management in

managing budgets (Artifact A), I have not been able to transfer that skill within a higher

education context. My professional experience with legal concerns is limited to FERPA and data

collection compliance. One of the reasons I am particularly excited for my next professional step,

working at UW Seattle supporting the McNair Scholars and Early Identification Programs (EIP)

is that fiscal management is one of the core position responsibilities; through this work, I will

have the opportunity to learn more about budgetary allocation and management within higher

education as well as the legal obligations that the department needs to fulfill in order to be

compliant and eligible for funding (Artifact F).

Adapting and Improving Work Based Upon Data (LO 5, 7 and Artifacts A, C3, D, E, F, G)

Coming from retail management, I recognized the importance of using data and

assessment to inform decision-making and improve service delivery (LO 7). What excited me

about working in higher education was the opportunity to apply similar information to adapt

student services and enact meaningful change for a population that I both wanted and felt an

obligation to serve (LO 5). Through my assessment and research experiences at UWB and with

Dr. Nguyen, I have significant experience setting up projects that hold great potential in
AREAS FOR GROWTH 6

informing large-scale, structural change that could broadly benefit students (Artifact A, C3, D,

G). However, I have yet to work at the end of an assessment cycle where findings are used to

adapt practices, much less set up an assessment practice so that it is sustainable and recurring.

This is one of my primary goals while I am at UW. Though the McNair Scholars Program is a

federally funded program with mandated assessment and reporting requirements, assessment is

still more linked with compliance versus informing the day-to-day work. I am eager to continue

my assessment and research development to make multiple, full rotations of a sustainable

assessment cycle so that I can not only collect useful information, but apply it to my practice in

an iterative process (Yousey-Elsener, Bentrim & Henning, 2015, Artifact E, F).

In order to both improve my assessment practice and have the tools necessary to adapt

my work as necessary, I will need to develop my technological skills. Beginning the program, I

had not had a personal computer for 10 years, limited my social media use, and in general was

slow to embrace new technologies. During my internship at UWB, I taught myself how to use

Excel for data analytics, producing complex pivot tables able to filter results based upon a broad

combination of data categories (Artifacts C3, D, G), but I would like to develop these skills

further by learning how to use other data analysis platforms like Tableau (Artifact F).

Technology will also be vital in adapting services to meet student needs. At South, I saw

how difficult it was for distance learners and evening students to access advising; pretty much

the only options for these students was to either change their schedule so they could come in

physically or receive advising over the phone or through e-mail, both mediums that typically

resulted in lower quality advising sessions given the limitations of their forms. Online, advising

information typically came in text-heavy formats with few videos or graphics. While many of

these shortcomings are tied to the specific situation at South where the district is gearing for
AREAS FOR GROWTH 7

major technological shifts, and so does not want to invest in any changes in the interim, it still

demonstrated how important technology is in ensuring a high quality of service for all students.

I am especially curious about using technology not only to improve service delivery, but

to also broaden student outreach. One of the first hurdles in student affairs work is getting

students in the door and introduced to the services available; savvy use of social media to

advertise and brand services will be vital in connecting with new students. Through professional

development focused around technology, I want to learn about what other schools are doing to

meet the needs of their online students and to expand the reach and appeal of their services so

that I can adapt those practices to my work and department (Artifact E, F).

Conclusion

Adaptation is vital to meeting the needs of students within a constantly shifting context.

As my mission statement affirms, adapting my practice shows a tireless, enduring commitment

to challenging assumptions and complacency (Artifact B). However, change and transition are

difficult processes. Organization change theory shows that adapting to change can be likened to a

grieving process (Burke, 2018) while Schlossberg’s Transition Theory highlights the many

factors that can ease transition when they are present and exacerbate the pain of transition when

they are absent (Evans et al., 2010). Proactively adapting my practice will allow me to retain

some control over a necessary process; knowing that the change demanded is grounded in data,

best practices, and a deep knowledge of the historical and institutional context will help me

embrace adaptation instead of resisting it. Moreover, transformation cannot happen without

change, and I look forward to trying to not just mitigate, but transform unjust systems within

higher education through my professional practice (Artifact B, C1, C2).

AREAS FOR GROWTH 8

References

Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido, F. (2010). Student development in college: Theory,

research, and practice (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Yousey-Elsener, K., Bentrim, E. M., & Henning, G. W. (2015). A practical guide: Coordinating

student affairs divisional assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus.