Running head: LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

Monika Delfierro

Seattle University
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 2

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

(LO #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #10; Artifacts: A, B, C1, C2, C3, F, G)

Throughout my time in the Student Development Administration (SDA) program, I’ve

grown tremendously both personally and professionally. I am reminded of my growth within this

through the continuous reflection and intersections of my work. I have learned about my

strengths and contributions as a practitioner through this program and my promise to this field.

Guided by social justice, holistic development, and a student-centered mindset, I believe in the

importance of community, collaboration, and meaning-making. Coming into this program I

already had several years of experience working in higher education, however, I knew I wanted

to further my development and knowledge as a practitioner. This learning outcome narrative

highlights in depth my strengths gained from my time in the SDA program with evidence from

my artifacts. The SDA program has provided me the support and resources that contributed to

my development within LO #10, Establishing and enhancing professional identity. Through my

courses, graduate assistantships, co-curricular experiences, and internships my professional

identity has been molded throughout a consistent sub-theme of my strengths of inclusive

excellence, professional identity, and leadership & collaboration that form my overarching

theme of professional initiative.

Professional Identity (LO #2 & #10; Artifacts A, B, C3, & D)

In capstone, the course was focused on the development and formatting of Artifact A

my cover letter and resume. When beginning this program, I was intentional about the

experiences I wanted to immerse myself to grow in specific SDA Learning Outcomes and

NASPA/ACPA competencies. My cover letter and resume helped me reflect on the experiences I

had both as a student leader and professional, as well as, a visual timeline of the growth of my

professional identity. Supervisors who’ve become mentors challenged me to think critically,

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 3

creatively, and holistically through various projects and opportunities. In addition, working with

diverse groups of students within four different institutional types, I understood the needs and

best practices in changing demographics which is a demonstration of LO #2, Understanding

students and student issues toward student success and retention. The three key dimensions

embodied by LO #2 are providing platforms for students to share their narratives, seeking

student narratives in research and assessment, utilizing these narratives to inform practice

in advocating for student success and retention. The various experiences on my resume were

intentional to expose myself to various functional areas, regions, institutional types, and student

narratives. In looking forward, I carry a multitude of experiences and strengths that I will be able

to articulate through the job search process.

Through my previous professional work of graduate assistantships and internships; each

of these experiences helped me grow into my professional identity and form my mission

statement (Artifact B). My mission statement is my promise to students and this field by keeping

myself accountable for how I present myself and values. Furthermore, Manning and Munoz

(2011) encourages using a “wealth” of theories and concepts to guide our (student affairs)

practice when working with students. My best presentation (Artifact C3) is an example of how

my knowledge of student development theory was put into practice through my internship

experience at a community college. My internships have been centered on high student contact

because that is where I thrive as a professional in this field. Even now in the job search process I

want a position where I can be directly working with students. Student development theory has

given me tools to make meaning and create explanations of the “who, what, and why” when

working with students in post-secondary settings (Patton et al. 2016). Looking at various theories

has helped guide my work with students in shaping their identities holistically, as well as, mines.
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 4

I use theories, such as Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model, to help students of

color to see the worth of their experiences outside of the classroom as leadership skills, and

empower them to see the value of the identities and experiences they hold.

From starting graduate school and challenging myself to take on new opportunities in

enhancing my professional identity; I’ve gone through my own stages of Schlossberg’s transition

theory (1995). Artifact D is my letter of promise, written by my supervisor, exhibits my growth

through resilience and compassion within my professional identity through an internship

experience. With guidance and support of my supervisor and colleagues, I received continued,

“affect, affirmation, aid, and honest feedback” (Schlossberg’s 4’s) that helped me build

confidence in excelling in my position (Patton et al., 2016). Furthermore, I’ve grown to

understand the importance of mindfulness as a daily practice in my self-care; in practicing being

my most authentic and best self with my students. Through reflecting upon my experiences and

defining my own mission and values; authenticity, compassion, reflection, and advocacy, I’ve

met LO #10, Establishing and enhancing professional identity by becoming a more confident

and empowered student affairs professional. For me, the defining dimensions of this learning

outcome are leading with authenticity, compassion, reflection and advocacy through a

student-centered lens.

Leadership & Collaboration (LO #4, #5 & #6; Artifacts C2 & G)

Leadership has been demonstrated through my initiatives in and out of the classroom. I

am continuously grounded by acknowledging my own salient identities and privileges that I hold

as a woman of color, first-gen, Asian-American, cis-gender, and bisexual; just to name a few. As

a leader in each of those identities within my communities I’ve continue to demonstrate LO #4,

Understanding and fostering diversity, justice and a sustainable world formed by a global
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 5

perspective and Jesuit Catholic tradition in the forefront of my work. Coupled with my own

experiences and knowledge, the three dimensions of this practice are the ability to think

critically and reflectively through a social justice lens, advocating for all students’ holistic

success (especially those from historically underrepresented populations), and a

commitment to lifelong-learning within our field.

Co-curricular opportunities such as serving on the SUSDA Executive Team as the

Community Development Chair and as one of the SDA Ambassadors have also contributed to

my strengths within leadership and collaboration. As reflected throughout Artifact A, both roles

have challenged and enhanced my work ethic, team building, management style, working with

my faculty, and practicing self-care. Learning how to collaborate with different campus partners,

navigating systems, and fostering community is all for the common goal of creating an inclusive

and holistic experience within the SDA program.

Artifact C2 is an example of work that exhibits my ability to articulate research on

higher education governance issues into recommendations for more inclusive and sustainable

best practices to administrative offices. This demonstrates LO #5, Adapting student services to

specific environments and cultures. This LO requires the ability to review practices and create

policies toward inclusivity, maintain collaborative efforts with campus and community

partners, and incorporate assessment and research into practice. I am consistently reminded

by this quote from Kathleen Manning (2013) where she that states, “collaboration will not only

improve working conditions for all in higher education, but can create meaningful roles for staff,

students and others who traditionally have been excluded from the power structures within

colleges and universities”. I see myself as a connector and building connections through
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 6

collaboration as a leader has been one of my strengths in best supporting my students and

communities.

One of my proudest moments within the program highlights my growth in LO #6,

Developing and demonstrating skills in leadership and is exhibited through Artifact G. The

three distinct dimensions of this LO are understanding the importance of student narratives

of those historically unrepresented, taking initiative and being self-motivated, and working

collaboratively with others toward achieving the same mission. Artifact G contains a

description and reflection of my distinctive contribution to our profession during my time thus

far in the SDA program. Working collaboratively with 16 faculty members from 11 educational

graduate programs, I developed the first College of Education Graduate Student Blog at Seattle

University. Utilizing skills gained from my previous experiences working in undergraduate

admissions I successfully recruited and advised 6 graduate students within the college to share

blog posts throughout the year about their experiences of their program and their time at Seattle

University. This not only allowed a space for students to share their stories but also serves as

another resource for admissions efforts for prospective students through their discernment of

continuing education.

Guided by the Social Change Model of leadership development (Schuh et al., 2001),

when leadership and collaboration are together under the same purpose of positive change; it

aligns with the values of student affairs. I am specifically proud of this work because I viewed

our current marketing and admissions strategies to think creatively and take initiatives to lead

this project while working with various programs in highlighting the experiences of their

students. This allows for students’ voices to be shared, for increased representation, and

connection of prospective students with current students as resources. This experience honed my
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 7

skills and knowledge on getting faculty buy-in, web development in designing a site, and

creating guidelines to recruiting participants. Through planning and execution, I stayed

consistent with communication with all involved to practice transparency and maintain proper

partnerships. Furthermore, this demonstrated my ability to think innovatively in creating a

program for students and faculty with little resources. After leaving that graduate position, the

College of Education is still continuing the College of Education Blog legacy due to its success

with current and prospective students.

Inclusive Excellence (LO 7; Artifacts C1 & F)

As another strength, having a student-centered approach has grounded me as a

practitioner to always think about how historically higher education was not built for folks like

myself. There are still theories, policies, and practices being used today that were created without

certain student groups in mind. It is the responsibility of student affairs practitioners to, “help

[ALL] students attain their educational and personal development goals” (Schuh et. al., 2011).

Looking at current policies, practices, and assessment creates ways of improving development

for all students, especially, those who’ve been historically underrepresented and marginalized.

Artifact C1 exhibits my best scholarly work where I conducted research on three

institutional best practices, focusing on student success and inclusivity that highlights my

strength with LO #7, Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to improve

practice. Per Schuh et. al (2011), it is the responsibility of student affairs practitioners to, “help

students attain their educational and personal development goals” (pp. 258). Conducting my

own practice of research and assessment, critically analyze current student affairs research

and practices, and staying current on new technological practices (specifically for higher

education) is how I define LO #7. As higher education and student demographics continues to
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 8

change, we must keep up to date within our research and assessment to continue improving our

practices toward student development. What this means is that when we continue to educate

ourselves through professional development opportunities such as subscribing to published

journals from NASPA/ACPA and/or web seminars we are preparing ourselves to serve all

students. Acknowledging our growing and changing student demographics, with up to date

research allows us to understand the needs and supports of diverse populations. I believe this

artifact exhibits my ability to think critically about the best practices and assessment we are

adopting and referencing. When applying best practices and data from other institutions it is

important to see how you can adapt it to your institution and students directly. I believe that

because something might work with student A might not justify or apply to students B, C, and D.

Through my work I am able to question and understand the importance of breaking down

assessment data to the micro level and challenge generalization and see disaggregate data,

especially, working with communities of color. For example, in considering Asian American

Pacific Islander communities, I understand that the needs of Micronesian and Polynesian

students (i.e. Samoan, Tongan, Native Hawaiian, etc.) are not the same for East Asian students

(i.e. Chinese). In reading into current research and assessment, I’ve also learned how to create

my own assessment through my work in the classroom, graduate assistantships, and internships. I

try to highlight qualitative data through stories of resiliency and experiences through the

narratives of students.

As I embark in the job search process and transition from graduate student to

professional, Artifact F contains my 5-year professional plan. This 5-year plan is a working

document to hold myself to be accountable to continue to be a life-long learner through the

transitions in my life and from my students. Making sure that my goals align with my mission
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 9

and values with promoting student success within inclusive excellence. Understanding how to

navigate through institutional politics while holding onto my identities and those of the students

that I advocate for. Continue to conduct and peer review current practices and research in hopes

to present national conferences to educate another practitioner around inclusive best practices.

Conclusion

Through all my experiences within the SDA program this has been a time of exploration

and reflection of enhancing my professional identity (LO #10). I’ve become more confident in

my work as an educator and practitioner because of the tools and language from courses,

graduate assistantships, internships and co-curricular content. I acknowledge my own identities

and privileges with supporting and advocating for the holistic development of students toward

their success. I am confident in my strengths as an educator and practitioner, as well as,

accepting the necessity of being a continued life learner.

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE: STRENGTHS 10

References

Kuh, G., Ikenberry, Stanley O, Jankowski, Natasha, Cain, Timothy Reese, Ewell, Hutchings, Pat,

& Kinzie, Jillian. (2014). Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher

Education. Hoboken: Wiley.

Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in

college: Theory, research, and practice.

Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., Harper, S. R., & Komives, S. R. (2011). Student services: A handbook

for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), pp. 69–91.