Running head: ARTIFACT H

Artifact H Lindsey Hoogkamer SDAD 579 - Capstone Seminar February 28, 2013

ARTIFACT H The following is an assessment of my growth in six of the ten learning outcomes in the Student Development Administration (SDA) program at Seattle University (SU). For each learning outcome, I have created a definition with distinct dimensions, analyzed the connection to student development theory and Capstone readings, provided coursework and professional

practice examples, and implications for professional practice. I will conclude with a summary on when I have been my best in the SDA program. Learning Outcome #2: Understanding students and student issues I intentionally work to understand student issues and student assets by 1) being aware of students expectations, 2) understand how student develop theory influences student learning and identities, and 3) advocate for underrepresented students by helping them understand their strengths and limitations. A large part of understanding students is the ability to meet students where they are cognitively, mentally, and emotionally. According to Perry (1968), intellectual development begins with interpreting the world in a right-wrong, good-bad perspective. As the individual moves forward in cognitive development, he begins to see the world in more complex ways and realizes that he lives in a world of contingent knowledge and relative values. As a student affairs educator, if I know that if student is in the beginning, right-wrong stage of this theory, then I am able to better understand this student and his issues. In my Theory course (SDAD 578), I developed a program to address developmental needs of transfer students in the community college environment. This specific student population is often underrepresented in the larger campus community, and the transition between institutions can be especially challenging. Therefore, I have found that a need exists to help connect transfer students to campus resources. As part of our readings in Capstone, we read Democracy Matters by Cornel West (2004). A significant piece in this text is his notion of

ARTIFACT H

Socratic questioning. Socratic questioning relies on self-evaluation and reflection, which are both essential to the student affairs profession and understanding students. In my work with international students at South Seattle Community College (SSCC), I work with both 16-year-olds from Vietnam, and 30-somethings from Saudi Arabia. I must be able to understand these different student populations, and seek to know how the issues differ between student populations. An implication for future professional practice is to continue to acknowledge individual and group identities among student populations. Learning Outcome #3: Exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership in professional practice I define this learning outcome as knowing my own personal and professional values, and applying strong ethical principles to my work in higher education. Three dimensions that compose this learning outcome are 1) Understanding the issue, 2) Engaging in ongoing education to understand student and institutional needs, and 3) the ability to model and teach ethical decision making practices. As noted by Dalton (2009) and associates, everyday ethics can and should be viewed from a multi-lens approach. A combination of top-town, bottom-up, and case-based orientations are helpful in exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership. In my Leadership and Governance course (SDAD 576), I analyzed Western Washington University administrations response to the disappearance and death of a student (eg. A campus crisis). This example of my best written work exemplifies my ability to understand the impact of ethical decisions on the campus and surrounding community. Also, in my Capstone (SDAD 579) course, we revisited Daltons (2009) work regarding everyday ethics in student affairs. According to the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), ethical

ARTIFACT H decision making should include seven principles: Autonomy, Nonmalfeasance, beneficence, justice, fidelity, veracity and affiliation (p. 174). In my professional practice, it is pivotal that I consider each of these principles when

handling challenging situations. For example, autonomy involves giving students the freedom of choice. One reason why working with international students can be challenging is their desire to be told what to do, perhaps because of cultural differences. As an ethical student affairs educator, I must clearly lay out their options, but the student must make the decision for herself. An implication for professional practice is to promote the welfare of students (beneficence) and to remember that ethical decision making happens at all levels of the organization. Learning Outcome 4: Understanding and fostering diversity, justice and a sustainable world formed by a global perspective and Jesuit, Catholic tradition I define this learning outcome through the following three dimensions 1) Understand how my own identities intersect to form my own world view, 2) Commitment to continued education through holistic measures, and 3) Instill respect in others by building authentic and inclusive communities. Baxtor Magoldas (2001) theory of self-authorship is vital to understand this learning outcome, and I think this theory fits well with the Jesuit Catholic tradition of reflection and striving to be a better person. College students often do not realize the extent to which they are the authors of their own lives. One of my goals as an educator is to help students reach the point of self-authorship which means that students are grounded in their self-determined belief system, in their sense of who they are, and in the mutuality of their relationships (p. 186). In Social Justice (EDUC 520), I worked with a small group to create a fundraising plan for a school in-need in Mexico. This project demonstrates my commitment to this learning

ARTIFACT H outcome. Additionally, in my professional practice at SSCC, I am constantly drawing on my knowledge of this learning outcome. Not only do I work with international students who hold varying worldviews, but I also work at one of the most diverse community college campuses in Washington State. My perspective is constantly being reshaped through my daily interactions. In Parks (2011), the author recognizes the twenty-something years as a critical period for discovering ones purpose in life. This process can often involve how an individual sees

herself fitting into the larger world. Finding ones place can often cause cognitive dissonance and push the individual to reframe her own perspective. Learning Outcome 5: Adapting student services to specific environments and cultures I define this learning outcome as the ability to adapt services to meet the needs of different student populations in different institutional types and campus cultures. Specifically, this outcome is understood through the following dimensions: 1) Understand how context and environment influence learning, 2) Recognize how institutional mission and values influence culture, and 3) Assess services to determine if particular needs are being met. Bolman and Deals (2003) symbolic frame is helpful in understanding this learning outcome. All organizations have a cultural memory and symbolic history, and this influences how the institution functions. Furthermore, Parks (2011) expanded on Perrys Ways of Knowing theory, by developing a probing commitment stage of cognitive development. In order to provide services to students in this probing commitment stage, educators need to create mentoring environments. This affords a safe space for emerging adults to ask big questions. In my internships (SDAD 564-566), I intentionally sought out experiences in different institutional environments to increase my competency in this area. I completed a 100-hour internship in Enrollment Services at Lake Washington Institute of Technology (LWIT), which is

ARTIFACT H a technical college that focuses on career preparation. This experience showed me how this

institutional type is different than the community college, and how services need to be adapted to meet the needs of a technical college student. Since I have a variety of experiences in different institutional types, I frequently see this learning outcome emerge in my professional practice. For example, I have experience working in Admissions at Western Washington University (a mid-size, public institution) and South Seattle Community College International Programs (a specific population in a community college). Although the goal at these two institutions are the same (to admit students), the processes behind this goal are drastically different at these institutions. It is important to realize that one size does not fit all when it comes to student services. Further, it is necessary to truly know your campus, such as history, mission, symbols, politics, and students in order to adapt student services to meet the needs of your campus. Learning Outcome 6: Developing and demonstrating skills in leadership and collaboration This Learning Outcome can be understood through the following dimensions: 1) Develop self-awareness of my own strengths and limitations of my own leadership style, 2) Develop partnerships across campus and within the community, and 3) Practice inclusive collaboration to ensure that all voices are heard. Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005) found that shared responsibility for educational quality and student success is related to stronger levels of student engagement. (p. 409). This is evidence of the importance of collaborative leadership in student development. Additionally, in my Capstone class (SDAD 579), we have read selections from Palmer (2000) who highlights leading an authentic life. Although Palmer emphasizes the importance of looking within to find

ARTIFACT H ones true vocational calling, he notes that for there is no selfhood outside of relationship (p. 17). Positive relationships encourage collaboration. Throughout the duration of this program, I have taken several courses revolving around leadership. In my Leadership in Education course (EDAD 570), I compiled a leadership literature review that focused on the importance of followership within an effective leader. Additionally, I am currently enrolled in Leading with Emotional Intelligence (MGMT 575), which focuses on the importance of first managing my own emotions to be a more active leader.

This course is about understanding myself first, and then positively influencing others. This is an example of when I have been my best since entering the SDA program. During my time at SSCC, we were in the process of developing a new online application and student database. The development process was done in collaboration with a team of four people to ensure that no pieces were being missed. An effective student affairs professional must act as both a leader, and an effective team collaborator. I believe I have achieved this though the online application project. Student affairs professionals must learn to be flexible in our professional roles, and be both an effective leader and collaborator. Learning Outcome 7: Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to improve practice This learning outcome can be defined through the following dimensions: 1) Determine intended outcomes and population served of service or program, 2) Identify the appropriate method for assessing how the program is meeting the intended outcomes, and 3) Based on the assessment results, develop a plan to implement the necessary changes or how to sustain effective elements.

ARTIFACT H

Astins (1993) Inputs-Environment-Outcomes Model can help us understand one method for conducting research in student affairs. His model focuses on the individual characteristics (inputs) that a student brings, the environment that the learning takes place and the end result of student learning (outcomes). Additionally, in our Capstone (SDAD 579) course, we revisited Brescianis (2009) chapter on implementing assessment to improve student learning. Her work was helpful in giving me suggestions for how to engage in outcomes-based assessment and the impact assessment can have in our professional work. In Adult Learning (EDUC 513), I developed a proposal for an F-1 international student advising workshop. The backbone for my proposal was grounded in adult learning theory and assessment. This work shows my understanding of the importance of research in creating programs, workshops, and allocation of resources. In my work with international student admissions, I see myself utilizing data collection almost daily to show trends such as applicant citizenship country, deferral to later quarters, and the number of admitted students. Evaluation of this data helps to determine the next steps for bringing these students to campus. This hands-on application of Learning Outcome 7 is an example of when I have been my best since entering the SDA program. As student affairs professionals, we must realize that our future career prospects are often dependent upon assessment. Therefore, it is vital to set aside time in our work for assessment and evaluation. Conclusion I believe that I have been my best in relation to these six learning outcomes in my current position of the International Admissions Coordinator at South Seattle Community College. This position challenges me to understand a very diverse group of students, practice ethical decision making, understand the impact of a global perspectives, adapt services to meet the need of the

ARTIFACT H specific population I work with, use my leadership skills, and utilize assessment to improve practice. I am confident that I will continue to improve my competencies of the learning outcomes as I continue through my professional practice.

ARTIFACT H 10 References Astin, A. W. (2009). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practive of assessment and evaluation in higher education. In McClellan, G. S. & Stringer, J. (Eds.). The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published in 1993). Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2010). In Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. Development of self-authorship (pp. 176-193) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published in 2001). Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2009). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (3rd ed.). In McClellan, G. S. & Stringer, J. (Eds.). The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published in 2003). Bresciani, M. J. (2009). In McClellan, G. S. & Stringer, J. Implementing assessment to improve student learning and development. (pp. 526-544). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Dalton, J. C., Crosby, P. C., Valente, A., and Eberhardt, D. (2009). In McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. Maintaining and modeling everyday ethics in student affairs (pp. 166-186). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., and Whitt, E. J. (2009). In McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. Supporting and enhancing student learning through partnerships (pp. 405-424). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published in 2005). Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ARTIFACT H 11 Parks, S. D. (2011). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Revised 10th Anniversary Edition Perry, W. G., Jr. (2010). In Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical development (pp. 82-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published in 1968). West, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism. New York: The Penguin Press.