Running head: STRENGTHS

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

Kari Berkas
SDAD Portfolio
Professor Thai-Huy Nguyen, PhD
Seattle University
April 22, 2016

STRENGTHS

2
Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

Theme: Intentionality (LO 3, 4, 7 & 8; Artifacts A, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E1, E2, F & G)
While the SDA program has been a period of tremendous growth, it was also an
opportunity to recognize and utilize my core strengths. Interestingly enough, however, the
common theme I identified through these strengths was a term I had never used prior to the SDA
program. I heard it often throughout the program, and other people who worked with me also
used this term to describe me. This theme draws together the very essence of how I go about my
work, and while I may be in any functional area or capacity, I am confident that this word can be
used to describe me: intentionality. This is important to me because I demonstrate thoughtfulness
and purpose behind my work, and I believe this contributes to student success.
Delivering Information (LO 8; Artifacts A, B, D & G)
I have always had a love for teaching. This was my initial career goal, and I had a chance
to fulfill this goal when teaching English in Japan. This interest comes through in my ability to
deliver information in new and effective ways, as well as in training others. It is such a strong
interest that I have even included it in my personal and professional mission statement (Artifact
B); examples of teaching and presentations can also be seen on my resume (Artifact A). This
relates to Learning Outcome (LO) 8: Communicating effectively in speech and writing, which I
interpret as communicating in a way that increases others understanding through organization,
detail, and clarity. Kolbs (1981) learning styles relate closely to this learning outcome, as we
must take diverse learning styles into account when communicating with others. While I was
skilled in LO 8 prior to the SDA program, I did not consider learning styles. However, SDAD
5400: Student Development Theory, Research, & Practice made me realize that I needed to
change my approach, as students need different styles of instruction to maximize their learning.

STRENGTHS

During the SDA program, I have had many opportunities to pay attention to the way I
deliver information. One example was when I served as the intern for the Fukuoka Summer
Program at the International Student Center at Seattle University. I paid close attention to how I
delivered information for the student leaders who assisted with the program as well as the
exchange students from Fukuoka. My contributions in this regard are outlined in Artifact D, a
letter from my internship supervisor, Jennifer Wascher (SDAD 5650: Internship in Student
Development Administration). In delivering information to the student leaders, I tried to be very
clear about what they might expect and provided details that would empower them to succeed. In
delivering information to students from Fukuoka, I adjusted my communication style to meet
their needs and provided a visual component to their dormitory orientation that had not been
used in previous years (this is also described in Artifact D).
I am particularly proud of Artifact G, which is the presentation that my supervisor and
other Graduate Assistants have led for undergraduate Business Communications classes in the
Albers School of Business and Economics at Seattle University. During the first quarter of my
position, I gave the presentation as it was from previous years, but based upon the questions and
concerns that students presented in advising appointments, I realized we could work on
delivering the information more clearly. Additionally, after learning about Kolbs (1981)
learning styles, I saw this as an opportunity to stretch myself and attempt to make the
presentation more visually appealing (through the PowerPoint) and accessible to students who
need more opportunities for practice and processing through writing (through the worksheet).
These are just two examples of how I have skillfully delivered information, and this
incorporates intentionality because I carefully thought out how we could set students up for
success through our communication style in both instances. My former internship supervisor

STRENGTHS

even used this word to describe my work in Artifact D. In the future, I need to channel these
skills so that I can continue to communicate in a manner that benefits students.
Analyzing Information (LO 3 & 7; Artifacts B, C1, C2 & C3)
Another skill of mine is analyzing information. As a history major at Whitman College, I
studied a large volume of information and tried to find themes from disparate ideas. Professors
noted that I was highly capable of organizing information in a clear and organized manner.
However, I did not know much about educational research when entering the SDA program. I
quickly learned about this through EDUC 5000: Introduction to Educational Research, and a
deeper interaction with educational research came with SDAD 5990: Graduate Project. I was
challenged to compile information and narrow down a variety of themes for a literature review.
Artifact C2 showcases the problem statement/purpose and literature review for this project.
This relates to LO 7: Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to
improve practice, with my strength particularly lying in the research realm. Three dimensions of
this LO are analytical skills, critical thinking skills, and the ability to synthesize information. I
also exercised these skills in the completion of Artifact C1, which was another literature review I
completed for SDAD 5590: The American Community College about community college
experiences for foster youth, homeless youth, and youth with convictions. It was difficult to find
common themes between sparse resources on unique populations, but I drew upon my skills with
processing information and making connections to succeed with this assignment. Intentionality
was a major factor in my success with this assignment and with my Graduate Project, as I had to
be focused on what the literature was presenting as opposed to any of my preconceived notions.
Analyzing information is not just about finding themes; it is also about examining
multiple sides. This is something I have enjoyed since being a history major, and I include this in

STRENGTHS

my mission statement (Artifact B) as well. I relate this to Perrys (1968) theory of intellectual
and ethical development, because it involves the transition from dualistic thinking to embracing
complexity. I was very excited about completing our case law presentations in SDAD 5800:
Higher Education Law, because it was a chance to look at issues that have arguments for both
sides. My topic was unpaid internships in the for-profit sector, and the presentation is included in
Artifact C3. During the presentation, my planned activity prompted my classmates to think about
other sides of the issue. My passion for examining multiple sides is related to intentionality,
because it means that I will make well thought out decisions after considering all angles. This
relates to LO 3: Exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership in professional practice,
as three dimensions are information gathering, consideration of multiple viewpoints, and
decision-making on the pathway to professional integrity and ethical leadership. My ability to go
through this process has enhanced my professional integrity and ethical leadership.
In the future, I must remember that analyzing information is a major strength and identify
or create opportunities to conduct or contribute to research projects. My talents in this area can
contribute to student success, because it is important to understand and portray an accurate and
nuanced portrait of any aspect of student life when advocating for resources and support.
However, I also need to remember that conversations with colleagues and mentorship are
importance aspects of the process of professional integrity and ethical leadership. Enhancing my
understanding of political structures in higher education institutions is also a competency I must
gain as I further develop my ability to understand multiple sides of an issue.
Program Improvement (LO 4 & 7; Artifacts A, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E1, E2, F & G)
My goal in any position is to find ways to improve programs. This can be seen in my
resume (Artifact A), where many of my past positions show how I have improved processes or

STRENGTHS

programs. My mission statement (Artifact B) also includes mention of how I am continuously

invested in this process. Program improvement encompasses LO 7, as did the previous sub-area,
but in this regard it is more about improving practice as opposed to conducting research. Three
dimensions of improving practice are anticipating needs, responding to needs, and identifying
opportunities, and these processes can be aided by research, assessment, and technology.
Artifacts C1, 2, and 3 are examples of how gathering information can be used to improve
practice, because by understanding student needs and complexities of issues, we can recommend
areas for improvement. In my internship at the Education Abroad Office at Seattle University, I
used technology to improve practice in designing an online pre-departure module for students.
By giving students a chance to review information at their own pace, the office can elicit
students deeper reflection through written assignments and also use more time at the in-person
orientation for group discussion. I also engaged with assessment to improve practice. Artifact G
includes an assessment I re-envisioned during my Graduate Assistantship in order to receive
clearer feedback for our presentation. Previously, the assessment had been a likert scale with
qualitative components, so most students simply gave high ratings with little constructive
feedback. Prompting students with specific information gave us better data in the time that was
available and was more useful in illuminating what students actually took away from our
presentation. This data gave us better ideas for how to improve the presentation.
Artifact D includes descriptions of how I was intentional about improving various aspects
of the Fukuoka Summer Program. My efforts in this internship relate to LO 4: Understanding
and fostering diversity, justice, and a sustainable world formed by a global perspective and Jesuit
Catholic tradition. This example especially relates to fostering diversity and a global perspective
since I worked to make exchange students feel welcome and to ensure that student leaders were

STRENGTHS

prepared to engage with this cross-cultural exchange. This LO is important for higher education
because diversity, justice, and sustainability are cornerstones of our practice; this can be seen in
Artifacts E1 and E2 as NASPA and ACPA included each element in various competencies. The
global perspective and Jesuit Catholic tradition connect to the special nature of the Seattle
University context, and this reminds me of the importance of paying attention to institutional
context. Factoring in all these aspects of higher education practice is vital for program
improvement, and this LO involves awareness of context, leadership, and strategic thinking.
In addition to my internship with the Fukuoka Summer Program, my graduate project
was focused on a global perspective. Artifact C2 outlines the context for the importance of study
abroad programs and how understanding reentry is connected to improving practice. My ability
to analyze issues related to justice can be seen in Artifact C3, where I connected a legal issue to
social justice concerns. An example of my understanding of the Jesuit context and its impact on
diversity and justice came through my internship at the Education Abroad Office at Seattle
University, where I had conversations with colleagues about how the Jesuit mission of Seattle
University encourages students to meaningfully engage with other cultures. The Jesuit context
also pervaded my coursework through significant reflection opportunities. All of these
experiences allowed me to cultivate my skills in LO 4 and think about the impact of programs.
My attention to implications of our practice for diversity, justice, and sustainability has
increased during the SDA program, and this should be a core component of my intentionality
moving forward (action steps are outlined in Artifacts E2 and F). I have explored my significant
interest in international education during this program and will continue to explore this at my
future institution. While LO 4 includes the Jesuit context, I must also remember that my future
institution will have a different context that will impact how I approach program improvement.

STRENGTHS

8
References

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development
in college: Theory, research, and practice (Second Edition, Chapters 5 and 8). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pope, R.L, Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.