Running

head: STRENGTH







Learning Outcome Narrative: Strength
Alexa Forster
Seattle University
April 10, 2015

STRENGTH

Integrative Theme
In looking at the work that I have produced and my experience over the past two years in the
Student Development Administration program, I have distilled down a strength that I believe I have
shown in many ways during this time. This strength is integrating theory and scholarship into
practice. While this strength may seem broad, there are several ways, demonstrated through the SDA
learning outcomes, that I displayed this strength during the course of the program.
My experience in the program was unique in that I was simultaneously taking courses at
Seattle University while working full-time at the University of Washington (UW). This allowed me to
apply what I was learning in the classroom to a different campus environment on a daily basis and
gave me the chance to show the integration of this material as my key strength.
Learning Outcomes 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8
The learning outcomes that I believe best describe my strength of integrating theory and scholarship
to practice are:

Learning Outcome 2: Understanding students and student issues

Learning Outcome 5: Adapting student services to specific environments and cultures
Learning Outcome 6: Developing and demonstrating leadership and collaboration
Learning Outcome 7: Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to improve
practice, and
Learning Outcome 8: Communicating effectively in speech and writing

All of the learning outcomes listed above have been shown in my work over the past two years to
successfully apply theory and course content to practice. Additionally, each learning outcome
intertwines with others as discussed below.
Learning Outcome 2: Artifacts D, E, & J
Understanding students and student issues was crucial to integrating theory to practice a
strength of mine. It is vital to understand the students you serve including what identities they carry,

STRENGTH


2

what types of classes they take, their backgrounds, passions, academics, etc. in order to effectively
utilize course content and theory. Prior to being in the SDA program, I had no understanding of
theory or course content, so this idea and development of this strength happened entirely while a
student at SU. The three dimensions of learning outcome 2 that allowed me to integrate scholarship
and practice while in the program were (1) observing campus culture and students, (2) informally
interviewing students to understand unique needs, and (3) developing resources for students based
on these unique needs. Observing campus culture and getting to know the needs of students through
asking them were things I did as a student in classes that focused on particular student populations
(like EDUC 513 and SDAD 559), as graduate intern with SU Athletics and as a professional in
Residential Life at the University of Washington. Artifact D was a presentation I gave in my EDUC 513:
Adult Learning class about social media in higher education. Understanding students (and their
technology habits) gave way to the development of this presentation of how student affairs
educators can use social media to engage our current students. This was a way to understand
students, use research and adult education theory to then create a pragmatic approach to engage
students. A presentation that I facilitated on gender identity and trans* student access at the UW
(Artifact E) was another example of understanding unique needs of a population and integrating
gender identity theory to address a student issue practically and realistically. Lastly, Artifact J, a
career development guide that I created with Career Services at SU for student-athletes, combines all
dimensions of learning outcome 2. It required me to understand students by being an anthropological
sleuth spending time on the ground with student-athletes to understand their needs, values, and
traditions on SUs campus (Deal & Peterson, 2000) Doing this combined with asking student-athletes
questions about what was difficult in terms of career discernment informed the tone of the career
development guide and allowed me to determine what was best to take from scholarship to practice.

STRENGTH

Learning Outcome 5: Artifacts C2, G, & J

Adapting student services to specific environments and cultures was another important

element of my strength in being able to integrate theory to practice. How I articulate this learning
outcome is being able to take an idea, program, theory, etc. and being able to adapt it to meet the
needs of the student population or campus environment that you are in. For example, taking Jesuit
catholic principles from course work I have learned at SU and adapting those ideas to fit learning
outcomes at a public, secular state school like the UW. The dimensions of this learning outcome that
fit into my strength are (1) adapting generalized resources to specific student populations, (2)
translating content from Jesuit education to work at a public institution, and (3) understanding the
importance of institutional type. Before coming in to the SDA program, I had only had exposure to
going to and then working at one institution, the UW. Because of this, I had no context about the
importance of adapting student services based on theory, scholarship, and campus culture. During
my time in the SDA program, a few courses stuck out in terms of really helping me define this
learning outcome and those were SDAD 559: The American Community College, EDUC 513: Adult
Education, and probably most pointedly SDAD 5750: Best Practices in Student Affairs. Artifact G was a
final paper that was written at the conclusion of my Best Practices course and focused on student
services that were in place that were adapted or created for specific campus types and student
bodies. For example, co-located services, which use resources effectively and forge educational
partnerships to advance student learning (Blimling & Whitt, 1999) were used at Cascadia Community
College to meet the needs of the student population there. Artifact G, a training program that I
developed for student staff at the University of Washington, is an example of being able to translate
content from class and SU into my work at a large public institution. The SU mission speaks to
educating the whole person and I wanted to take that concept in to this training as shown in the

STRENGTH


4

artifact. As part of the training, my co-facilitator and I talked about how their job as a student office
assistant could play into their UW experience and how it could help them grow as individuals beyond
their resume. This was a great way to integrate scholarship and knowledge from SU to UW. Lastly, my
distinctive contribution, artifact J, was an example of developing resources for a specific population.
My experiences interning with SU Athletics and as a course instructor at UW also offered me the
opportunities to adapt student services and materials to very different institutions and students.
Learning Outcome 6: Artifacts C2, G, & J
Developing and demonstrating skills in leadership and collaboration was a strength of mine
throughout this program and was a very big part of my success in integrating theory and scholarship
into practice. The dimensions of this learning outcome that I derived were (1) developing a clear
leadership philosophy, (2) working with colleagues to create one product, and (3) utilizing others
strengths towards a common goal. I would say I worked okay with others prior to coming in to the
SDA program, but as I developed and honed my leadership philosophy, the way in which I
approached working with others drastically changed. Artifact C2, my best practices final assignment,
was a collaborative paper with two peers in the SDA program. This paper called on all three of us
using our knowledge of scholarship and theory to produce one document. While I felt strongly about
my ability to do this, there were a plethora of theories and articles that I had not read that my
partners were able to contribute to the paper. We challenged and encouraged each other to find
ways to make practical sense of course content and observations we had made during site visits for
the assignment. Artifact G offered me the chance to work with a colleague at UW to put together a
training program. Because she does not have a student affairs background, I was able to offer her my
insights on educating the whole person and other information I had gleaned at SU and she offered
the practical approach so that together we collaborated and integrated the two. Lastly, artifact J,

STRENGTH


5

displayed a document that was created with a great deal of collaboration with an SDA peer working
in Career Services. While I offered content that was student development focused for the guide, her
knowledge about career development theory bolstered the guides effectiveness. Collaborating with
others was at the focal point of every course that I took here at SU as well as both of my internships.
It was a great lesson in that the sky is the limit when you have multiple minds working to serve
students and integrate scholarship to practice. As Harry S. Truman said, it is amazing what you can
accomplish when you do not care who gets the credit.
Learning Outcome 7: Artifacts D & G
Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology and research to improve practice was also a way in
which I was able to integrate theory and course content to practice. The dimensions of this learning
outcome as I saw it were (1) understanding tools students use, (2) using assessment to create
tangible outcomes, and (3) grounding all practice in sound research. Using technology and
assessment specifically were tools that I used to integrate theory to practice. Artifact D was an
example of the effectiveness of technology and assessment while also utilizing sound research to
serve as the foundation for this piece. The presentation about social media in higher education, not
only examined looking at course material and theory to inform a practice, but centered on social
media as a platform in which to do so. This presentation also included an assessment tool created to
measure engagement with social media. These ideas, learned from class, were applied to create a
presentation about working with the adult learner population. Artifact G was another example of
using technology as a way to bolster the integration of Jesuit Catholic principles to practice. Using
technology increased engagement with students and allowed me to better articulate my material. In
addition to the use of technology for Artifact G, this was another example of where research was
used to develop the majority of the content presented in this workshop, particularly relating to

STRENGTH


6

research conducted around customer service practices. While I do not feel as though many of the
courses I took in the SDA program focused on assessment to improve practice, SDAD 578: Student
Development Theory, Research and Practice focused almost solely on research improving
competence and practice and EDUC 513: Adult Education, focused on technology and research both
as main sources of improved practice. I dabbled with assessment, research and technology a bit in my
internship at UW as well.
Learning Outcome 8: Artifacts A, B (B1 &B2), C(C1, C2, & C3), & K
I would not be able to call integrating theory and scholarship into practice a strength of mine
if I was not able to communicate effectively in speech and writing. I would also argue that it is
essential to communicate well to be a leader of any kind. Prior to coming in to the program, I
considered myself a good writer and well spoken, but both of these areas were further enhanced
over the past two years. Every course that I took at SU had writing and verbal components that
helped me hone these skills. Additionally, my professional position and both internships required me
to communicate on a daily basis. Communicating effectively, to me, means many things including (1)
articulating complex thoughts and ideas through speech and writing, (2) using speech and writing to
facilitate meaning making, and (3) adjusting communication styles to fit the target audience. These
three dimensions were articulated in the artifacts I have chosen to represent this learning outcome.
While every artifact, at some level, represents my ability to communicate, artifacts A, B, C, and K
stand out as being the best examples of this outcome. Artifact A, my resume, essentially is my written
statement of experience and qualifications. This piece was crucial to my job search process and had
to be succinct and to-the-point to capture the attention of its reviewer. My mission statements
(artifacts B1 & B2) showed my ability to make meaning of my experiences and identity and write out
complex thoughts and ideas. My best written works (C1, C2, & C3) all showed my capability to

STRENGTH


7

translate theory into practice on paper. In particular, C1, my theory paper showcased my ability to
synthesize two theories and in turn discuss the impact those theories had on my personal practice.
Artifact K, my portfolio process assessment, was an example of being able to integrate a course
project and make meaning of the impact it had on my professional identity. Communication, again, is
key to leadership and most certainly is at the core of my strength of integrating theory and
scholarship into practice.
Implications for Future Practice

While I have displayed my strength in integrating theory and scholarship into practice, I must

commit to continuing to seek out information to inform my work throughout the entirety of my
career. I must be diligent about doing research, reading up on new theories and ideas because I will
not have a class or assignment dictating my work. This will be particularly important as the student
populations are ever changing and are consistently coming to college campuses with new unique
needs and a desire for a individualized college experience.

STRENGTH

References
Blimling, G. S., & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Good practices in student affairs: Principles to foster student

learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (2000) Eight roles of symbolic leadership. In Jossey-Bass, The Jossey-

Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 202-214). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.