Areas of Growth Narrative

Edgar M. Rodriguez

Seattle University
Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 1

Learning Outcome Narrative: Areas of Growth

(LO #1, 7, 8, &9; Artifacts C2, C3, E, & F)

Beginning my time at Seattle University was one that came with a lot of change. I was

starting my first professional job in the field as a graduate assistant in Housing and Residence

Life and I was starting a new educational journey. I knew I had a lot of tangible and transferable

skills based on my experiences, but I knew I need to build a foundation around knowledge and

context, the theme for my areas of growth. The three sub-areas that fall under knowledge and

context are research and assessment, law, and theory and scholarship. This narrative is a

reflection of the areas of growth that I struggled with throughout the program and will continue

to learn and expand upon beyond the program.

Research & Assessment (LO #7; Artifact C2 & A)

Although I graduated from DePaul with a bachelors in sociology, I still felt like research

and assessment was an area I lacked skill in. Not because I did not know how to do it, but

because I felt I didn’t have tangible experience to tie it into the education field. In undergrad, I

took 2 different research methods classes that set me up for success coming into the Student

Development Administration program. In my first quarter, I took Educational Research, which

helped refresh a lot of the content I already knew from my research methods classes. It also gave

me the ability to transfer that knowledge into the educational field and gave me the tools to gain

more confidence in my ability to conduct research during my graduate career. This helped in

establishing myself in relation to LO #7 which I define as the critical use of assessment,

evaluation, and technology in the workplace to enhance professional practice. The three

dimensions I would tie to this learning outcome are incorporating evaluation as an ongoing
Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 2

practice, conducting research through a critical lens, and continuing to interpret data to

better improve practice.

My second quarter, I was able to finally put that knowledge to the test in my Leadership

and Governance in Postsecondary Education course. In this course, we were tasked to conduct

interviews around a contested issue in higher education and write a paper on our findings. This

really challenged me at first because I wasn’t sure what issue I would be interested in, how I

would conduct the interviews, or who I would interview. During this time, I was about to meet

with my professor, Dr. Tim Leary. He gave me a lot of great insight and provided space me to

talk through my ideas and worries about the class and the paper. After talking with Dr. Leary, I

was able to narrow my focus to Freedom of Speech and Expression here at Seattle University. I

was able to interview an administrator, a student, and a faculty member that all have interacted

with the demonstration policy on campus. I used the challenge and support theory (Sanford,

1966), to better understand how Seattle University policies challenge students to think critically

and intentionally about demonstration and the lack of support faculty felt around experiences

with demonstrations, which was visible through my interviews. Ultimately, I found that I want to

continue to do this work; to better understand student and faculty needs and how to assess and

address those through research.

Additionally, in my assistantship for Housing and Residence Life. I was given the

opportunity to create assessment around Resident Assistant (RA) Summer Training, which is

demonstrated in Artifact A. At first, I was terrified because this was something I had never done

before and I was never trained on how to create assessment. I was able to work with another

graduate assistant, Steffi Huynh, to create an online assessment form that encompassed all three

weeks of RA training. Steffi and I worked to develop a plan of how we would be able to
Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 3

incorporate all of the training sessions. We ultimately decided that we would create overarching

sections based on the position description and then add each session under those sections. We

created different types of questions that helped gain both qualitative and quantitative data. This

taught me how to create assessment that incorporates different type of data to improve practice.

Law (LO #9; Artifact F)

Coming into this program, I had no real understanding of law, specifically in the higher

education aspect. The only things I had learned about prior to becoming a student at Seattle

University were The Family Educational Right and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and Title IX

of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. While there is a Higher Education Law course in the

program, I was not able to get in the class as a first-year student. I felt a lot of the academic

knowledge around law was missed in my first-year, which forced me to take Higher Ed Law in

the winter quarter of my second year in the program.

During my winter quarter of my first year, I worked as a Student Development Preview

Days Intern with Dr. Tim Wilson. During this internship he provided context as to how we

operate as a division and the different types of policies in place for housing, specific to my

position as an assistant area coordinator. This first peaked my interest into developing my skills

to better understand LO #9 which I define as being aware and critical of laws and policies and

understanding economic and governance structures within the systems of an institution and

higher education. This is demonstrated by gaining knowledge around policies at an

institution, critical engagement with governance structure within the division or institution

and staying attune to changing structure and policies both at the institution and

nationwide.
Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 4

In my Student Development Capstone Seminar with Dr. Erica Yamamura, I worked to

develop Artifact F, my 4-year plan. In my plan I created goals for how I hope to gain more skills

in this particular area. One of the main goals is getting involved in professional development

organizations like NASPA, ACPA, and ACUHO-I. Specifically, I wrote to improve my

competency by better understanding laws and policies that apply to my functional area and

responsibilities, such as Housing and Residence Life. My hope is that getting involved in these

organizations will give me more exposure to law, policy, finance and governance to make a

difference in housing. I want to develop skills in negotiating and developing gender inclusive

housing policies and how different laws and policies both institution and in the state either

support or challenge such a policy. This in an area of growth for me that I hope will continue to

expand after taking Higher Educational Law and beginning my journey after the Student

Development Administration Program.

Theory and Scholarship (LO#1 & 8; Artifact C3 & E)

In my growth of theory and scholarship, courses in the Student Development

Administration program have definitely challenged me to utilize what we learn in class and

expand on it in our professional practice. Prior to joining the program, I did not have any

knowledge of student development theories or concepts that would help inform my work and

practice. My Student Development Theory, Research, and Practice course with Dr. Erica

Yamamura showed me the true nature of theory and scholarship within the program. In the

course we were required to create a final group presentation that included theory, campus

collaboration, literature review, reflection, recommendations, and promising practices from other

universities. This is demonstrated in Artifact C3. Much of the theory we used was surrounding

identity and involvement. The three main theories that really shaped this experience were
Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 5

Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth, Astin’s (1999) Theory of Involvement, and Pope,

Reynolds, and Mueller’s (2004) Multicultural competence. These three theories woven together

really demonstrated how theory should be incorporated into practice to better support low-

income students of color in the Seattle area through parent engagement, mentorship, and service-

learning programs. I specifically did this through looking at promising practices at other

universities and creating a campus collaboration initiative at Seattle University. Additionally, I

used Astin’s work in my graduate assistantship to really focus on the ways I was using the theme

communities I had to enhance the ways students got involved on campus, specifically around

campus partnership with other departments in the division. This encompasses LO #1, which I

define as recognizing history and how emerging trends impact future practice in higher

education and student affairs. This is demonstrated by understanding, incorporating, and

improving theoretical frameworks and concepts into professional practice.

Additionally, in my time in the Student Development Administration program, I have

learned about the importance of scholarship in our classes and in our work. While Dr. Erica

Yamamura taught me how to incorporate theory into my papers and classwork, I was still

struggling on how to incorporate it into my thought processes, language, and practice. Artifact

E, my NASPA/ACPA competency self-evaluation, shows the ways I’ve been able to articulate

my experiences and knowledge around these topics. Specifically, it allowed me to think critically

about my experience in and outside of the classroom through my coursework, internships, and

graduate assistantship. Being able to see the connections from being a Preview Days intern,

working at Seattle University, and working at Stanford, really showcased how I’ve been able to

make an impact through my staff and student development. This showcases LO #8, which I

define as demonstrating professional communication with students, staff, faculty,

Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 6

administrators, and community members. This is demonstrated by reflection on experiences

and identities, working in collaboration with others, and utilizing authenticity through

scholarship. I believe that utilizing Baxter Magolda’s (2001), Self-Authorship Theory, I was

able to make meaning of my experiences and growth to show what I have learned and who I am.

Conclusion

As I wrap up my final year and continue my journey into higher education and student

affairs, I hope to continue to grow and learn through context and knowledge. I strive to be a

practitioner that engages with research, assessment, law, theory, and scholarship in order to

better inform my practices on supporting and advocating for marginalized students in higher

education. My experiences and artifacts are a start to how I plan on moving forward to

demonstrate who I am and who I hope to become.

Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH NARRATIVE 7

References

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Los
Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice.

Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student
affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.

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