strengths narrative

Running Head: STRENGTHS NARRATIVE

Learning Outcome Narrative Strengths

Bruce B. Mann

STRENGTHS NARRATIVE 2

Strengths (Learning Outcomes 2, 4, 7, & 8; Artifacts C, D, E, G, J, & K)

For the integrative theme, I chose to conceptualize my development and strengths in the

Student Development Administration (SDA) program by focusing on critical inquiry and

consciousness, which is the act of applying data, research, and social justice knowledge to better

understand and critique systems in order to improve them. This framework is derived from and is

informed by Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998, Delgado et al., 2001) and cutting edge

best practices in assessment and evaluation as demonstrated by the Student Affairs Assessment

Leaders group of which I am a member. In reflecting on how I have grown and improved as a

professional, patterns emerged around utilizing data, assessment, research, and narratives in

service of improving the educational experiences of underrepresented students. I am someone

who looks to understand the world around him as a learner and am constantly seeking to discover

innovative solutions for complex problems. My approach is guided by the work of Freire (1970),

hooks (1994), Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998, Delgado et al., 2001), and Upcraft

and Schuh (1996). Through my experiences in SDA program, I have developed a deeper critical

consciousness around social justice and educational equity issues while further improving my

knowledge and skills in utilizing critical inquiry to improve practice.

Learning Outcomes 2 & 4; Artifacts C2, E, & J

Education in general, and higher education specifically, can either be used to socialize to

the historically oppressive status quo or can become a practice of freedom and liberation (Freire,

1970). Prior to the SDA program, I worked in student affairs for five years in two positions at the

University of Idaho, yet never critically considered the deeper purpose of student affairs and

higher education. Through engaging in the texts and conversations in Foundations of Student


Affairs (SDAD 5770) and in my work at the University of Puget Sound in Intercultural

Engagement, I have developed a deeper understanding of the needs of students, specifically

those with marginalized identities, as well as the importance of improving systems to foster

diversity and justice on our campuses and in society at large.

It is through my continued focus on and growth in LO2, understanding students and

student issues that I am developing into a more just, empathetic, and effective student affairs

professional. The key dimensions of this outcome are developing processes to learn more about

students on an individual level, staying up to date with current trends and contemporary

research on specific student populations, and integrating knowledge and needs assessments to

more effectively serve students. In various SDA courses and readings as well as in my

assistantship and internships, I have learned more about foundational student development

theory, emerging research, and contemporary issues facing students. This is best demonstrated

by Artifact J: Distinctive Contribution, which is a white paper on retention of low-income,

first generation students of color created during my internship for College Access Now. This

paper shows an increased understanding and knowledge of diverse student populations (first

generation, low-income, students of color, immigrant students) and their unique strengths, needs,

and challenges in transitioning to college.

Artifact G: Research/Programming Development, the summer institute program

design for Puget Sound, is a prime example of using knowledge of student issues to develop a

targeted program aimed at improving educational outcomes for underserved populations. Simply

understanding students and student issues is not adequate in order to affect lasting change. We

must understand the why of education in order to utilize our knowledge and understanding of

students turning theory into effective practice.


For me, the why of education is in liberation and social justice, which can be seen clearly

in LO4, understanding and fostering diversity, justice and a sustainable world formed by a

global perspective and Jesuit Catholic tradition with dimensions that include developing

cultural competency, deepening exploration of personal identity, knowledge and commitment

to social justice, and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Prior to the SDA program, I

believed I had a good working knowledge of justice, inclusion, and diversity, but my experiences

in the program have increased my understanding of the complex systems affecting all of our

students, our institutions, and ourselves. My growth in this learning outcome is evidenced in

Artifact G and Artifact C2: Best Written Work, which was the development of a personal

social justice philosophy and plan of action.

Artifact G is evidence of a more complex understanding of systems of power and

inequity, with a demonstrated commitment to developing programs grounded in theory and

research that lead to improved climate, educational outcomes, and justice for marginalized

students. Moving from theory to action, Artifact C2 shows my increased ability to explore,

understand, and utilize my personal identity as a White, heterosexual, cis male in combination

with relevant social justice and cultural competency theories to work for change in all aspects of

my personal and professional lives. Both of these artifacts, as well as my daily work at Puget

Sound, show not only a deeper understanding of the makeup and effects of power and privilege,

but also represent my increased understanding and commitment to naming my salient identities

and using that growth to advocate and work for change for all students on our campuses.

This learning outcome is not just about the cognitive dimension of justice, diversity, and

inclusion but also must include personal identity work, cultural humility and responsiveness

(Fadiman, 1997), and intentional reflection. As someone who identifies as a White, heterosexual,


cis male, this is the cornerstone of my work moving forward as a student affairs professional.

Coming from places of privilege, too often we focus on the theory or systems view of social

justice, without a strong commitment to personal identity development which is a necessity in

order to improve ourselves and work through our implicit biases before we can truly be effective

as agents of change. The Jesuit context of the program has given me an additional perspective

from which to approach justice work in education. This past summer I was extremely fortunate

to be selected as a faculty member and core group facilitator for the Social Justice Training

Institute Student Experience (Artifact E: Beyond Campus: Jesuit Context and Commitment)

where I applied much of what I had learned in Theory and Foundations into practice which

allowed me to better foster diversity and justice in educating undergraduate students from around

the country. Working from a framework informed by Nash & Murray (2010) and Adams, Bell, &

Griffin (1997) I used personal reflection, group reflection, and identity development to assist

students in their development. Through this process I was able to see my growth as a facilitator

and educator in modeling the way for participants by showing vulnerability in personal narrative,

naming my dominant identities and their effects, and creating a space for dialogue that respected

and honored all voices, especially those that are typically marginalized and silenced.

This year has been marked by tremendous personal and professional improvement around

my understanding, knowledge, and skills in multicultural competency, which involves

developing the sensitivity and awareness to refine skills in order to offer meaningful experiences

and outcomes for all students (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004). With this development, I have

been able to improve as a facilitator for diversity and as an advocate for marginalized

populations. I have improved my skills in active listening, empathy and compassion, and have

developed a more critical perspective in order to reach students.


Learning Outcome 7; Artifacts G & C

I entered the SDA program with a sold base of knowledge and the foundational skills

needed to engage in assessment and evaluation in student affairs. While at Idaho, much of my

job duties and committee work was focused on learning outcome assessment and using data to

evaluative program effectiveness. While my base was strong a year and a half ago, I have

demonstrated tremendous improvement and growth in LO7, utilizing assessment, evaluation,

technology, and research to improve practice with the dimensions of developing and utilizing a

comprehensive and inclusive assessment plan, using research and data to inform program

development and improvement, integrating assessment and evaluation into daily practice, and

staying current with emerging trends in evaluation and research. Through the Student

Development Theory course, internships, my assistantship, and multiple trainings I recognized

how much more I had to learn in this area.

Often in student affairs we conceptualize assessment as learning outcome measurement

through indirect Likert scale self-reporting and prior to the SDA program I was guilty of this as

well. LO7 is much more than just knowing how to write effective learning outcomes. It starts

with using existing theory and research to inform program creation and then consists of the

myriad of tools and approaches for measuring learning, and must always be positioned toward

improving practice through application of lessons learned through data analysis, research, and

reporting. I have gaining more knowledge and improved skills in this outcome through

participation in the Student Affairs Assessment Leaders list serve, multiple trainings and

workshops, and rereading publications by leading researchers like Upcraft and Schuh (1996),

Fink (2013), and Henning (2014).


The best demonstration of this learning outcome came through my assistantship when

asked to develop as research report and program proposal looking at barriers to persistence and

success for African-American students at Puget Sound. I utilized research skills developed in

Student Development Theory to author a white paper focusing on retention and persistence

research and best practices. From the research paper I developed a detailed program proposal for

a summer cohort based transition program for underserved incoming students (Artifact G:

Programming/Research Development). I improved how I approached, evaluated, and used

theory to inform practice. The program and learning outcomes are heavily influenced by

integration theory (Tinto, 1993), validation theory (Rendón, 1994), community cultural wealth

(Yosso, 2005), and promising practices from non-profits and other higher education institutions.

This proposal is being used as the basis for a pilot program next summer and represents my

growth in this learning outcome.

I had multiple other opportunities to further develop and demonstrate my learning in LO7

through my internship at CAN. At CAN, I created a distinct research paper (Artifact J) for the

college persistence program around retention of first generation and low-income students which I

used to inform programming in the summer support series as well as in the creation of new

assessment instruments for the upcoming year. I plan on furthering my skills in this learning

outcome in the future through taking additional research classes and seeking out opportunities to

engage in different forms of assessment and evaluation. My work on the Puget Sound Divisional

Assessment Work Group this year will provide ample opportunities to further develop in the

short term.

Learning Outcome 8; Artifact C, D & K


While I have written reports, developed summaries, and presented on a variety of topics

in past professional positions, I believe I have further refined and improved in LO8,

communicating effectively in speech and writing. For me, this learning outcome is about

adapting your communication style to your audience, conveying information in a clear,

concise manner, and presenting information in a visually and verbally engaging style.

In Student Development Theory, Adult Learning, and Best Practices in Student Services I

was able to work collaboratively to develop presentations that moved beyond the typical to

engage the audience in a more participatory way. I developed new skills as a leader by including

more perspectives in program design, learning how to best measure needs, and improving my

active listening skills. At Puget Sound, I have created assessment reports, executive summaries,

and presented to the division around intercultural engagement and assessment. I have become

more comfortable in delivering different types of oral and written reports in order to convey

learning and opportunities for improvement.

I believe all of the artifacts in my portfolio demonstrate my growth in communicating

effectively through academic and reflective writing especially seen in Artifact C and Artifact

K. The most obvious example of my growth and strength in this learning outcome is my final

project for EDUC 513, Adult Learning, which was a professional development program proposal

for adult learners (Artifact D: Best Presentation). This presentation on engaging male

identified professionals in conversations around how we show up as men in our work, of which I

am extremely proud, shows my ability to present a dense topic effectively through arresting

visuals and appropriate complimenting speech based on Fink’s (2013) work on significant

learning experiences and effective presentation design (Duarte, 2010). While this is area is a

strength of mine, I recognize that I have much room for future growth. As someone who


identified as White and male, I recognized that I can take up more “space” than others in

meetings and discussions, and am working on listening more intently and actively in order to

hold space for all voices. I also tend to be long winded, so I am working on being more concise

without losing any impact. I also recognize that this area is best improved through hands on

practice so I plan to seek out additional opportunities to present and write while seeking constant

feedback from colleagues and mentors


References

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice, New

York, NY: Routledge.

Duarte, N. (2010). Resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences. New York, NY:

John Wiley and Sons.

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to

Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International

Publishing Group.

Henning, G. (2014). Considering assessment as investment. Student Affairs Feature. Retrived

from: http://studentaffairsfeature.com/considering-assessment-as-investment/.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York, NY: Routledge.

Nash, R. J., & Murray, M. C. (2010). Helping college students find purpose: The campus guide

to meaning-making. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pope, R. L., Reyolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural Competence in Student

Affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and

student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd

Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


Upcraft, M. L. & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for Practitioners.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

strengths narrative

Documents