Running head: STRENGTHS 1

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

Jalen M. Smith

Seattle University
STRENGTHS 2

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths

Introduction

The culmination of my time within the SDA program at Seattle University has resulted in

considerable growth of my professional and personal identities. From the combination of

coursework, graduate assistantship experiences, and various internship engagements, I have been

able to closely connect with my contributions within my time in SDA. As my development has

unfolded throughout my SDA tenure, so too have my strengths.

Strengths (LO 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9; Artifacts: B, C1, C3, E, F & G)

This has been a time to be reflective of my strengths and critically reflective of how I

continuously seek improvement from the foundations I have built and emerged from given my

own salient identities and communities of cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). Given my established

strengths, I have identified three specific areas of maturation: advocacy for marginalized student

populations, student leadership development, and using both research and assessment to inform

inclusive practices.

Advocacy for Marginalized Student Populations (LO 2, 4 & 5; Artifacts: B & G)

Gysbers, Heppner, and Johnston (2014) note within the Critical Feminist Approach to

Career Counseling that empowerment is essential in order for communities of color and other

marginalized populations to succeed in the workforce. As a result of this Gysbers et al.’s model, I

understand that “social justice” is the totality of an individual’s experiences and narratives, and

how individuals ally themselves with others to deconstruct barriers to advancement (LO #4). LO

#4 has the key dimensions of: critically assessing my place when advocating for students, as well

as asking the question: “What is advocacy?” Additionally, it has allowed me the latitude to

creatively begin conversations around diversity and inclusion. My personal integrated mission
STRENGTHS 3

statement (Artifact B) speaks to my ability to summarize my own pathways into education and

scholarship. Per Yosso’s (2005) cultural wealth model, my mission statement cites the

empowerment I bring from my own diverse communities and how I use this cultural wealth to

inform my student-focused approach. Furthermore, I have been deeply involved in critically

engaging with students and reflecting on how they interact with micro- and macro-scale systems

within higher education (LO #2). By understanding LO #2, I have been able to use this

information to better situate my advocacy for marginalized and underserved student populations

by directing the appropriate questions to the appropriate individuals within a varied institutional

context; additionally, I have been able to better advise students from marginalized backgrounds

and more accurately assess student needs. An example of this stems from learning how different

institutional types service students in differing capacities, such as my experience as an ACUHO-I

intern at Stanford University, an elite, private, four-year institution.

Finally, Thelin (2011) posits that higher education, as a system, was not built with

marginalized individuals in mind. To this end, it is important to note that there are shortcomings

within the established operating systems of higher education; however, there are also ways to

bridge this lack of clarity to promote success and retention for students (LO #5). LO #5 has

dimensions of: providing support for students in differing contexts, identifying resources

particular to institutional types, and professional advocacy to institutional leadership. With this,

my programming model for residence halls at Stanford University (Artifact G) was grounded in

this idea of advocacy for marginalized student groups, completed for credit in SDAD 5650-5660:

Internship II and III. My programming model provides clarity of goals for student staff that most

intimately engage with programming initiatives by intentionally engaging with assessment and
STRENGTHS 4

evaluation of programs. This artifact cemented that idea that a culture of continuous

improvement deeply impacts advocacy for student leaders and marginalizes student populations.

Leadership Development (LO 3; Artifacts: C3 & E)

When I began my time with SDA, I had little contextual understanding of my own unique

leadership style, nor did I understand the parameters of influencing leadership skills in others.

Pizzolato (2003) determines that students go through many stages and provocations that inform

their decisions regarding self-authorship and meaning making. For me, it was important to

understand the purpose that leadership serves in my life regarding my multiple salient identities.

It is exemplified through identifying a clear sense of self within professional practice and using

the meaning to understand how leadership impacts all dimensions of leadership (LO #3).

Specifically, LO #3 seeks to establish how a sense of personal identity intersects with leadership

and how this intersection influences professional practice and engagement.

How I interact with LO #3 is by critically questioning every goal I establish when

stepping into a new professional position. For example, my NASPA/ACPA Competencies

assessment (Artifact E) notes that I have grown in my areas devoted to leadership. Specifically,

the NASPA/ACPA Competencies illustrate that I have effectively engaged in discerning how

leadership can influence salient identities and who holds the “power” in leadership dynamics.

Guinier and Torres (2003) describe the varying levels of power that community leaders impart

when participating in grassroots democracy. Given the structures that exist for leaders, I have

expanded my perception of how leadership can open up access for marginalized populations.

Furthermore, my internship seminar presentation (Artifact C3) seeks to develop

leadership training for student staff of color. Drawing upon Cross and Fhagen-Smith’s (2001)

model of Black Identity Development, I created a simulation of a leadership training that I would
STRENGTHS 5

administer to student leaders at Stanford University. To construct Artifact C3, I had to take

institutional type and mission into account by comparing the diverse Stanford University

population with that of a predominately white institution. This action draws from the

NASPA/ACPA Competencies (Artifact E) in how they define one of the components of

leadership as alignment and understanding of mission and values of an environment. For me, my

devotion to leadership development for all students within the higher education academy is

shown through my attentiveness to institutional type and student population.

Research and Assessment to Inform Inclusive Practices (LO 7 & 9; Artifacts: C1, F, & G)

Kuh et al. (2015) describe ways to make obtained evidence via assessment actionable and

consequential for higher education institutions. Based on Kuh et al.’s assertions, it is clear that

student affairs can continuously improve upon its practices. However, to improve its practices to

be more inclusive, there must be a push to be innovative and on the front lines of emerging

technology and assessment practices, and to critically question how assessment is used in

practice (LO #7). LO #7 includes the dimensions of: utilizing assessment software to achieve

actionable results, identifying areas of improvement within specific area of professional practice,

and catering evaluations to the needs of the community. Kuh et al. (2015) determine that

acquiring actionable data is a challenge for many institutions, but being able to provide concrete

plans for change is a marker for success in assessment and research. In Artifact G, I conducted

assessments via Google Forms of the Stanford University residential community to determine the

needs of the students. From these results, I created the programming model that was rooted in

social justice (e.g. accessible programs for international students and commuter students) and

exploring the larger Bay Area community. This programming model was derived from a previous

model but was specified and elaborated to become tailored to a first-year community. After the
STRENGTHS 6

success (determined by end-of-summer evaluations), I incorporated components of the

programming model into the residential curriculum in my graduate assistantship.

For my class, SDAD 5750: Best Practices in Student Development, I did research

dedicated to understanding how different institutions define student success within distinct

programs dedicated to serving marginalized and underserved student communities (Artifact C1).

From this experience, I was able to understand the relationship that many practitioners have with

assessment and evaluation and how varying university climates can initiate this relationship for

further growth. Artifact C1 gave me the opportunity to provide recommendations for the diverse

institutional types in order to strengthen the current programs. For example, one of the sites I

visited—Stanford University—noted the lack of focus on formal assessments regarding summer

experience programs. I relayed the information I had received from two other institutions, while

different in size and scope, and determined that conducting evaluations proved statistical increase

in student satisfaction and feeling of belonging among students. From my surveys conducted

around student leaders at Stanford, many noted that they felt out of place, and the data I collected

from varying institutions gave solid recommendations on how evaluations can give space to

create actionable alternatives for students.

Furthermore, I came to SDA with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Law. I

believe that my interest in understanding how policy and law are married together to create

inclusive practices for students (LO #9) was my original pull into student affairs. LO #9 explores

the dimensions of examining the motivations behind policy revision and implementation,

understanding the nature of how an institution supports student success by way of its financial

health, and benchmarking existing laws and policies with similar institutions in order to

determine equitability. In both Artifacts C1 and G, I learned that simple knowledge of changing
STRENGTHS 7

policies is not enough to create inclusive spaces that promote student success. Instead, there must

be actionable results that come from the data. Through my work at Stanford in assessing how

purchasing cards used for residence life programs can assist in developing more robust

communities, I also learned that the bank of funds that these purchasing cards are pulled from is

maintained due to information that was provided via assessments and staff feedback (Artifact

C1). Initially, utilization of purchasing cards was laborious for staff and provided erroneous

reflections of program data, which motivated staff to voice their concerns to revise the process

(Artifact G). However, it must be noted that Artifact C1 describes that staff did not have a formal

evaluation or assessment process, and all changes came as a result of direct voicing of concerns

to supervisors.

In my Professional Development and Action Plan (Artifact F), I note that I hope to

continue building on my knowledge of policy, law, and finance-related issues within higher

education for the next 2-5 years. Specifically, Artifact F presents intentional ways that I can

involve myself within understanding policy, law, and finance within higher education, namely by

serving on departmental and/or divisional committees in order to become an expert within the

field.

Conclusion

When I began my time with Seattle University, I entered with a mindset that I wanted to

effect change within the field of student affairs. As noted in this narrative summary, I have

compiled experiences that speak to my strengths as an academic as well as a practitioner. I am a

student-focused professional with a desire to actualize change in the work that I do, and I rely on

theory, research, and engagement with policy to help me meet these ends.
STRENGTHS 8

References

Cross, W. E., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (2001). In C. L. Wijeyesinghe, B. W. Jackson III. (Eds.), New

perspectives on racial identity development (1st ed.; pp. 243-268). New York, NY: New

York University Press.

Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2003). The miner’s canary: enlisting race, resisting power,

transforming democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gysbers, N. C., Heppner, M. J., & Johnston, J. A. (2014). Career counseling: holism, diversity,

and strengths. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Kuh, G. D. (2015). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Manning, K. (2013). Political. In Organizational theory in higher education. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of high-risk

college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 797-812.

doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0074

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.

doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006