Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and Personal Growth This narrative describes how my learning in the Student Development

Administration (SDA) program at Seattle University (SU) correlates to SDA Student Learning Outcomes. A desire for continued growth using reflection and analysis guided my professional practice prior to attending SU. However, coursework and readings combined with professional experiences have promoted a professional identity (Outcome 10) grounded in deeper self-awareness, identity development, and cultural competence and empowered me to share that knowledge with others using dialogue and service. Outcome 2: Understanding of students and student issues is embedded in all aspects of the SDA graduate program but was applied in particularly relevant ways in Foundations of the Student Affairs Profession (SDAD 577) through Broidos (2004) work on the generational needs of Millennial students and in The American Community College (SDAD 559) as we discussed the open door mission of community colleges and how institutional types correlate with the needs of the student body. Understanding the foundations and emerging nature of the Student Affairs profession and higher education (Outcome 1) in both courses identified certain dilemmas regarding exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership (Outcome 3) as dialogues shifted towards the value of education and who can afford and access formal learning. Leadership and Governance in Post-Secondary Education (SDAD 576) continued this dialogue as our class followed the Occupy Seattle movement and learned about the importance of proactive versus reactive leadership when examining the myriad of issues surrounding law, policy, finance, and governance (Outcome 9) at higher leadership levels.

University Presidents as Moral Leaders, which details presidents responses to challenging situations, combined with Leadership in Education II (EDAD 571), redefined my understanding of leadership styles. This learning guided my critique of the Penn State scandal and identified areas for growth in terms of educational policy and leadership because leaders are responsible for building the capacity of followers and stakeholders to promote wider systemic change. It also affirmed my desire to work in a community college setting due to value alignment. Advising in the International Programs (IP) office at South Seattle Community College (SSCC) has confirmed that personally, access and pluralism are non-negotiable aspects of exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership in higher education (Outcome 3). Furthermore, reading about Kelleys (2006) notion of leadership and followership in Leadership in Education I (EDAD 570) has influenced me to move beyond noting difference to responding with pluralism, a commitment to communicate with and relate to the larger world- with a very different neighbor or distant community (hooks, 2003, p. 47). Pluralism contrasts my conservative, religious upbringing and is a product of critical questioning. This analysis helped me move from dualism towards multiplicity and relativism (Perry, 1981) and reconcile the disequilibrium (Kohlberg, 1976) I continue to experience as I interact with different individuals. Although I previously understood diversity as defined as noting difference (hooks, 2003) and wanted to respond justly to foster a sustainable world, SUs Jesuit Catholic tradition (Outcome 4) and global perspective has helped me integrate values, theory, and practice. In Best Practices in Student Services (SDAD 575), I questioned whether the new student orientation program at University of Puget Sound constituted a best practice or even a equitable one in that it

would be difficult to replicate and sustain and is limited to mainly traditional aged, ablebodied, white students. My current position as the Interim Internship and ServiceLearning Coordinator at SSCC forced me to question the notion of hopeful practice (hooks, 2003) and use a strengths perspective (Yosso, 2005) to serve students from lower economic and education levels and questionable backgrounds in equitable and just ways. Service to students directly involves understanding students and student issues (Outcome 2) and adapting services to meet specific environments and cultures (Outcome 5). Instructional Methods for Adult Learners (AEDT 563) introduced Kolbs Theory of Experiential Learning (1984) and Internship in SDA I (SDAD 564) along with my role as an advisor in IP at South Seattle Community College (SSCC) allowed me to research literature surrounding significant advising practices (Pizzolato, 2006) and international learning methods. I then created an assessment using qualitative methods to evaluate the quality of advising practices in the office. Inquiries followed FERPA regulations and campus policies, and utilized simplified language according to meet the needs of this specific demographic. Electronic surveys were also modified to use plain language in order to increase the accuracy of responses and inform future programming (Outcome 7). This assessment was a pivotal point in becoming a practitioner-scholar (Komives & Carpenter, 2009) and furthered my ability to communicate effectively in speech and in writing (Outcome 8). This internship and professional experience occurred when I was at my best since entering the SDA program and affirmed my competence as a professional. The integration of theories, coursework, and knowledge enhanced my personal desire for life-long learning and academically, my coursework took on new

relevance when applied to my profession. Both reflection and research now guide my professional practice and identity (Outcome 10) and I am empowered to share that knowledge with others from a place of service.

References Broido, E. (2004). Understanding diversity in Millenial students. In M. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds.), Serving the Millennial Generation, (pp. 73-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, D. (Ed.). (2006). University presidents as moral leaders. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido, F. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routledge. Kelley, R. E. (2010). Followership. G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed.) (pp. 181-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Komives, S. R. & Carpenter, S. (2009). Professional development as lifelong learning. In G. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 147-165). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pizzolato, J. (2006). Complex partnerships: Self-authorship and provocative academicadvising practices. NACADA Journal, 26(10), 32-45. Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-82.