Running head: AREAS OF GROWTH 1

Learning Outcome Narrative: Areas of Growth

Eli Heller

Seattle University
AREAS OF GROWTH 2

Learning Outcome Narrative: Areas of Growth

My major areas of growth throughout my graduate studies include understanding student

affairs from the perspective of policymakers and key stakeholders in higher education, and

learning how existing and continuously shifting policies, technologies, and formats for learning

at the university level continue to shape the student and staff experience at any institution. The

first key aspect of my growth throughout my time in the Student Development Administration

Program has been my gradual understanding of law and policy, how they shape ethical decision-

making related to higher education finance and governance, and how institutional type to a large

extent determines what steps are taken to ensure students are able to take full advantage of their

education. The second key aspect of this theme of my growth is my understanding of the

importance and relevance of conducting both qualitative and quantitative research on current

student populations in higher education, possessing the skills necessary to analyze each of these

modes of student data and having the ability to ultimately generate and implement large-scale

programmatic changes university-wide, based on the results of focused research. The following

narrative will explore my learning in each of these areas.

Understanding Law, Policy, Finance and Governance in Higher Education

Throughout my time as a graduate student at Seattle University I have expanded my

understanding of law and policy and how they relate to students, faculty and staff in higher

education. This corresponds to Student Development Administration learning outcomes #9 and

#3. The key dimensions of learning outcome #9 are understanding the legal responsibilities and

rights of students and staff in higher education, understanding and enforcing policies and how

they differ by institutional type, particularly between private and public universities, and

understanding how institutional type affects how finances are allocated to existing resources and
AREAS OF GROWTH 3

programs. The key dimensions of learning outcome #3 are understanding how personal

identities, experiences and level of social capital affect how a professional is perceived by

students, acknowledging and upholding personal biases in the workplace, and making

responsible decisions that foster and prioritize student success.

Prior to my arrival at Seattle University, I possessed little knowledge of the legal

underpinnings of my role as a future educator and lacked professional student affairs experience

outside of the academic advising functional area. As I demonstrate in Artifact E, my self-

ranking of 3 in this category reflects a need for improvement, particularly in terms of how

national, state and municipal laws affect professionals in higher education and how policy is

developed and implemented. Through my coursework in Higher Education Law (SDAD 5800),

I developed a broad understanding of the concept of in loco parentis and the legal responsibilities

student affairs staff have, in regards to ensuring students well being for the duration of their time

at a university. Further, through a careful examination of the historical case Napolitano v. the

Princeton University Board of Regents (1982) for my case law analysis assignment, I expanded

my knowledge of academic misconduct and dismissal policies and how they relate to my work

with students as an undergraduate academic advisor for the Albers School of Business and

Economics. In regards to ethics, the most challenging dilemmas with which I have been faced as

an academic advisor have been my individual meetings and work with students placed on

academic probation. Allowing these students the space to reflect on their academic performance

while at the same time strictly enforcing policies regarding repeating courses and threats of

dismissal has been a challenge that I continue to embrace.

In regards to finance and governance, I demonstrated my understanding of how

institutional type affects university funding through my coursework in SDAD 5750, including
AREAS OF GROWTH 4

through my argument in Artifact C1. As a large, public research university, UCLA generates

more revenue by attracting top research faculty to conduct research at the university rather than

by hiring teaching professors and other professionals whose primary objectives are to assess

how students learn best, cater to students individual learning styles, and in doing so compensate

for the variance in readiness for competitive college level coursework among incoming students.

On the departmental level, some academic departments are willing to take the financial risk of

committing to assessing students learning needs in the classroom and altering the classroom

experience in favor of maximizing student success while other are not. From my graduate

assistant experience, I have learned how academic policies such as Albers former 2.75 transfer

business GPA requirement, in comparison to its 2.25 cumulative GPA requirement, often deny

access to valuable transferrable skills to students who do not enter the university as business

students. I expect to gain further knowledge of policy, leadership and governance in higher

education through my work in SDAD 5760 in my final quarter as a graduate student and I am

most interested learning how budgetary decisions made by university provosts, president, deans,

and other upper level administrators affect practitioners working in career services.

Utilizing Assessment, Evaluation, and Technology to Improve Practice

This growth area relates to learning outcome #7, of which the key dimensions are the

capacity to gather, organize and draw conclusions from student data, employ either quantitative

and qualitative research methods in analyzing student data, and learn new technologies at an

appropriate pace for ones professional role. This growth area also relates to learning outcome

#1, of which the key dimensions are understanding and recognizing the specific issues faced by

students of diverse identities in higher education today, understanding how institutional type,

mission and characteristics influence student life, and a commitment, among staff, faculty and
AREAS OF GROWTH 5

administrators, to ensuring students ultimately benefit from their undergraduate education. Prior

to my enrollment at Seattle University, my only experience with assessment was serving as a

research assistant for my former work supervisor at the University of Southern California, for

which I created surveys using the assessment tool Qualtrics. Through my coursework, internship

experiences and graduate assistantship, however, I have developed basic skills in utilizing

assessment, evaluation and technology as a student affairs professional, with plenty of room for

improvement in each of these areas.

On both the assessment, evaluation and research and technology sections of Artifact

E, I indicated that I am need of improvement, particularly with regard to facilitating appropriate

data collection for system/department-wide assessment and evaluation efforts, and drawing

upon research, trend data, and environmental scanning to assess the technological readiness of

students, colleagues and other educational stakeholders when infusing technology into

educational programs, respectively. However, through both my 100-hour internship at the

University of Southern California, and my 200-hour internship at the UCLA Career Center, I

made progress toward achieving this learning outcome. At UCLA, I gained experience with

survey design by creating an assessment plan, through UCLAs Student Affairs Information and

Research Office, for evaluating students use of Career 365, a compilation of job and internship

postings offered outside of on-campus recruitment. At USC, I was tasked with analyzing

descriptive data on students with GPAs in the 2.0 2.3 GPA range, and identified a population of

students with steadily decreasing GPAs on which to conduct further research. From this

experience, I have become adept at gathering and organizing student data using Microsoft Excel.

Artifact D, a letter from my site supervisor at USC, Dr. Frank Chang, further attests to my

growth in data analysis. In regards to evaluation, in the supervisory aspect of my graduate

AREAS OF GROWTH 6

assistantship, I have, this year and last, conducted individual performance evaluations of student

workers serving as New Student Mentors for the Albers School of Business and Economics.

My proficiency in using technologies has improved greatly throughout my time at Seattle

University and I plan to further my technological competencies through in-house professional

development opportunities at my next professional workplace. Through my work in EDUC 5130

and AEDT 5730, I have gained experience in utilizing online learning technologies such as Zoom

and Padlet, and with understanding the importance and relevance of adult learning theories such

as andragogy (Knowles et al., 1998), especially in terms of adult learners need for self-direction

and motivation. In my future practice, I will strive to work with adult populations and utilize

various technological platforms to accommodate their learning styles. I strive to further develop

in this competency area in order to effectively deliver instruction to online adult learners,

whether as a student affairs professional or outside the university setting, as a human resources

professional, as I indicate in Artifact F. I feel that I may ultimately be an equally effective

educator and find a more secure professional role outside of the student affairs profession. Yet I

am interested in working on either side of the student recruitment process, whether from the

university or the corporate perspective. In either capacity, I will dedicate my work to ensuring

graduating students have smooth transitions into the professional world.

Conducting Independent Research to Expand on and Support Current Student Needs

This area of growth further relates to learning outcome #7. Prior to my enrollment in the

Student Development Administration program, my only experience conducting independent

research was in the humanities, as an art history major, learning to use visual evidence and

theories to construct arguments. In my previous role as an administrative assistant at the

University of Southern California, I co-authored, with four other professionals, an article on the
AREAS OF GROWTH 7

positive impact of the intrusive academic advising practice of appreciative advising on student

persistence and retention rates at the university, but did not participate in the data gathering and

statistical analysis portions of this research (Bloom, He & Hutson, 2008). While I still lack

experience conducting independent empirical research or collecting quantitative or qualitative

student data on my own, my understanding of research and its importance in driving student

success from the practitioner perspective has grown immensely throughout my time at Seattle

University, both from my work in EDUC 5000 and my submission for the innovative practice

section of the 2017 edition of MAGIS: A Student Development Journal (Artifact G). I hope to

eventually gain experience with qualitative data collection, taking advantage of my interviewing

skills developed from my undergraduate journalism studies and involvement in student media.

In Artifact G, I drew upon recent findings, most notably Posselt and Lipsons (2016)

study of mental illness in undergraduate students, to make the case for equipping todays student

affairs professionals with training in basic counseling responses when working with students in

distress, in tandem with knowledge of student development theory, to provide holistic support. I

argued that in regards to Schlossbergs (2001) theory of transition, student affairs practitioners

serve a vital role in the support dimension of student transition into the university setting and

through any event or nonevent that takes place during a students undergraduate experience. In

keeping with Kolbs (1984) theory of experiential learning, which I feel applies to both major

and career discernment among undergraduates, I led a workshop through Learning Assistance

Programs entitled Utilizing the Kolb Learning Style Inventory to Maximize Your Learning

Inside and Outside the Classroom, for which I presented on the components of each learning

style and how they apply to the classroom and work settings, respectively. I strive to gain further

experience with research in my next professional role.

AREAS OF GROWTH 8

References

Bloom, J.L., Hutson, B.L., & He, Y (2008). The Appreciative Advising Revolution. Champaign,

IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The Adult Learner. The Definitive

Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. (5th ed.) Houston: Gulf.

In Swanson, R.A. & Holton, E.F. (2009). Foundation of Human Resource Development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kolb, D. (1981). Theory of experiential learning. In Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M.,

Patton, Lori D., & Renn, Kristen, Student Development in College. (136-152). San

Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Posselt, J.R. & Lipson, S.K. (2016). Competition, Anxiety and Depression in the College

Classroom: Variations by Study Identity and Field of Study. Journal of College Student

Development, 57 (8), p. 973-989.

Schlossberg, N. (2001). Transition theory. In N.J. Evans, D.S. Forney, F.M. Guido,

L.D. Patton, & K. Renn (eds.), Student Development in College, (212-226). San

Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.