Areas of Strength

(Learning Outcomes #3, #8, #7, & #9; Artifacts B, C1, C2, C3, D E, F, & G)
The theme that characterizes my areas of strength in the SDA program is self-authorship
(Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). I chose to embark on my journey as a graduate
student because I was searching for a career that would allow me to authentically express my
personal and professional values through my work, and I believed that student affairs was it. My
experiences in the program have affirmed this belief as they have supported my ability to fulfill
my calling to service by supporting students on their own quests for self-authorship. This learning
outcome narrative illustrates how the strengths I developed on my journey toward self-authorship
have provided me with a solid foundation for continued growth in my professional field.
Authentic Professionalism: Learning Outcomes #3 & #8; Artifacts B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, & F
Part of being self-authoring is understanding how to be an authentic professional. For me,
this has entailed exploring the dimensions of Learning Outcomes #3 and #8. To address LO #3,
exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership in professional practice, I have needed
be clear in my personal values, become knowledgeable about the values and ethics of my field,
and work to authentically incorporate both into my professional practice.
To secure my internal commitments, the third element of self-authorship, which allows
me to feel that I am living my convictions, it is necessary that I know what those convictions are
and how they align with my work (Evans et. al, 2010). Artifact B, my personal and professional
mission statements, express the values that matter most to me and that I need to be honored by
my profession. Artifact C1, my Student Affairs Philosophy, demonstrates how these values align
with my practice and are incorporated into my work with students as I advise them through their
educational and professional decision-making processes.

In my Foundations course, I learned about the roots of the student affairs profession. Part
of this entailed reading the Council for the Advancement of Standards (2006) ethical principles
for professionals in the field. These seven principles, autonomy, non-malfeasance, beneficence,
justice, fidelity, veracity, and affiliation, are compatible with my personal values of service,
community-building, social justice, and collaboration, and have since guided my professional
practice. Artifact F, my letters of promise, speaks to my success in incorporating these principles
into my relationships with students and colleagues.
Authenticity in practice is the most challenging dimension of this LO, particularly given
the complex issues we deal with in higher education. For my internship class, I interviewed a
colleague about an ethical dilemma, and she spoke about the challenge of remaining committed
to confidentiality even when that means watching students fail. This is an issue that I face
regularly in my practice as an academic advisor, which I navigate by being honest with students
and family members about my personal desire to share information in service of my students, as
well as the legal and ethical limitations that prevent me from doing so. This honesty deepens my
professional relationships and models the integrity I believe others should also demonstrate in
their practice. Artifacts C2 and E represent another facet of ethical leadership, which consists of
holding my institution to ethical standards. Artifact C2 critiques University of Montanas
response to sexual assault on its campus and offers my suggestions for how administrators might
have navigated the issue more ethically. For Artifact E, I put actions behind my words by making
recommendation for training the University of Puget Sounds sexual misconduct boards to
improve their practices and treatment of survivors.
In addition to ethical practice, LO #8, communicating effectively in speech and in
writing, is a critical part of being an authentic professional. Prior to the SDA program, I had

extensive experience communicating through speech and writing as a student, a Peer Advisor,
and an intern. In the SDA program, I have learned more about bringing my authentic self into my
communication with colleagues and students. Artifacts C1 & C3, two of my best written works
in the program, demonstrate my ability to write openly about my personal experiences and
identities and how they impact my professional practice. In Artifact C2, my other best written
work, I use my writing to share my passion for addressing sexual assault on college campuses
and demonstrate my ability to communicate my professional opinion on the topic.
Oral communication is the other critical component of LO #8. As an advisor, I must be
able to communicate effectively in one-on-one meetings with advisees. This means authentically
sharing my own experiences with advisees to help them connect with the advice I offer.
Counseling Skills also helped me improve these interactions by giving me techniques to
demonstrate to students that I truly hear and understand what they tell me. Establishing a two-way
relationship of sharing and listening is critical to effective, open communication in this context.
The other half of oral communication is being able to deliver an effective presentation.
Artifact D, my best presentation, was an opportunity to share my experience as an intern in New
Student Orientation with my colleagues. The purpose of the presentation was to teach my
colleagues about the leadership development program I created, but what made it a stronger was
my ability to share my experiences as part of the learning process. By doing this, I invited my
colleagues to better understand me as a professional, and also made the rewards and challenges
of implementing a similar program more real for them. Based on audience response, integrating
my personal narrative into the presentation increased the effectiveness of my communication.
As I continue on my professional journey, I am committed to keeping my authentic self
present in my professional practice. After graduate school, I will continue to engage in reflective

practices so I stay in tune with that self even as I learn and develop. Doing this will keep me
grounded in my personal and professional ethics, which I rely on to guide my actions. It will also
strengthen my ability to communicate effectively with my colleagues and my students.
Improving Practice: Learning Outcome #7; Artifacts B1 & G
As a self-authoring person, I have a solid commitment to my internal values, but
openness to new ideas and commitment to lifelong learning are vital parts of my philosophy
(Artifact B1; Evans et. al, 2010). LO #7, utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology and
research to improve professional practice, speaks to this. My undergraduate experiences
provided me with the love of learning and research skills that are foundational for this LO;
however, my experiences in the SDA program taught me how to effectively utilize learning and
research as a student affairs practitioner.
The first element of LO #7 is conducting foundational research on students needs and
professional best practices. Research is critical because it allows us to access narratives and
feedback about experiences beyond our own. As someone with many privileged identities, I find
research particularly useful as I seek to understand the experiences of marginalized communities.
This pursuit is exemplified in Artifact G, the learning styles workshop I developed with two
classmates. As facilitators we used our research on learning styles to inform how we delivered
the workshop and to teach participants best practices for working with others learning styles.
Research provides a solid framework for practice, but practice is improved by using
evaluation and assessment to solicit feedback from constituents. In my roles as an academic
advisor, an intern, and a workshop facilitator, I have used different techniques for gaining
feedback, based on context. As an advisor, I have students fill out anonymous evaluations of our
meetings. During my student conduct internship at Puget Sound, we invited students to provide

feedback on the colleges sexual misconduct policy in an open forum. For the learning styles
workshop, we incorporated an assessment that had participants demonstrate whether or not they
met our established learning outcomes. Through these different forms of assessment and
evaluation, the important common theme was an openness to actually hearing peoples responses
and incorporating them into new practice. For Artifact G, our group used the assessment to tweak
our delivery between the first and second workshop sessions. These changes were well-received
and improved the workshop, although we felt that there were still more improvement to be made
after the second delivery. With LO #7, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as
a perfect practice. Differences in student populations and campus cultures change how certain
practices are received. Also, as new research continues to emerge, understandings of best
practices change. As a result, I am committed to remaining flexible in my practice and constantly
seeking new ways to improve the service I give students.
Political Navigation: Learning Outcome #9; Artifacts C2, E, & F
Authenticity and political navigation can seem hard to reconcile, but having majored in
Politics and Government as an undergraduate, my political lens is a fundamental part of my
internal foundation. To me, political navigation means building coalitions to live up to collective
values and advocate for change. My passion for politics inspired a special affinity for LO #9,
understanding issues surrounding law, policy, finance, and governance, and I have sought
opportunities to hone my skills for navigating political spaces within higher education.
Successful navigation of higher education politics depends upon understanding the
interconnectedness of law, policy, finance and governance. I learned about the relationships
between these four areas, and how changes or limitations in one can affect change in the others,
in Higher Education Law and Leadership and Governance. Artifact C2, my crisis opinion paper,

critiques University of Montanas response to sexual assault on its campus and the federal
investigation into the matter. This artifact demonstrates my awareness of how concerns about
legal obligations and funding impact decision-making and the policies we craft. These concerns
are further complicated by the many constituencies that wield power within higher education.
In Leadership I, I learned about Bolman and Gallos (2011) political leadership framework,
which is a useful guide for practice. Positional authority, which I do not have, carries some weight
in this framework. However, Bolman and Gallos also talk about leveraging other forms of power,
such as information, expertise, and relationships, to achieve goals. These are forms that I can build
without positional authority, and use to advocate for the interests of my department and students.
Artifact F, my letters of promise, particularly speaks to my ability to build strong, authentic
relationships with colleagues, which are crucial when allies are needed to stimulate political action.
Even when there is internal political support for change, the reality of politics in higher
education is that we are contending with limited resources and external influences. As I was
drafting recommendations for training Puget Sounds sexual misconduct board members
(Artifact E), I had to take care to include aspects that are mandated by federal law and also
consider the financial costs associated with particular training methods. Negotiating a balance
between these restrictions is challenging, and can sometimes limit administrators abilities to
accomplish all of our goals. In response, I believe it is our obligation to capably prioritize our
goals based on student and institutional need, and to seek creative solutions in the face of limited
resources and external restrictions. As I continue my journey as a professional, this is a principle
that will remain prominent in my work, both in my continued advocacy against sexual violence
and in my practice as an advisor.

References
Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J.V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Council for the Advancement of Standards. (2006). CAS professional standards for higher
education (6th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.