Running head: LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 1

Learning Outcome Narrative

Sabrina Wise

Seattle University

SDAD 5900: Student Development Capstone Seminar

Dr. Yamamura

February 5, 2021
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 2

Learning Outcome Narrative

Introduction

I entered the Student Development Administration (SDA) program with a passion for

supporting students, deconstructing barriers to college and career, and excavating the stories we

tell about identity, opportunity, and belonging. Informed by seven years of professional

experience in college access and communications, I pursued my M.Ed at Seattle University

because I wanted practical tools and theoretical frameworks for advancing social justice in

higher education. The past two years of professional practice, academic coursework, and

community engagement—deepened at every turn by the ten SDA Learning Outcomes (LOs)—

have given me just that, but they have also helped me synthesize my strengths and interests in

ways I never could have predicted. I emerge from this program as a student advocate, partnership

builder, and lifelong learner fueled by my values of community, authenticity, justice, and care.

Learning Outcomes

LO #1: Understanding the foundations and emerging nature of the student affairs profession

and higher education.

Learning Outcome #1 calls us to understand the historical, socio-political, and theoretical

context of higher education—including the structural racism, classism, sexism, and other deep-

rooted inequities on which institutions were founded—so we can fully engage with emerging

trends, needs, and transformations in our field. In my own practice, this LO manifests as an

unwavering search for the “why” behind current dynamics and injustices in higher education. In

SDAD 5800, for example, I dove into the intricacies of the Americans with Disabilities Act to

better understand why so many students encounter barriers to securing mental illness-related

accommodations. Later in the same course, I examined the history of student internships and the
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 3

laws that regulate them, uncovering the legal basis for inequitable practices like unpaid

internships. In both instances, I familiarized myself with the roots of current issues in higher

education, then harnessed that knowledge to serve as a stronger resource and advocate for

students. Drawing on Department of Labor guidelines or the ADA, I am equipped to inform

students of their rights and to engage in more macro-level advocacy—explaining to employers,

for instance, the importance of paying their interns.

Central to LO #1 is the ability to link learning and action, parlaying knowledge of

historical context into present-day practice. I am increasingly skilled at utilizing student

development theory to bridge these two domains. In SDAD 5300, for example, we discussed the

extent to which higher education has historically privileged select modes of learning, being, and

communicating. Months later, creating digital career education modules as an intern in the

Career Engagement Office at Seattle University (SDAD 5640, reflected in Artifact G), I kept this

context in mind on a daily basis. I drew on Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984), for

instance, to ensure that each module engaged multiple ways of learning/knowing. A student

completing the “Preparing for Interviews” module might be prompted to reflect on their

strengths through short answer questions and an interactive drag-and-drop activity (reflective

observation and abstract conceptualization), and then later to video-record a mock interview

response (active experimentation and concrete experience). Community cultural wealth (Yosso,

2005), meanwhile, shaped the learning objectives for each module. One such objective:

“Students will identify at least three unique strengths and/or forms of capital they possess, and

practice articulating these assets in an interview.”

Recognizing the vital linkages among history, theory, and practice, I aim to grow my

knowledge of both the history of higher education (I was unable to take SDAD 5810) and student
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 4

development theory. My Professional Development Plan (Artifact F) includes a range of

opportunities to grow as a theory- and history-informed practitioner, from reading Ebony and

Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities (Wilder, 2003) to

attending conference sessions on student development theory. I am particularly interested in

histories of campus resistance and social change; it is my responsibility to learn from the

centuries of advocacy that enable today’s work, and then couple my learning with transformative

action. To scaffold that action, as Patton et al. (2007) advise, I will seek out a broader range of

theories that account for the roles of racism, race, power, and privilege in student development.

LO #2: Understanding students and student issues.

Learning Outcome #2 asks us to understand the ever-shifting tensions, challenges, and

opportunities our students face as a result of their lived experiences and intersectional identities,

and to develop programs, policies, and systems that center students’ needs as whole people. This

LO is central to every aspect of my professional practice, and also manifests in the student-

centered research I have conducted in academic courses. As an Advisor in the College of Arts &

Sciences at Seattle University, I supported a caseload of up to 90 and saw hundreds more on a

drop-in basis. Often, I drew on transition theory (Schlossberg, 1995) as a framework for helping

students navigate challenges and take stock of their available resources—but as LO #2 teaches, it

was critical not to make any assumptions in this process. To use Schlossberg’s parlance, what

constitutes support for one student could compound the troubling situation for another,

depending on their salient identities and experiences. Several of my international transfer

students, for example, had experienced such severe microaggressions from past professors that

they were horrified at the prospect of utilizing office hours, a space traditionally presented as a

supportive resource. With issues like this in mind, I asked neutral, open-ended questions to better
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 5

understand situation, self, support, and strategies as my students perceived them, aiming to listen

and respond rather than prescribe. The more I learned about students on their own terms, the

more I could proactively support them in overcoming barriers to success. When COVID-19 hit,

for example, I quickly developed a resource guide focused on the basic needs I knew would be

most pressing for students overall and for specific populations, such as international students or

students who are undocumented. The guide was adopted college-wide and is still in use today.

Meanwhile, I have used academic research projects as opportunities to grow my

understanding of student populations with which I am less familiar. In the culminating group

project for SDAD 5590, for example, I researched the top challenges faced by student veterans

enrolled in community colleges and was particularly intrigued by two: lack of community and

the difficulty of juggling competing responsibilities (Persky & Oliver, 2010). Ultimately, when

my team proposed a space reconfiguration to create a physical community hub for student

veterans at Pierce Community College, we took both issues into account. Interventions that build

belonging but require a significant investment of time outside of class, for example, disregard the

multiple life roles (and related time constraints) that so many student veterans hold. Research-to-

practice efforts like this one have strengthened my ability to problem-solve in ways that center

students’ holistic identities and honor the intricacies of their experiences.

My desire to better support students with lived experiences different from my own will

continually drive my growth in LO #2. Researching first-gen community college students

(Artifact C), for example, I noticed myself using my own first-gen experience as a frame of

reference—a dangerously flawed approach given that a) I did not attend a community college

and b) regardless of where I studied, my experience is the product of my identities and should

not be generalized. I often find myself resisting the same impulse—to compare, to reach for
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 6

similarity—as a coach or advisor. The stronger my cultural competency, the more effectively I

will avoid this pitfall, meet students where they are, and help them feel heard and seen in the

process. I commit to growing this competency through participation in select NASPA

Knowledge Communities (the Disability Knowledge Community, for instance), texts centering

diverse voices and lived experiences (see Artifact F), and spaces where I can continue to unpack

the blind spots and biases that subconsciously impact my work with students.

LO #3: Exhibiting professional integrity and ethical leadership in professional practice.

Learning Outcome #3 challenges us to lead courageously from our core values and

ethical principles, and to keep those values and principles in critical conversation with the

policies we are asked to uphold. Personally, acting with integrity means prioritizing care, justice,

and honesty while holding myself and my institution(s) accountable for dismantling oppressive

systems. Care and justice are at the core of my mission statement (Artifact B), and one of my

strengths in this area is the ability to hold fast to these values in times of ethical conflict. In Fall

2019, controversy rocked the Seattle University campus when President Sundborg demanded

that the Arts & Sciences Advising Center remove all mentions of Planned Parenthood from our

website. Despite my respect for university leadership, I felt that following this directive would

harm our students, especially women-identifying, gender-nonconforming, and transgender

students who look to Planned Parenthood for identity-affirming care. My colleagues and I sought

alternate ways of sharing this resource, while strategically advocating for a reversal of the policy.

Meanwhile, STMM 5700 deepened my ability to make authentic, values-driven choices:

studying Elizabeth Liebert (2008) and Parker Palmer’s (2004) work on discernment made me

aware of my own learned tendency to bypass intuition and bodily awareness in moments of
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 7

ethical conflict, while Thich Nhat Hanh (2012) equipped me with practical tools for re-engaging

those forms of wisdom in the workplace. I look forward to continued practice in this area.

Another area for growth within LO #3 lies in reducing my sense of urgency to create

more space for ethical decision-making. When I interviewed my SDAD 5640 internship

supervisor about an ethical dilemma she has faced in her work, a key takeaway was that the

ethical “solution” often falls outside the binary of options we might initially perceive. By

permitting myself to step back and reflect, rather than pressuring myself to make a split-second

and perfectly-formed decision, I can create space for new options to present themselves. Another

area for growth within this LO is to better apply my value of care to myself, creating greater

congruence between my own actions and the self-care I recommend to students. As my

Professional Development Plan (Artifact F) indicates, I will continue conducting informational

interviews with career services and advising professionals; in the process, I hope to learn from

their approaches to self-care, and to converse about the values that drive our work. I firmly

believe that change unfolds at the level of relationships (brown, 2017), and that the first step in

creating ethical, values-aligned organizations is approaching each interaction with integrity.

LO #4: Understanding and fostering diversity, justice, and a sustainable world formed by a

global perspective and Jesuit Catholic tradition.

Learning Outcome #4 requires us to work toward equity and social justice in all facets of

our practice. For me, this means supporting students and colleagues as whole people, breaking

down barriers to access and inclusion, and advocating for systems that center community cultural

wealth (Yosso, 2005) and unique strengths. This LO is at the heart of my Mission Statement

(Artifact B), and is one I will forever be developing. In academic courses, I have consistently

sought to educate myself on the barriers and opportunities faced by students from historically
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 8

marginalized backgrounds. I examined the governance implications of instituting a “Name and

Pronoun Project” to affirm the identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students

(SDAD 5760), researched disability rights and the advising needs of international students

(SDAD 5800), and learned about factors that can enhance “work hope” for students of color

(EDUC 5000), to name a few examples. I am grateful to have participated in NACADA

conference sessions and NACE trainings on multiculturally responsive career coaching, as well

as the efforts of the Antiracism Working Group in the Arts & Sciences Advising Center.

Equity plays out on the micro level as cura personalis, and at the macro level as systemic

justice. One way I have engaged in more macro-level work is through my advising internship at

Bellevue College. Driven by qualitative data, antiracist principles, and research into promising

practices at community colleges with similar demographics, I developed a proactive outreach

plan to provide resources and support to specific student populations with historically low

persistence rates—rates that can be traced back to the disproportionate, systemic barriers they

have faced (Artifact D). Recognizing that every student’s experience is unique, I did my best to

design tailored interventions that are affirming, asset-based, and relational. I also recommended

assessment measures to ensure that the impact of the outreach matches its intent.

This work is never done. As my Professional Development and Action Plan (Artifact F)

indicates, I see the NASPA/ACPA competency of Social Justice & Inclusion as my area of focus

for the next three years—and I know it will be my focus for the next three, and the next. In my

role as Assistant Director of External Relations in the Career Engagement Office at Seattle

University, I will be responsible for coordinating the Engaged Employer Symposium, a daylong

conference centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion. This will be my first time planning a

large-scale DEI event, and I am already engaging in intensive reflection, learning (through
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 9

webinars and workshops), and informational interviewing in preparation. Another lifelong

growth area for me is distinguishing between inclusion and systemic justice; both are important

but only one dismantles oppressive systems. Operating in spaces that were designed to benefit

someone like me, I will hold myself accountable—and participate in communities of

accountability—for doing the hard work of social justice alongside the more “comfortable” work

of inclusion. In this, I am informed by Blustein et al.’s Psychology of Working Theory (2005),

an approach I learned in COUN 5120, which urges career development professionals to balance

culturally competent care with structural advocacy.

None of this growth is possible without continued reflection on my own identities as a

white, cisgender woman. My Professional Development Plan (Artifact F) includes numerous

opportunities to unpack my identities in white accountability spaces, gradually progressing from

participant to leader in these spaces—as well as opportunities to engage in deeper social justice

training through the White Privilege Conference, the Social Justice Training Institute, and more.

LO #5: Adapting student services to different environments and cultures.

Learning Outcome #5 asks us to responsively tailor every aspect of our practice to the

student populations, institutions, spaces, and socio-cultural contexts in which we work, resisting

the notion of “one right way” or one best practice. One of my strengths within this LO is my

ability to utilize research, theory, and observation to understand the unique needs of different

spaces, and then adapt my practice to those needs. In EDUC 5130, I drew on research literature,

four adult learning theories, and community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) to understand the

experiences of first-generation community college students in peer advising programs. My

research surfaced common pressures—unreliable access to technology, cognitive dissonance, a

deeply engrained “go it alone” mentality, and more—but also powerful strengths, including a
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 10

tendency toward accelerated self-authorship (Carpenter, 2017). More than any other project I

have worked on, this one taught me to use theory as an organizing principle, a tool for making

sense of data. The work of theorists like McClusky (1970), Mezirow (1978), and Kegan (1994)

helped me translate my growing knowledge of the community college context and first-gen

student needs into practical initiatives, putting LO #5 into action. I could see, for example, that

many challenges faced by these students can function as disorienting dilemmas that incite

transformative learning (Mezirow, 1978). This gave me a sense of purpose and direction as I

developed recommendations for the training of peer advisors (Artifact C). In keeping with LO

#5, I rooted my suggestions in context-specific data and trends, rather than extrapolating from

my own experiences with peer advising at four-year institutions.

I truly enjoy the challenge of aligning student services with institutional context. As an

intern in the Career Engagement Office at Seattle University, I faced the task of adapting career

education to a virtual environment. Invoking Seattle University’s Jesuit culture, I organized each

page of each Canvas module into three sections: “Learn,” “Act,” and “Reflect” (Artifact G). A

colleague commented that the modules feel “quintessentially SU,” which was my goal.

As my resume (Artifact A) reveals, the large, public research university is an institution

type with which I have little experience adapting my practice. With this in mind, I have made it a

priority to conduct informational interviews with colleagues at such institutions throughout my

time in the SDA program, and I plan to continue this after I graduate. Another area I need to

explore more deeply is the use of assessment to drive adaptation. As Artifact C demonstrates,

context is not static; COVID-19 reminded us that the needs of community college students, for

example, can shift in a matter of days. Recognizing that thorough, ongoing, campus-specific

assessment is essential to the Multicultural Organization Development (MCOD) process (Pope et

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 11

al., 2014), I will take on assessment projects in the Career Engagement Office and join NASPA’s

Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Knowledge Community, as detailed in my Professional

Development Plan (Artifact F). Continued growth in LO #5 is essential if I am to be a flexible

educator who responds to my context instead of hegemonically imposing external structures.

LO #6: Developing and demonstrating skills in leadership and collaboration.

Learning Outcome #6 invites us to lead and collaborate with knowledge of our strengths

and growth areas, appreciation for the strengths and growth areas of others, and understanding of

how power and privilege shape group dynamics. I am heartened that my former supervisor

identified meaningful relationship-building—with students and with colleagues—as one of my

strengths in her Professional Letter of Promise (Artifact E). In allegiance to the feminist

organizational model (Manning, 2018), I aim to build trusting, human, horizontal relationships

across and beyond campus while keeping collective goals in view. Creating an advising outreach

plan aligned with guided pathways at Bellevue College (Artifact D), for example, I conducted

needs assessment meetings with eleven advisors. These conversations built necessary rapport and

trust, established collaborative feedback loops, and enabled me to synthesize needs and concerns

that shaped the final outreach strategy. I found myself drawing on the same skillset that served

me well in group projects for SDAD 5400 and 5750; in projects like these, I am often the one

who threads together disparate ideas and helps my team keep the big picture in mind.

While I am proud of Artifact D and its integration of multiple perspectives, the process

exposed challenges that come with my collaborative approach. Bouncing from one meeting to

the next, I saw how easily power-sharing can operationalize as bureaucracy. Seeking harmony

and consensus, it is all too easy to run in circles, become paralyzed by conflicting demands, or

dilute essential goals. Herein lies one of my most important areas for growth, especially as I
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 12

tackle mid-level roles in student development: balancing my loyalty to collectivist organizational

models with the need to exercise authority when appropriate. This means recognizing when

authoritative decision-making is appropriate and needed, and then communicating such decisions

with confidence. I will continue to lean on mentorship and self-reflection to combat the imposter

syndrome that sometimes stops me from claiming authority in this way.

Another growth area within LO #6 pertains to supervision. As my resume (Artifact A)

reflects, I held a supervisory role for three years prior to entering the SDA program. Since then, I

have been exposed to a range of identity development theories that will make me an even more

intentional supervisor with more nuanced understanding of the ways power and privilege impact

the supervisory relationship. Learning about ethnic identity development theory (Phinney, 1996)

and the white racial identity development model (Helms, 1990) in SDAD 5400 was revelatory

for me. I could not help but see past supervisees—and myself—in light of the stages Phinney and

Helms describe. I saw ways I might have better supported a team member, mediated a conflict,

or identified professional development opportunities (for the team or for myself) had I

understood each person’s temporary location along a developmental continuum. While my

current role in the Career Engagement Office does not involve supervision, I look forward to

putting theory into practice down the road, perhaps as supervisor to an SDA intern.

LO #7: Utilizing assessment, evaluation, technology, and research to improve practice.

Learning Outcome #7 challenges us to harness quantitative and qualitative research, data,

and technology to critically examine and tell the story of our work, understand trends, and

develop action plans for more equitably serving students. The metrics we establish and the

technologies we implement must create space for complexity while aligning with institutional

mission and values. My intentional, detail-oriented approach to research and assessment is one of
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 13

my strengths in this area. In EDUC 5000, for example, I crafted a research proposal to measure

the effectiveness of career exploration courses for first-gen students compared with continuing-

gen students. I considered many possible metrics to operationalize “effectiveness,” reviewing a

dizzying array of studies on the effectiveness of various career development interventions. Each

had its own metrics, but one stood out to me: Logue et al. (2019) presented the Career Decision

Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE; Betz & Taylor, 2012), a tool that recognizes the mediating effects of

cultural capital and privilege on career outcomes. I adopted the CDSE for my proposal and felt

validated in the decision months later: I started working with Seattle University’s Career

Engagement Office to create career education modules for integration into academic courses, and

learned that the team uses similar measures of success.

My work on those career education modules (Artifact G) helped me develop another skill

within this LO: the ability to harness technology to enhance student learning. Developing highly

interactive Canvas modules from scratch was a crash course in online instructional design and

digital accessibility. I quickly learned to start with learning outcomes and then consider ways in

which technology is uniquely positioned to help students reach them, rather than trying to re-

engineer an in-person lesson plan. I will carry insights like this one with me into any role with an

online teaching, programming, or instructional design component.

My time in SDA has deepened my interest in assessment, evaluation, research, and

technology, while also highlighting how much I have left to learn. I see LO #7 as one of my

biggest areas for growth. On the micro level, I would like to gain experience administering self-

assessments to students for advising and career coaching purposes. COUN 5120 gave me the

opportunity to administer/interpret the Vocational Meaning Survey (Peterson et al., 2017) and

see first-hand the value of such a tool in supporting students’ self-authorship. With this in mind, I
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 14

plan to seek relevant trainings through the National Career Development Association, and to

explore becoming a certified Strong Interest Inventory administrator. I would also like to gain

experience conducting longitudinal assessments of program effectiveness, and will be doing just

that in my work with the Career Engagement Office this year. It is increasingly clear that

longitudinal assessments keep us responsive and accountable as educators, but also supply us

with the data needed to advocate for resources in increasingly lean times.

LO #8: Communicating effectively in speech and in writing.

Learning Outcome #8 pushes us to communicate in ways that are clear, inclusive,

accessible, and informed by a keen understanding of audience and objectives. This process

requires active listening and critical awareness of the power structures that have historically

privileged some forms of communication over others. In a field as relational as student affairs,

communication is the beating heart of any work I undertake. Entering the SDA program with a

professional background in writing and editing, I have found this LO to be one of my key

strengths. The outreach materials I created for the Bellevue College Advising Office (Artifact D)

and the online career education curriculum I developed for the Seattle University Career

Engagement Office (Artifact G) demonstrate my ability to communicate complex concepts in

accessible writing for a range of technical formats, from emails and texts to handouts,

instructions, and video scripts. As an academic advisor and career coach, I have honed my ability

to explain elaborate processes to students—while recognizing the limits of “explaining” as a

mode of communication. In keeping with the six assumptions of andragogy (Knowles, 1980,

cited in Merriam & Bierema, 2017), an adult learning model rooted in humanism, I believe

college students learn best when they participate actively in the creation of knowledge, and when

their past experience is respected. With this in mind, I work hard to transform advising
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 15

appointments into relational, two-way dialogue in which the student becomes the expert.

Meanwhile, in academic work like my culminating paper for EDUC 5130 (Artifact C), I

synthesize the voices of multiple experts to distil complex trends, theories, and conversations.

Although the written word is an important medium for me, and traditional academia tends

to reinforce its centrality, I am increasingly aware that worship of the written word is a tenet of

white supremacy culture in organizations (Okun, 2001). My comfort with writing does not make

it the best or most inclusive way to communicate in all situations. Valuing my students’ and

colleagues’ diverse ways of knowing means embracing additional tools. An ongoing growth

edge, this is what drove me to create and integrate videos, recordings, infographics, and other

multimedia content into my online career education modules (Artifact G). As my resume

(Artifact A) reveals, however, my skills still skew toward written communication. I plan to

continue growing my multimedia and digital media skills by taking advantage of relevant

workshops and opportunities to create multimedia content in my daily work.

LO #9: Understanding issues surrounding law, policy, finance, and governance.

Learning Outcome #9 asks us to understand how power and resources are distributed

within an institution and within higher education more broadly. This means recognizing the

impacts of governance, laws, policies, and funding mechanisms on students, and identifying

channels through which we can transform inequitable structures. My top strength within this LO

is helping students navigate institutional policy. As an advisor, I guided students through

everything from the hardship withdrawal process to transfer equivalency agreements to the

complexities of maintaining financial aid eligibility. My goal was never simply to relay a policy.

Instead, I aimed to facilitate self-authorship (Baxter-Magolda, 2012) by helping students reflect

on the policy at hand and then make empowered, self-directed decisions about their next steps.
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 16

This work led me to in-depth knowledge of Seattle University policies, but also to frameworks

that enable me to quickly learn the policies of other institutions. As an intern at Bellevue

College, for example, I discovered I could rapidly learn and communicate academic policies

(Artifact C) because I knew what questions to ask while training. Another strength within LO #9

is my foundational knowledge of key federal laws that impact academic and career advising. My

legal memo for SDAD 5800, for example, delves into the Fair Labor Standards Act and

Department of Labor guidelines as they regulate unpaid student internships, exploring the

disproportionate negative impact of these policies on women from low-income backgrounds.

Despite my knowledge in certain areas, I identify LO #9 as a significant growth area for

me. Supporting the Bellevue College advising team in the transition to a guided pathways model,

I glimpsed the complexities of college-wide change management given the many stakeholders

and funding sources involved. The process fascinated me—and made me realize how much I

need to learn to effectively participate in large-scale change at my own institution. In my

Professional Development and Action Plan (Artifact F), I identify a first step in this direction as

joining a university committee. I am eager to put the organizational theories learned in SDAD

5760 into practice, and to more fully own my role in the co-creation of equitable policy. I also

hope to learn from senior colleagues about their experience with budget management and

funding requests, since my only higher ed finance experience was creating the budget proposal

for a new student veteran initiative at Pierce College (my group’s final project for SDAD 5590).

In my Mission Statement (Artifact B), I point out that care for students manifests as systemic

advocacy. To live out this mission, I must be prepared to contribute to structural change, and for

this I need in-depth knowledge of my institution’s financial priorities and governance structure.

LO #10: Establishing and enhancing professional identity.

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 17

Learning Outcome #10 invites us to develop and express an authentic sense of self in

professional contexts. This is an ongoing process rooted in reflection on our identities, strengths,

and areas for growth, and nurtured through mentorship and professional community. Entering the

SDA program with seven years of professional experience in college access, communications,

and publishing, I knew one of my challenges would be integrating those past experiences and

perspectives with new learning in student affairs to achieve a unified professional identity. I am

proud of the work I have done to put past experience and future goals in conversation with each

other. In November 2020, I transitioned into a full-time role as Assistant Director of External

Relations in the Career Engagement Office at Seattle University. This role brings together my

passions for advising, partnership-building, and social justice-oriented career education, allowing

my skills in each area to strengthen each other and feed a mission that resonates deeply with me.

I would never have found my way to this intersection if not for my work as an advisor,

internships in career services and student success, and courses that pushed me to connect these

experiences. Writing my philosophy of theory for SDAD 5400 was an especially pivotal process

that helped me name my values in light of the student development theories I hold dear. This

process gave me space to critique long-established theories and craft an authentic theoretical

approach instead of simply inheriting one—self-authorship in action. It gave me the tools to

critique Baxter-Magolda (2012), for example, through the lens of queer theory, arriving at a

more nuanced understanding of identity as an act of resistance, a shaper of social forces (Abes &

Kasch, 2007). The more I internalize this learning, the more natural it feels to name my values,

claiming my space in this field. These values evolved into the narratives that guide my work, as

articulated in my Mission Statement (Artifact B) and demonstrated throughout this portfolio.

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 18

My identities as a white, cisgender woman who was first in her family to attend college

will always be salient to my work—as will my identities as a writer, reader, mentor/mentee,

partner, daughter, and friend. As is true for every student I serve, the relative salience of each

identity dimension will vary from one space to the next (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Through

journaling and dialogue, I will continue to reflect critically on my identities and the ways they

show up in professional contexts. I am also committed to training my value of care, named in my

Mission Statement (Artifact B), on myself. As I noted in a report for SDAD 5900, a sustainable

professional identity gives space to my whole self, including my needs and limits. Healthy

rhythms and boundaries will empower me to show up as the creative, mindful, mission-driven

advocate I want to be. So will leaning into community in the form of professional associations,

informal networks, and mentoring relationships. My Professional Development Plan (Artifact F)

reflects this commitment to lifelong learning as both an individual and communal act.

Conclusion

My growth as an educator will never be done, but I am confident in my ability to navigate

the core balancing acts of this work. I emerge from the SDA program with the curiosity,

conviction, and critical awareness needed to balance lifelong learning and lifelong action,

interpersonal support and systemic change-making, theory and practice, flexibility and

persistence, excellence and sustainability, trust in my voice and deep attention to the voices of

others. This conclusion is just the beginning.

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 19

References

Abes, E.S. & Kasch, D. (2005). Using Queer theory to explore lesbian college students’ multiple

dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 619-636.

Baxter-Magolda, M.B., King, P.M., Taylor, K.B., & Wakefield, K.M. (2012). Decreasing

authority dependence during the first year of college. Journal of College Student

Development, 53(3), 418-435.

Betz, N.E. & Taylor, K.M. (2012). Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE) manual. Menlo

Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Blustein, D.L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development,

counseling, and public policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

brown, a.m. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. Chico, CA: AK Press.

Carpenter, A.M., & Peña, E.V. (2017). Self-authorship among first-generation undergraduate

students: A qualitative study of experiences and catalysts. Journal of diversity in higher

education, 10(1), 86-100. DOI: 10.1037/a0040026

Hanh, T.N. (2012). Work. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.

Helms, J.E. (Ed.). (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research and practice.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Jones, S.R. & McKewen, M.H. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity.

Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 20

Liebert, E. (2008). The way of discernment: Spiritual practices for decision making. Louisville,

KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Logue, C.T., Zins, B.M., Flynn, S.M., & Dewhurst, C.J. (2019). Career exploration at an

Appalachian university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(3), 65-78.

Manning, K. (2018). Organizational Theory in Higher Education (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

McClusky, H.Y. (1970). Dynamic approach to participation in community development.

Journal of the community development society, 1(1), 25-32. DOI: 10.1080/15575330.1970.

10877417

Merriam, S. & Bierema, L. (2017). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult education, 28(2), 100-110. DOI: 10.1177/

074171367802800202

Okun, T. (2013). White supremacy culture. [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://collectiveliberation

.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/White_Supremacy_Culture_Okun.pdf

Palmer, P. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L.D., McEwen, M., Rendón, L., & Howard-Hamilton, M.F. (2007). Critical race

perspectives on theory in student affairs, 120, 39-53. DOI: 10.1002/ss.256.

Persky, K.R., & Oliver, D.E. (2010). Veterans coming home to the community college: Linking

research to practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 111-

120. DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2011.525184

Peterson, G.W., MacFarlane, J., & Osborne, D. (2017). The vocation meaning survey: An
LEARNING OUTCOME NARRATIVE 21

exploration of importance in current work. Career Planning & Adult Development

Journal, 33(2), 49-59.

Phinney, J.S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity. American

behavioral scientist, 40(2), 143-152. DOI: 10.1177/0002764296040002005

Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2014). Creating multicultural change on campus.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N.K., Waters, E.B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition:

Linking practice with theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Wilder, C.S. (2013). Ebony and ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s

universities. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

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: 10.1080/136133205

200034100