Crow Strengths

Running head: STRENGTHS

Learning Outcome Narrative: Strengths Anna Crow Seattle University

STRENGTHS

Crow 2

Throughout my time at the Seattle University Student Development Administration program, I have learned about my leadership styles and how I show up professionally and personally. I have chosen the theme of Community Builder as my theme for my Strengths Narrative. I strive to maintain a professional presence as is true to my values and beliefs. I have developed what this means for me right now through supervising students in my position as the Welcome Desk Coordinator for Cornish Commons at Cornish College of the Arts. As a Graduate Student and a supervisor of students, my authenticity is deeply important. Authenticity (LO#3, 5, & 8, Artifacts A &B) Authenticity is the first dimension within the theme of Community Builder. I believe that my communication dictates how I present myself to my peers, colleagues, and networks. I have demonstrated LO#8 though stories with students, remaining vulnerable, and connection through writing. Artifact B speaks to my intentionality to achieve authentic communication, “I believe that student voices must remain at the core of education institutions. This belief requires me to advocate and listen to students. Further, I strive to demonstrate to peer’s advocacy on behalf of students. I am committed to educating peers on how to keep students in the center of decisions.” My authentic communication connects to Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth theory in my professional and academic practice (2005). I have many opportunities to engage in mentorship with peers and students who have very different perspectives as I do. As I have described in my mission statement (Artifact B), utilizing my ability to empower young people of their cultural capital is how I will spend my professional career. As I strive to be an authentic communicator, I reflect on my identities and how they are important when I am communicating with students. I believe that part of my communication is vulnerability, being able to openly discuss my salient identities, specifically my queerness, I become a mirror for my students. My

STRENGTHS

Crow 3

role as a white educator is to understand my privilege and be able to educate and challenge students on theirs as well. For me, it looks like being a co-creator and presenter of a white privilege program in the residence hall. It also looks like getting to know my students and spending the time to understand their worldly context. This authenticity invites deep reflectiveness to occur for the student. Being authentic has assisted me in this communication to students. My Graduate Assistantship experience as well as my current full-time position, I have learned and experienced what it is like to have tough conversations about several topics (Artifact A). I have demonstrated LO#3 through my understanding of confidentiality, communicating with compassion, and remaining diplomatic. Related to my ethical leadership, I have provided through my role as a conduct administrator and Resident Director. When facilitating student conduct cases, my ability to provide an ethical perspective for the student as well as administrating sanctions appropriately demonstrates my ethical leadership. For example, two students from China brought accusations to their RA that they were mocked in the elevator by other students they did not know. An accused student I held a hearing with, was a student of color. I recognized the complexity of feeling and hurt. After the hearing, we had a broader conversation about the damaging experiences the student has had on campus. Also, other conversations lead to a white privilege workshop hosted in the residence hall. This example specifically, demonstrates my ethical leadership and my ability to integrate multicultural competence by being aware, having the necessary knowledge, and skills (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004). Three dimensions of LO #5 include evaluating student population, holistically providing support, and using feedback to better practices. Throughout my internship with the Greater

STRENGTHS

Crow 4

Seattle Business Association (GSBA), I was privileged to work with a diverse group of scholars and create an assessment to fit the organization and scholar’s needs uniquely. I evaluated an assessment that the organization had in place for the scholarship program and developed new assessment materials that gathered quantitative data (Artifact A). This project required me to gain an understanding of the organization, the organizational team, and the scholars. This project was important to me as it was an ability to get close a group of people whose identity I shared. This connection allowed me to connect with the students holistically and dig into what would enrich their experience. I connected with the students around our queer identities. Specifically, I had a conversation with a student who attends a rural Washington university. This student’s experience of openness and acceptance around their queer identity is much different than a student attending university in Seattle. These conversations assisted me in understanding what type of support to be assessed. After these needs were assessed, I was able to recommend holistic support for students. To do this, I facilitated opportunities for students to connect and being a general resource. Lastly, after scholars took the weekend survey, I was able to interpret the data and make recommendations for future retreats and support for students. These assessments went through many stages and often required feedback from my site supervisor. Throughout the process of relationship building with students, I recognized I part of me doing that is also creating meaning for students. This understanding added depth to my interactions with students and how I created my assessments. Meaning making and the connection I hope to assist my students with is the connection of their passion and goals. It is clear to me that being able to talk to my students about their development is a top priority. Nash and Murray state this in a way that guides me in my understanding of meaning-making with my

STRENGTHS

Crow 5

students, “Deep-meaning learning is interdisciplinary. It is interdisciplinary; it is integrative. It is heart-, head-, and hand-based. It encourages important and what is now in the ongoing search for meaning” (p.88, 2010). This has influenced how I approach students with my understandings and how I ask them to reflect and understand their learning and what they are receiving from their educational experiences and student staff experience. It is about development as a whole person. Making meaning for oneself exists outside of the classroom and the professional world. Collaboration (LO#4, C1) To fulfill dimensions of LO#4 I have had challenging conversations facilitated social justice events and have integrated social justice into student staff requirements. Throughout my Student Development Theory course, I was asked to create a plan collaboratively with a group to further benefit the Seattle University Youth Initiative (SUYI) (LO#4). This plan had to include recommendations of what the organization should do next to further its efforts and relationship with Seattle University. When writing the recommendations, we also utilized theory to support our ideas. Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth theory was especially important to our group (2005). This anti-deficit model challenged us to critically propose ideas that would be beneficial to both the community and the university. Additionally, this experience required me to ask my peers questions about their ideas and thoughts on the project while implementing all our ideas. My role in the group was a collaborative facilitator role. I was able to bring ideas and as well as listen to other ideas and facilitate a conversation about best to move forward. When I was a Resident Director, I noticed that there was a common theme of many of my conversations with students of color. Many of my students expressed that there was an extreme lack of diverse material taught in class; also, the school is predominately white. For example, in

STRENGTHS

Crow 6

art class, they would talk about only white artists, and when they did talk about other artists of color, they were sweeping generalizations of cultures and considered primitive art. I immediately understood that there was a clear power differential that was not actively challenged. Also, artists of color hold their cultural capital that should not have to be compared (Yosso, 2016). After I made this connection and examining my own experiences on the campus, it was clear that there was a low level of multicultural competence, including awareness, knowledge, and skills (Pope, Reynolds, A.L, Mueller, 2004). To start a conversation around these concerns, I collaborated with my peer graduate assistant in student activities, and we decided that would create an open discussion program. Collaboration reaches beyond peers and colleagues; I consider collaboration with any community of young people I am serving. Supervision (LO#6, 10, Artifact E) As I reflect over my experience in the SDA program, I reflect on many times in different spaces where I was challenged to act as a resource or solve a problem that I may not have necessarily had all the information. This has led me to be a strong supervisor and mentor for my students. My advising student team skills have increased since I have supervised two teams of students in my time in the SDA program (Artifact: E). Being able to think through these situations and apply what I have learned from SDA classes and enrichment, I was able to think more critically and apply appropriate theories to the situations. As a Resident Director, I demonstrated the following three dimensions of LO#10; critical response, direct communication, and student staff support. Specifically, as a Resident Director on the Professional on-call rotation, I was called many times to respond to a variety of emergency incidents. In these time-sensitive situations, I had to use what I learned in training as well as what I knew developmentally about the student to best provide what was needed. The physical

STRENGTHS

Crow 7

know-how comes from training and my experience as a student staff employee in housing. My personable practitioner side was all focused on what I have developed in the SDA program. To demonstrate LO#6, I have demonstrated dimensions of academic collaboration, student staff supervision, and learning of leadership styles. In Theory (Art. C1), I learned and applied student development theories to proposed initiatives for SUYI and discussed how I was utilizing the theories in my practices. This time I had to reflect on my experiences and how I was actively using the theories and how I could use these theories was beneficial to my everyday practice and how I could deepen my understanding of the theories and my practice. Artifact C1 is a theory paper I wrote for my theory class, and I discuss a variety of student development theories as well as how I can utilize these theories in my professional practice I have developed in my supervisory role, as I have been able to supervise a few different groups of students that have challenged my ability and knowledge of what it means to support students. Using the challenge and support model, I often had to think about what was important to my students and how I could relate the student staff job into a relevant take away for them as art students (Sanford & Adelson, 1962). This balance of support but accountability has given me the perspective to think about students all in very individual circumstances. Conclusion My strengths outlined are the essence of my professional practice. My values and passions that I discovered before the SDA program have been made clearer as I have been able to be involved in many opportunities that have confirmed them.

STRENGTHS

Crow 8 References

Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nash, R. J., & Murray, M. C. (2010). Helping college students find purpose (1. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sanford, N., & Adelson, J. (1962). The American college: a psychological and social interpretation of the higher learning. New York: Wiley. Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-82.