Second Time Around

After wearing the “hat” of teacher for 30+ years, to some it may seem a bit of downgrade to hear that I am a teaching assistant for a college course, but I could not be happier to enact this role.  When Dr. Daniel Merson agreed to have me as his teaching assistant for HI ED 556:  Higher Education Students and Clientele I was elated.  It was a double slam dunk for me as I would get to use my teaching skills in helping to plan the weekly three hour class and also review what I found to be some of the most significant content of the College Student Affairs program.

When I was a student in this course just one year ago, I came to realize that my skills as an educator of students with disabilities could be used to help study aspects of persistence and retention in students.  Through projects that I completed for the course, I found that equally as important to student achievement as academic skills were the non-academic inputs that students bring with them to college.   I learned that traits such as resiliency, self-efficacy, and locus of control significantly influence how students navigate their academic journeys (Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004).  Many of these traits were lacking in students with whom I had previously worked.  I also learned that students’ reasons for leaving college were as individual as the students themselves (Tinto, 1993).  These lessons influenced the way I came to interact with students on my advising roster.  For those students who were not achieving success, I recognized that many factors were at play.  I realized that I was in a position to help uncover the interfering factors and assist the student in developing a plan for success.  This course connected many dots for me, and I was excited to be able to be a part of this process for others.

Being in the course the second time around and sharing the role of instructor with Dr. Merson gave me the opportunity to read and process critical text and research articles a second time around.  This strengthened my understanding of the the characteristics that students bring to college as well as the outcomes they are expected to achieve.  But the most astonishing and salient outcome for me this time around  was the observance of the degree to which  the students themselves influence the class environment and the way in which learning occurs.  When I was a student in this course, the vast majority of my peers were fellow full-time masters or doctoral candidates.  It was a scholarly group, many of whom were required to take this course for their program.  In Dr. Merson’s class, the vast majority of the students were either part-time doctoral candidates or non-degree students who took the course based on interest.  At least three-fourths of the class also worked full-time.  I find that this latter group brings a higher degree of engagement to class discussions.  Their conversations have an aura of passion and excitement that I found lacking in the classmates with whom I shared the course.  I bring up this point not be judgmental, but rather to illustrate that the composition of the class can influence the choice of pedagogical  methods.  This group thrives on small group discussions and sharing while my class thrived on sharing the results of scholarly research.

It has been very enlightening to be able to apply what I have learned about students to analyze two very different groups of students as they navigate a similar experience with the same course.  The different inputs the two groups bring to a similar situation result in a different learning environment while working to achieve the same learning objectives or outcomes.  Since a different instructor is teaching the course, that is a confounding variable to consider, but that is a topic for another day or should I say another blog entry?


Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The role of academic and            non-academicfactors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report.                         Retrievable online at:

Tinto, V.  (1993).   Leaving College:  Rethinking the Cause and Cures of Student            Attrition. Chicago:  University of Chicago.

Posted in Inter-and Intrapersonal Skills, Student Development and Outcomes | Leave a comment

Early Morning Lessons

How thrilled I was to learn that my presentation proposalvegas-redsubmitted to the ACPA National Convention review board had been accepted!  I was glad to see the selection committee recognized that a topic on environmental design could apply to the various constituents of this professional organization.  My elation was quickly quelled, however, when I learned that my presentation time was 7:30AM.  Who would get up at 6AM to hear about the theory and application of intentional environmental design?  To my surprise and delight, 25 more people than I expected! Not being a morning person myself, I was reluctant to get my hopes up that this was a positive sign.  As people filed into the room with their coffee and breakfast items, I nervously wondered how awake and engaged one could be at such an early hour.

My fears were allayed early.  As I greeted people and talked with them, I learned that my audience consisted of attendees from institutions on both coasts and many locations in between.  It soon became apparent that interest in the theoretical background for my project was high, as evidenced by the many requests attendees made for copies of my presentation.  The most satisfying aspect for me was the rich conversation that ensued after I shared the application of environmental theory to my project.  Participants were given time to reflect on their work environment and asked to share a few ways in which it may be enhanced to promote student learning and development.  Quite a few people admitted they were embarrassed that this was not an area to which they had given much consideration.  A lively discussion ensued as participants described aspects of his or her environment that was lacking, and other participants joined together to brainstorm solutions.  I became a facilitator directing the flow of conversation until our time ended. Thirty minutes into the discussion,  I gently persuaded people that it was time to disengage and move to the next section.

It was immensely satisfying to know that my sharing of the application of a critical theory inspired colleagues to engage with each other at the crack of dawn.  Having the opportunity to present this topic twice at different conferences has whet my appetite for the continued application of theory to practice that I can ultimately share with others.  I have come to learn that embracing theory to create ways to enhance student growth and learning can lead to numerous positive outcomes for not only students, but also for me!

Posted in Professional Competencies, Student Development and Outcomes | Leave a comment

Theory to Practice or “Becoming a Scholar-Practitioner”

While sitting in my introductory course to student affairs,  my professor, Dr. Robert Reason, repeatedly tossed around the term scholar-practitioner reminding his students that this is the pinnacle to which we should aspire in our work.   Thus, early in my journey as a graduate student I was tasked with the reflection, “Exactly what is a scholar-practitioner?”  It was easy to ascertain that scholarly-practitioners followed the philosophy and values of the student affairs profession as they completed good work in the field. But, what did they actually do?

McClintock (2003) includes three key points in his definition of this ideal.  Scholarly practice is grounded in theory and research, also includes experimental knowledge, and is driven by personal values, commitment, and ethical conduct. Scholar practitioners reflect on and assess the impact of their work.   Benham (1996) adds a problem-solving approach to scholarly practice.  He sees the work of a scholar practitioner as learning about or recognizing problems, examining them closely, and searching for productive solutions.  These explanations inform my role as a student affairs professional for I do, indeed, strive to be a scholar-practitioner.

FTCAP Internship

This awareness was awakened during my internship at the First-Year Testing, Consulting, and Advising Program (FTCAP) at the Pennsylvania State University during the summer of 2010.  My supervisory staff began my training with a deep introduction to the history and philosophy of advising and the unit in which I was working, the Division Undergraduate Studies (DUS).  I absorbed how the development and growth of the field of advising was contextually influenced.  Current issues and debates that today’s advisers face were introduced and discussed.  The scholarly emphasis of my training helped me to see the importance of the integration of scholarship into one’s practice.  My colleagues at DUS were models for evoking a true appreciation of scholar-practitioners . The emphasis among the staff for scholarly inquiry and debate drives the work within the unit.  Staff members are encouraged to learn and share their learning through publications and conference presentations.  I was fortunate to be indoctrinated into a culture of scholarly-practice early in my graduate education.

My new found appreciation for scholarly practice influenced my choice of an internship project.  Through daily conversations about their choice of major with students in my role as a consultant, a personal inquiry began to form.  This inquiry was driven by my past experiences as a K-12 educator and behaviors I was seeing in first-year college students’ decision-making.  I knew that most students begin formal schooling at the same chronological age, but due to significant differences in physical and cognitive development, display varying degrees of readiness behaviors.  I hypothesized that varying degrees of certainty in students’ decisions about their major were related to differences in cognitive development and other possible influences.  A rich review of literature on student development theory appeared to support this hypothesis and also raised the issue of the role that transition plays in both entry to formal K-12 schooling and the first year of college and first-year student decision-making.  A formal presentation of my learning and its application to FTCAP and DUS was well-received by my FTCAP colleagues and the DUS advising staff.  On this day I realized I was on my way to becoming a scholar-practitioner.  My presentation can by viewed at  FTCAP Internship Project Presentation.

A personal characteristic that has been an important part of my work as an educator is that I am a problem-solver.  This characteristic drove my decision to leave the classroom as a K-12 educator and take on the role of an instructional support facilitator.  In this role, I worked with parents, teachers, and students to develop effective intervention plans to help individual students meet collaboratively designed learning goals.  I likened myself to a learning detective.  As per Benham (1996), I find my role as a scholar-practitioner involves problem-solving, or in other words, improving practice.   This aspect of scholarly practice influenced my putting theory that I learned in my campus environments course  into practice in my graduate assistantship as an adviser in DUS in the fall of 2011.

CSA 506 Student Development in Campus Environment

Through my reading of Educating by Design (Strange & Banning, 2001) and class discourse on student development in campus environments I was introduced to the powerful role that campus environments play in student learning and development. Strange and Banning (2001) believe, “Students deserve nothing less that an educational environment that is affirming, energizing, challenging and productive.” Professionals in higher education have within their roles the opportunity and responsibility to intentionally design campus spaces to promote student learning and development.  Early in the history of our nation’s educational system, Dewey (1933) recognized the powerful role environments play in student learning.  He stated, ” We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment.  Whether we permit chance environments to do the work, or whether we design environment for a purpose makes a great difference.” Campus environments should also be designed to convey a respect and value for diversity and inclusion of all students of the community.  A class assignment, the audit of a campus space, taught me the power of the non-verbal messages communicated through a campus location.  I learned the importance of using the space to convey the mission and values of the office or division in which the space is located and of creating a space that will be perceived positively by all students.

My learning led to reflection as I continually observed the student waiting area of my space on campus, DUS.  Students  slouched in chairs, headphones plugged into ears, eyes staring vacantly ahead as they waited to see their advisers. The static bulletin board housed the same posters from the previous summer.  There were no artifacts to convey the culture of a unit for a diverse group of exploratory students.  It was unclear from this environment who or what mattered to the staff at DUS.  I could not ignore the loss of educational potential occurring in this space as it currently existed.  Was this space reflecting our values and our mission?  I thought not, and I requested permission to audit and improve the space. A major outcome of the audit was developed with the input of student participants.  Students from the DUS leadership council helped to create a checklist that welcomes students to DUS and assists them in preparing for their advising appointments.  This is in keeping with the DUS philosophy that students should take ownership of their educational decisions and make well informed intentional plans.  The checklist supports them in this endeavor and is a reminder of their responsibility to be prepared for appointments.

Another aspect of scholarly practice outlined by McClintock (2003) is that scholar practitioners are continually pushing forward, collaborating with others, and teaching the field to others.  They actively exchange ideas within communities of practice and scholarship.  When my assistantship provider encouraged me to submit a conference presentation proposal, we agreed that asking advisers to consider environmental theory in designing their student spaces was a timely topic.  At the NACADA Region 2 Conference in March, 2012, I presented a review of the elements of environmental theory, an outline of my lobby audit and improvements, and a template for advisers to use in considering their own redesign. My presentation was entitled: Environments Speak:  What is Yours Saying?  I am also on the schedule to present this topic at the ACPA National Convention in March 2013. This link provides the presentation delivered to advisers at the NACADA Region 2 convention:  Environments Speak Powerpoint.

Campus environments offered another opportunity to use not only theory, but research to inform practice. Taking a somewhat pragmatic approach, the project involved the use of self-collected qualitative data and a review of current research to design an environmental  intervention to improve an office or program on campus.  By interviewing students and a program or office staff member and by combining recent research with theory, information derived could be used to improve the practice of the unit.

During my summer internship at FTCAP, I became cognizant of the ever increasing number of international students on our campus.  I was also aware that students who were beginning in the fall semester often arrived just a week or less before classes started.  There was woefully little time to help them acclimate to a new culture both socially and educationally.  Through my research, I learned of the propensity for international students to depend on and get advise from their fellow co-national students often banding with them in lieu of joining campus clubs and organizations.  The international students with whom I spoke confirmed this information and also spoke of their difficulty in adjusting to the difference in American academic culture.  They voiced frustration with both social and academic assimilation and felt there was little time to adjust before classes started. The theoretical importance of engagement and involvement coupled with the information from the students and research led to an intervention that focused on an orientation for these students that was intermittent and ongoing.  My intervention proposed for international students to be clustered into small groups led by an American peer mentor.  The mentor’s role would be to physically lead students through experiences with academic resources, as well as campus events and activities, periodically throughout the first semester.  My intervention project was another example of improving practice with scholarly observation/inquiry coupled with information from theory and research. My environmental intervention paper contains a detailed description of my qualitative student and staff interviews and my subsequent intervention plan:  Environmental Interventions for Asian International Students

HI ED 556 Higher Education Students and Clientele

My class devoted to the study of student clientele in higher education afforded another opportunity for theory and experiences to ferment in the reflective dish of my mind.  This course was structured on Astin’s (1993) Inputs, Environments, and Outcomes model.   Changes in access to higher education for students and the historical-sociological contexts that influenced these changes were introduced.  Increased access remolded and diversified the student bodies on campuses.  Sub-groups of non-traditional students began to emerge along with increasing attendance of student from underrepresented groups.  Retention and persistence became a hot topic of study and led to the creation of models framed in various disciplines that attempted to explain the variables behind college persistence and retention.  A salient assignment from this class was to examine an important outcome of higher education and create our own model to explain the input variables and environmental influences that affect the outcome.  My prior experiences in education and especially, instructional support, led me to select academic achievement.  Extensive reading of studies that described the variables that may influence achievement along with a myriad of environmental programs designed to enhance it resulted in a network of intersecting lines depicted the complicated nature of academic integration.  Click on the link to see My Research and Model of First-Year Student Academic Achievement at Four-Year Universities.

Reflection on this activity caused me to examine my own experiences with student academic achievement in my advising practice.  It was uncanny how for every student I could think of; there were equally as many variables that influenced progress or lack of it.  Some students had difficulty with  social adjustment, some lacked self-efficacy, some became overly involved, while others had personal issues from home to confront. One first generation student who got off to a rough start displayed amazing resiliency by using all the resources at his disposal to make a stellar recovery.  Applying what I learned in the creation of  my model to my students reinforced that persistence and retention are multifaceted entities that cannot be explained by one singular theory.  Tinto (1993) suggests that the most useful information in his study of why students do not complete college is knowledge of the character, roots, understandings, and experiences of each individual who departs.   His statement reinforces why students and their individuality are the cornerstone of how I practice.


Looking back at the work that was assigned during my graduate study, I recognize that it was intentionally designed to develop scholarly practitioners. Assignments reflect McClintock (2003) and Benham’s (1996) characteristics of scholarly practice.  All were grounded in theory and/or research. Each student  was encouraged to select topics that were meaningful to his or her own personal interests and reflected his or her values. The overarching outcomes were to solve problems to inform better practice, and within every context students participated in a community of scholars and shared their learning with each other. This is an enactment of the pragmatic approached espoused by John Dewey who believed that education should take place in the context of real world experiences and problems that are of interest to the student.  Another feature of his educative philosophy was that learning occurs best through problem solving.  My education has been grounded in applying problem solving to real work experiences as well as classroom assignments.  I have become a scholar-practitioner. I believe John Dewey would agree.


Astin, A.W. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1993.

Benham, MKP. (1996). The practitioner-scholars’ view of school changes: A case-based approach to teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (2), pp. 119-135.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think:a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York:  D.C. Heath & Company.

McClintock, C. (2003). Scholar practitioner model. Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning. Retrieved February 10, 2013 from

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   

Tinto, V. (1993).  Leaving College.  Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press.


Posted in Research and Assessment, Student Development and Outcomes | 1 Comment

Group Facilitation – “How Hard CanThis Be?”

When afforded the opportunity, I eagerly volunteered to co-advise the student leadership council of the Division of Undergraduate Studies (DUS).  After all, I love working with students and this opportunity would enhance my leadership skills as well. My co-adviser and I were eager to jointly take on this task. As we read the students’ applications, we realized that we would need to change the focus of the group somewhat.  Past councils focused on enhancing the leadership skills possessed by council members through study of leadership models and styles. However, our incoming leadership council group was brimming with enthusiasm to make a difference for DUS students. It was apparent they wanted to put their leadership skills to work.  A leadership retreat at Shaver’s Creek in late August helped to create a common bond.  All of the students were passionate about their journeys of exploration toward a major and had an abundance of eagerness to share their stories.

IMG_2929   IMG_2943

It was at this point that I learned that advising student groups was far different than working one-on-one with students in an advising or mentoring capacity. In a one-on-one conversation, a few well-selected questions would provide the challenge necessary to prod a student’s thinking.  In a group, the process is much more involved and,  in my opinion,  akin to walking a tightrope! Even among a leadership group, leaders emerge with voices that carry weight. Group facilitation, in general,  balances encouraging students to use reason in their planning efforts without squashing their enthusiasm.  Our discussions and idea generation often took up entire meetings with no consensus reached.  One trick I learned mid-way through the year was the power of online doodle polls.  I decided to collect all ideas for projects during planning sessions and encouraged the students to go home and reflect on the pros and cons of each.  They were asked to think about which projects met the mission of the DUS Leadership Council and would be in the best interest of DUS students.  Then I posted an online Doodle poll and students would vote for their top two choices.  Those that garnered the most support were the projects that moved to fruition. Students began to learn to consider the intent behind their efforts and evaluate a project before moving forward. The seeds of reflection were planted.

IMG_20121114_165402[1]    IMG_20121114_165417[1]

One project that had unanimous support was creating an opportunity to share conversation with fellow DUS international students.  The leadership council students hosted an open house during International Education week and all DUS international students were invited to come with friends.  Information from recent qualitative research with Chinese international students completed by DUS advisers was shared with the leadership council members.  The results suggested that international students are not as involved in co-curricular activities as they would like to be, thus the leadership council made the goal of the open house to share their co-curricular experiences and how these have informed their educational journey.  Through posters and conversation the students shared this message with the international students who attended.

IMG_20121114_165658[1]           IMG_20121114_165722[1]

The international students who did attend were treated to fruit, cake, and conversation.  They heard about a variety of clubs and organizations they could join to enhance both their academic and social experience at Penn State. Friendships were also forged as leadership council members offered to join international students in attending the Winter Welcome Involvement Fair and other upcoming campus events.  At the end everyone left with warm, fuzzy, feelings.

The next day the leadership council students received an email.  Unbeknownst to them, a learning outcome was connected to this activity.  My co-adviser and I hoped that through this program our students would come to see the value in reaching out and developing friendships with diverse groups of people.  The leadership council students were asked in the email to reflect on what, if anything, they learned from the program.   I share some responses.

“To be honest, I’ve never branched out to any Chinese international students simply because I felt they were not interested in getting to know me. Harriet really opened my eyes and I appreciated the similarities both her and I shared.”

“I would say my feelings have changed about international students. Before the open house, I wrongly assumed international students chose to be separate and didn’t bother learning our culture. But especially talking with Jones, he is just not aware of all the many opportunities. He seemed very interested in things once we got talking to him. I will approach other international students with the thought that they want to learn more and do want to experience American activities. “

“Please don’t thank us for our efforts. It was so humbling and such an honor to have the opportunity to talk with the international students that attended yesterday. The courage that it took for them to show up to complete strangers and open us to us was truly remarkable. I felt like it gave me a greater appreciation for the strength they have of leaving their home country and taking on Penn State by themselves. I really hope the small amount of time that I spent having conversations with a few of the students brightened their day, because I know it brightened mine!!”

“I really enjoyed talking to the students and getting a different perspective of their journey at Penn State. It definitely made me respect international students much more because of all the difficulties they face being so far away from home in a brand new environment. I thought this Open House was both beneficial for the Leadership Council and the International Students and I think it is something that should be continued!”

Using the students’ reflections as an assessment of their learning, I found this program to be extremely worthwhile for them to have undertaken.  It helped them meet the mission of service to other DUS students while also providing them with an opportunity for self-authorship.

Posted in Inter-and Intrapersonal Skills, Research and Assessment, Student Development and Outcomes | Leave a comment