The NASPA/ACPA Professional Competencies provide a valuable framework for student affairs practitioners to understand the varied needed to support students and the needs of our departments and institutions. While I have grown in various ways with regards to the professional competencies during my time in the Higher Education and Student Affairs (HESA) program at Indiana University, I’ve outlined my development in the three competencies below. I’ve linked a related artifact for each competency, but I welcome you to explore all of my artifacts at this page.

Assessment, Evaluation, and Research (AER) Outcomes

Foundational: Facilitate appropriate data collection for system/department-wide assessment and evaluation efforts using current technology and methods.

This academic year has been largely what my supervisor and I consider to be an infrastructure-building year, in which we’ve taken stock of the department’s current processes and attitudes as they pertain to assessment practice. One way in which I’ve supported the development of an assessment infrastructure has been developing a process for collecting assessment data from over 250 staff members across 13 residential communities. In doing so, my goal was (1) to make data collection as easy and seamless as possible for the in-hall staff that will be facilitating educational programs and assessment techniques and (2) manageable for me as the assessment grad to compile this data into accessible reports on a regular basis. This process will be incorporated into Residential Programs and Services’ adaptation of Roompact in the fall 2019 semester, but you can find a current draft of this process here (created in Google Forms).

Intermediate: Design ongoing and periodic data collection efforts such that they are sustainable, rigorous, as unobtrusive as possible, and technologically current.

As part of the infrastructure-building outlined in the previous AER outcome, I worked with a colleague to conduct a needs assessment pertaining to staff attitudes towards their level of ability with regards to various assessment practices. To this end, we implemented a needs assessment administered in Qualtrics (considered to be a leading research software), also meaning that the survey is sustainable (administered via personal technology), rigorous in that it measured many different assessment skills, and unobtrusive in that the survey was approximately 7-9 minutes and could also be completed on mobile devices. In facilitating this survey, I was able to obtain proportional feedback across all levels of my department, from graduate to professional staff as well as the departmental leadership team.

Intermediate: Communicate and display data through a variety of means (publications, reports, presentations, social media, etc.) in a manner that is accurate; transparent regarding the strengths, limitations, and context of the data; and sensitive to political coalitions and realities associated with data as a scarce resource.

As I continue to support a culture of evidence within my department, one of my primary means to achieve this is by closing the loop on assessment projects. This currently takes the form of compiling any gathered data and providing a summarized version back to my colleagues, summarizing key findings and the implications for our procedures as a department moving forward. The needs assessment that I outlined above has recently closed, and I will make the report of results available as soon as I am able to.

Click here to view a working draft of the “Program Wrap-Up” form, designed to collect program attendance and assessment data from Residential Life Staff

Law, Policy, and Governance (LPG) Outcomes

Foundational: Explain the differences between public, private, and for-profit higher education with respect to the legal system and what they may mean for respective students, faculty, and student affairs professionals.

During my current (fourth) semester of graduate coursework, I am taking a course called “The College Student and the Law.” This course began with a firm grounding in the public-private institutional dichotomy, and the ways that student services and institutional policies may result as a direct result of those differences. After engaging in readings and class discussions around pertinent constitutional amendments such as the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, I have been able to directly apply those principles to a number of cases with direct implications for higher education, including:

Foundational: Describe the student conduct process at the institutional level and demonstrate concern for the legal, social, moral, educational, and ethical expectations of the community.

Through my paraprofessional experiences, I have had the opportunity to serve as a hearing officer for both Residential Life and the Office of Student Conduct. Both have been instrumental in shaping my perspective on the role of campus judicial systems and provided me with different contexts for the role of the judicial process. As a residential life hearing officer, I met with students (mostly from my own residential community) and engaged them in discussion and reflection on a variety of low-level conduct violations, including violations of alcohol and drug policies, as well as matters pertaining to quiet hours, prohibited items, etc. My experience as a residential conduct officer allowed me to understand the restorative component of conduct as it pertains to the residential community. I was not only able to intervene in potentially problematic behavioral patterns, but also to help students understand the educational outcomes of conduct, and why the university is so invested in correcting problematic behaviors.

Similarly, my university-level cases allowed me to facilitate higher level misconduct cases as well as cases relating to academic misconduct. I had the opportunity to directly engage with campus partners, including campus police, parking operations, and faculty, and to serve as a resource to help students and campus partners alike understand how the conduct process worked. Whereas my residential conduct experience allowed me to understand the role of conduct at the community and departmental level, serving as a graduate hearing officer in the Office of Student Conduct afforded me the chance to firmly develop an understanding of the conduct system in the institutional context, as well as the key partners and institution level policies that made this process differ from residential life.

Click here to view my Shamloo vs. Mississippi State case brief

Tech (TECH) Outcomes [PDF of TECH Competency Report available here]

Foundational: Remain current on student and educator adoption patterns of new technologies and familiarize oneself with the purpose and functionality of those technologies.

One way in which I have been better able to serve the students that I work with has been keeping up with technological trends, particularly with regards to how technology is being utilized on the Indiana University Bloomington campus. A great example of this is the University’s recent transition to Canvas as it’s learning management system (LMS) of choice. As staff and instructors become knowledgeable of the Canvas platform and how the software and supplement instruction, I’ve noticed that faculty and staff are becoming more comfortable using some of the more advanced features available on the platform. As a result, I decided to create a Canvas page for a student support program that I coordinate, Thrive@IU. Utilizing a Canvas page for a co-curricular program has allowed me to easil integrate program requirements and reminders with the other courses that students are a part of, making things more convenient for all across the board.

Foundational: Troubleshoot basic software, hardware, and connectivity problems and refer more complex problems to an appropriate information technology administrator.

From issues such as wi-fi connectivity and connecting to a virtual private network, to nuanced case uses for software such as Microsoft Office, Excel, Qualtrics, and other platforms, I pride myself on being able to diagnose many basic computer problems and assist my colleagues with unique case uses. I firmly believe that 99% of tech-related concerns can be resolved by carefully reading through the vendor or university-distributed documentation and applying some basic troubleshooting steps. At IU, I’ve developed a good grasp of navigating the Knowledge Base, which is the University’s hub for all university IT documentation. In cases where I might need a little extra help, I’ve developed an understanding of the various units in IT services and the process of submitting a help ticket through the Jira platform.

Click here to view my technology competency report.

Conclusion

As the higher education landscape continues to change at a rapid pace, my work as a scholar-practitioner will continue to be guided by the NASPA/ACPA professional competencies, as well as those of related functional areas, including ACUHO-I (housing and residence life) and the Association for Institutional Research (AIR). Many of my professional interests intersect with the assessment and technology competencies — two areas of higher education that are ostensibly the most rapidly developing of all the competencies. My continued development in the above competencies will allow me to continue being a theory-oriented scholar-practitioner, providing the most impactful and meaningful services to my institution, department, and the students that I ultimately serve. If you’re interested in keeping up with the ways that I continue to grow in the NASPA/ACPA competencies, I welcome you to explore my blog, linked here. (also accessible from the top navigation bar).