SelfAssessAnker

Erik Anker
Spring 18
Exit Self-assessment

Section 1: My project product shows that…
1. I can convey who I want to influence/affect in my final project
a. Goal met: My project states that I want to influence white people primarily, and other demographics inclusively
b. Room for improvement: My goal of addressing white people “between the lines” in the mass-briefing format might come across as disingenuous.

2. I know what others have done before, either in for form of writing or action, that informs and connects with my project, and I know what others are doing now.
a. Goal met: My project incorporates previous scholarship around white identity and various pedagogies that incorporate identity as a principle. I am aware that Janet Helms, PhD., whose white identity model influenced my own, is currently constructing identity models that address racism from various cultural perspectives.
b. Room for improvement: Confronting racism is a never-ending act. My work will have to grow and adapt as times change. I intend to contact Prof Helms and inquire if she thinks my model and approach might contribute to her own.

3. I have teased out my vision, so as to expand my view of issues associate with the project, expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope with the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction.
a. Goal met: Yes. This project went through three different formulations across these dimensions and found significance in the final one.
b. Room for improvement: synthesizing the roadmap and supporting pedagogy in to various delivery methods remains unexplored. Additionally, this project conflates white identity quite often with white male identity, as parsing between the two creates distinctions that are valid, but not to this project. The privilege experienced by white people in general in contrast to that of white males specifically is a nuance this project is not interested in.

4. I have identified the premises and propositions that my project depends on, and can state counter-propositions. I have taken stock of the thinking and research I need to do to counter those counter-propositions or to revise my own propositions.
a. Goal met: Talking about bias, discrimination, oppression, and privilege to white people without bringing up historical and contemporary injustices around race is a proposition I expect to be met with much resistance moving forward. Fortunately, I have reflected enough on the issue to come up with a trenchant response: unlike nonwhite individuals, addressing racial issues in the U.S. is optional for white people. Being too forceful allows them a reason to ignore the issue, which likely won’t affect their lives because of their privilege.
i. Counter-propositions that this pedagogy should take a more explicit, hands-on approach in its delivery are agreed with. Various potentials for delivery options outside of a mass-briefing are explored in the thesis and expected in the future.
b. Room for improvement: Removing whiteness from a white-based identity model, addressing white and nonwhite individuals from that sterilized position, and my seemingly arbitrary use of video game representation without any game being present in the current delivery method open this project up to countless counter-propositions around essentializing, authenticity, and my own privilege and assumptions. I have not yet formulated counter or counter-counter propositions to the myriad of objections I might face. However, I fully intend to bring this project to as many people as possible and formulate those responses in real time through generative dialogue.

5. I have clear objectives with respect to product, both written and practice, and process, including personal development as a reflective practitioner. I have arranged a work sequence with realistic deadlines to realize these objectives.
a. Goal met: My awareness has calibrated for sensitivity to opportunities for growth, which includes moments of dissonance, confrontation, and confusion. I have become acutely aware of these states and take a mindful, as opposed to a frustrated, approach to them. Additionally, I have learnt how to make work “fun,” so as to ensure I do it.
b. Room for improvement: I have not gotten much better at setting my own deadlines beyond a few days.

6. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.
a. Goal met: Yes. I am not sure of the meaning of “readily available” or “other” in this context, but a synthesis of seemingly disparate pedagogic and identity-based models is what my project is.
b. Room for improvement: there is always more information to be gained. I hope to speak with some of the scholars mentioned in my thesis, such as Curdina Hill and Janet Helms.

7. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.
a. Goal met: Yes. I think I have found a reasonable sequence of content and rationale for that content.
b. Room for improvement: I’m positive that the feedback I get from this project will add more nuance to its presentation.

8. My writing and other products Grab the attention of the readers/audience, Orient them, move them along in Steps, so they appreciate the Position I’ve led them to.
a. Goal met: Yes, for the most part. The abstract and Introduction in the thesis do the Grab and Orient, and the rest moves readers through the Steps. One complication to the GOSP model in this project is the “position” I take (racial awareness products for white people are more effective if the “whiteness” is taken out) arises early in the project. It’s the source of much of the posture of the content, so it’s more in the middle of the project than the end. While I could have spent the entire synthesis convincing readers that white people find it offensive to be called racist, I chose to go beyond that early in my formulation.
b. Room for improvement: Several other positions emerge from this project: 1. addressing marginalized individuals in terms of their own biases and privilege is an effective activism. 2. inspiring learners to learn over obliging them to is effective pedagogy. 3. video game representation is attractive and therefore effective in this context. 4. The roadmap is useful theory for delivery methods beyond a mass-briefing. 5. Addressing racist attitudes in a nonjudgmental way inspires growth for whites as racial beings
i. The effectiveness of the mixture personal epistemology, logic, and works cited that this project deploys is an unknown factor. I can feel that if I were to completely justify every one of these positions, I would need another year and 200 more pages of writing.

9. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.
a. Goal met: Yes. Addressing discrimination across a spectrum of privilege and intersectionality is a novel approach to activism. Choosing inspiration over obligation in motivating my learners also seems novel. The intended audience participation in the Story Swap segment of the supporting pedagogy speaks to a new public participation.
b. Room for improvement: In order to realize these new avenues more fully, I need to assess and create methods for delivering this product to the public

10. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.
a. Goal met: Not really. The only factors convincing me that this pedagogy works are its inclusion of past scholarship and the fact that it essentially prompts learners to go through the same racial awareness development that I did, i.e., it worked for me!
b. Room for improvement: Much. The next 3 steps involve: 1. Finishing the unconscious bias, institutional awareness, and empathy slides. 2. Presenting the project to social scientists. 3. Delivering the product to a general audience.

Section 2: Developing as a reflective practitioner, including taking initiatives in and through relationships….
11. I have integrated knowledge and perspectives from other courses into my own inquiry and engagement in social, educational, professional, or personal change.
a. Goal met: Yes. Many of the courses in the CCT program have had a profound influence on my personal growth. Mathematical Thinking, Dialogue Processes, Changing Lives, and Game-based Learning readily spring to mind. Those and other courses that affected my thesis are laid out in the Introduction. I hope to bring the growth I have experienced in the CCT program to my standup comedy as well.
b. Room for improvement: I plan to continuously synthesize my CCT experience into my personal and professional life. There is always room for improvement.

12. I have also integrated my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.
a. Goal met: Yes. The synthesis is a good example of my own inquiries around race and discrimination being incorporated into the CCT program.
b. Room for improvement: Not much, considering that I am finished with the CCT program. However, the dialectic between my CCT experiences and my future inquiries is a permanent fixture in my awareness.

13. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.
a. Goal met: Unfortunately, it took me until my 4th semester in CCT to come across Zotero, a free application for organizing and citing research. It solely allowed me to become drastically more efficient in my inquiries and writing.
b. Room for improvement: I have never been good at organizing my time or enforcing self-made deadlines. I need to continue to work on this.

14. I have experimented with new tools and experiences, even if not every one became part of my toolkit as a learner, teacher/facilitator of others, and reflective practitioner.
a. Goal met: Yes. I developed a number of different products throughout my CCT experience, their formulation a critical component of my synthesis project. I have also engaged in much journaling, finding it more of an obligation than a rewarding experience. I have heavily incorporated tools from the Dialogue Processes class into my everyday living.
b. Room for improvement: My awareness of engaging in a deliberate “dialogue” with elements of my experience I find frustrating is an ongoing process. There is always the compulsion to allow a singular logic or emotion to dominate one’s perception. Addressing that compulsion is a life-long journey.

15. I have paid attention to the emotional dimension of undertaking my own project but have found ways to clear away distractions from other sources (present and past) and not get blocked, turning apparent obstacles into opportunities to move into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory.
a. Goal met: Ongoing. I may have addressed this just above. The meditation practice I engaged in, and continued after, Dialogue Processes has allowed me to recognize obstacles as both opportunities for and miniscule hurdles to my objectives. Additionally, tools like The Believing Game from Critical Thinking have helped me better synthesize confrontation and criticism.
b. Room for improvement: I need to keep up with my meditative practice and further develop my recognition of my own non-mindful states.

16. I have developed peer and other horizontal relationships. I have sought support and advice from peers, and have given support and advice to them when asked for.
a. Goal met: Yes. I have made 2 seemingly lifelong friendships and 3 additional less intense friendships throughout CCT that have had a profound impact on my work. Our dialogue has gone both ways, allowing me to influence their work as well, on multiple occasions.
b. Room for improvement: I have formed a comfortable synthesis of friendship and colleague that I plan to take forward in my life. Having integrated my passions into my work in inquiries, I am naturally postured to make relationships that are mutually rewarding across personal and professional dimensions. I look forward to doing this as much as possible.

17. I have taken the lead, not dragged my feet, in dialogue with my advisor and other readers. I didn’t wait for them to tell me how to solve an expository problem, what must be read and covered in a literature review, or what was meant by some comment I didn’t understand. I didn’t put off giving my writing to my advisor and other readers or avoid talking to them because I thought that they didn’t see things the same way I do.
a. Goal met: Not really. I definitely dragged my feet at portions this semester. It was not because I was skeptical of the feedback, but because I hadn’t fully fleshed out all the moving parts until relatively late in the semester. I enjoy feedback on a mostly-completed theory, but I prefer not to extensively engage until I reach that point. Once I had a good theory in my mind, I was very willing to reach out to my advisor and colleagues.
b. Room for improvement: Plenty. Feedback can formulate in theory to be more trenchant, so I need to be more willing to share half-baked ideas in safe settings.

18. I have revised seriously, which involved responding to the comments of others. I came to see this not as bowing down to the views of others, but taking them in and working them into my reflective inquiry until I could convey more powerfully to others what I’m about (which may have changed as a result of the reflective inquiry).
a. Goal met: Yes. I took feedback from colleagues and my advisor and made explicit changes to my synthesis through it. I never once considered taking feedback as a power dynamic.
b. Room for improvement: There is always room for improvement, but I feel considerably more open to, even excited about, getting feedback. I’m in a good place here.

19. I have inquired and negotiated formal standards, but gone on to develop and internalize my own criteria for doing work—criteria other than jumping through hoops set by the professor so I get a good grade.
a. Goal met: Yes. Over time in the CCT program, I have learned to use empathy in engaging syllabi. What was at first a litany of checkboxes, over time and definitely during the synthesis process, have become useful tools for growth.
b. Room for improvement: That said, some of the components of CCT have not revealed themselves to be more useful than cumbersome, even upon reflection. I suppose the work-flow I have designed for myself will always carry judgment for what I perceive to work or not work. I can recognize when scaffolding is either too tight or too loose for my style of learning and inquiry.

20. I have approached the course (and the program I am a student in) as works-in-progress, which means that, instead of harboring criticisms to submit after the fact, I have found opportunities to affirm what is working well and to suggest direction for further development.
a. Goal met: Yes. I definitely have come to see my work in the CCT program, as well as the program itself, as a work in progress. I have developed a priority of process over product that can take experiences from CCT and carry them throughout my life. Harboring criticisms is an exercise in petulance, so I avoid that intentionally.
b. Room for improvements: Much of the growth here, and mentioned throughout this reflection, is new in my life. Less than two years. This means that there are specific areas for improvement, but the most obvious path lies in becoming more consistent, aware, and effective in those areas. At this point, I am not really looking for new paths for growth. While I am open to them, I am more focused on further exploring those paths I have already discovered, until they become intrinsic parts of my experience with the world.