Jeneen Mucci

December 4, 2009

I. "MY SYNTHESIS PRODUCT SHOWS THAT..."

A. I can convey who I want to influence/affect concerning what (Subject, Audience, Purpose).

What went well: The idea of “Mentoring Towards Resilient Thought” has been a focus that I have been developing and fine tuning throughout my experiences within the CCT Program. I believe that since I have a passion and a commitment to this subject, my own personal and professional connection to this topic allowed me to develop my focus quickly, and I was then able to convey this idea to my peers and Arthur very early within my work. In addition, I was also able to start conversations in regards to the project with those within my organization in order to think about ways of infusing the work early in the process.

What needs improvement: Since developing a project, such as this Synthesis was a new experience, I was not always comfortable with the process of writing in segments that may not be in the order that the final paper would mirror. If I was to engage in a similar, long-term project, I might approach its development differently. At the beginning of my work, although I created an outline that I followed in the project’s development, I might have viewed the development of the chapters separately or developed a more extensive narrative outline that could have helped me develop each chapter to stand alone until they were seamlessly brought together as part of the synthesis.


B. I know what others have done before, either in the form of writing or action, that informs and connects with my project, and I know what others are doing now.

What went well: In developing my synthesis, I utilized and referred to the work that I completed in courses 692 and 693, and expanded upon the research as I began the process of developing this project. I was also able to develop a stronger understanding of practitioners such as Drs. Werner, Smith and Bernard who have paved the way for resiliency research to break through this idea of “pathology” and view and identify mechanisms to research and reflect on resiliency through the lens of protective factors. In addition, I was also able to identify other researchers such as Dr. Jean Rhodes, who expanded the focus of my work by addressing the connection between resiliency-building and mentoring. In reading and reflecting on the work of these researchers, I not only found pertinent information that had a strong link to my project, but I also identified with how they understood the importance of building resiliency from a holistic viewpoint and the importance of the role of a mentor in developing this resilient thought.

What needs improvement: I feel that there will always be more relevant research in the fields of mentoring and resiliency and many other avenues with which to expand my focus of “Mentoring Towards Resilient Thought.” I would also like to expand my knowledge of the techniques that these researchers utilize and think about ways of incorporating their ideas with my own vision. In addition, I would like to connect more with those with whom I work and supervise to gauge their own ideas of mentoring and resiliency-building. I think it is important to both incorporate their own ideas in the process of embedding this curriculum guide within the work of youth development, as well as involving them in modifying and changing aspects of the guide in order to meet the needs and interests of the mentors and mentees.


C. I have teased out my vision, so as to expand my view of issues associated with the project, expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope within the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction.

What went well: In developing the scope of my project by building on the work of previous semesters, and also thinking about expanding the work to enhance my own professional life and as a reflective practitioner, I was able to identify a development path that had a distinct focus and relevance to my work within the CCT program and beyond. In developing this focus, I utilized questioning and mapping tools to identify the many different components of my projects, including the different foci that I was interested in researching. One of the main areas that helped me throughout the process was the development of my outline. Each section of my outline began and ended with questions that I knew I could answer, as well as those questions that I was working on to formulate answers. It was because of these key questions that allowed me to help mold my work and to also generate many of the tools that I included in the Curriculum Guide.

What needs improvement: In developing my key questions, I often felt inundated by the many directions and ways that I thought of developing this project and process. I would have liked to have developed the essential key questions earlier in my process to establish a stronger focus to the project from the beginning.


D. 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.

What went well: Through building and reflecting on the many different perspectives of my work and research (i.e. looking at resiliency as a shift from the preventative to the protective process, and the impact of mentoring from a “natural” perspective and connection), I have a stronger understanding of how to utilize the argument/counter argument discussion, how to connect it to my work and how to develop my own viewpoint and response. I was not only able to see the arguments/perspectives of both sides (i.e. the different views/perspectives of developing resiliency and connections and impact of mentoring and the populations most affected by mentoring), but I was also able to think of solutions from opposing viewpoints. The argument/counter argument viewpoint allowed me to identify areas of my argument that needed improvement and also helped me to support and understand what exactly I was developing.

What needs improvement: I would like to research and further expand the argument/counter argument that resiliency-building is an essential component of the afterschool or Out-of-School-Time (OST) Program, and that natural mentoring can play an essential role in helping young people to develop resilient thought. I think it is important to develop a clearer sense of how schools and enrichment programs view resiliency-building, and the role it plays within their learning environment. Furthermore, how curricula and/or strategies such as 21st Century Learning Frameworks are viewed and embedded within the work of these organizations.

E. I have clear objectives with respect to product, both written and practice, and process, including personal development as a reflective practitioner. I have arranged my work in a sequence (with realistic deadlines) to realize these objectives.

What went well: In developing my Synthesis Project, I gained a better sense of how I needed to better organize my work, my thought process and my goals. Both my own developmental process, as well as the expectations and timeline of the course, allowed me to conceive of and design how I wanted my project to develop, and allowed me to adhere to my own and the course’s daily/weekly priorities. The design model that I created for my Synthesis helped shape the course of my work and allowed me to create long and short term goals. It also influenced how I could impact other areas of my own work and the work of others.

What needs improvement: Although I knew my focus from the beginning of my coursework, I was not always comfortable with my own progress and pace of completing my own personal goals. I have come to realize that the organic nature of developing this type of project is not like other projects within CCT, and therefore I sometimes should have been less rigid in what I thought I should be accomplishing and when.


F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.

What went well: I had the opportunity refer to work previously completed in course 692 and 693 and I also discussed my project and my research with a few of the experts in the field. Dr. Donna Duffy was one perspective that was especially helpful. Her findings on resiliency allowed me to view the field through a psychological perspective as opposed to my own youth development perspective. This was critical in understanding how and why resiliency is at the center of some work with young people and not others. I also had the opportunity to connect with and attend a workshop developed by Mass Mentors. This workshop, as well as the additional resources that were generated by this workshop, gave me a stronger connection to mentoring and its importance for young people, how it should be developed and supported. In addition, I drew from my own experiences through my organization, in which I reflected on past and present relationships with young people and the connection staff have to the young people with whom we serve. Furthermore, I have also had the opportunity to discuss this work with colleagues within the field to identify ways of connecting the work of my Synthesis to the day-to-day experiences of youth work in a quality program.

What needs improvement: I would like to gain other perspectives on the topics of resiliency and mentoring by interviewing other professionals in the fields of youth development, education and psychology to identify how these areas of research and engagement differ in their methods of identifying and supporting resiliency in young people.


G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.

What went well: Having the opportunity to write each week and share my progress and experiences with those within the Synthesis Seminar was very powerful for me. As I worked on and shared each section of my synthesis and my research, I realized which areas in my argument were strong and also which areas needed further research, explanation and/or definition. Also, the questions and clarifications about my work allowed me to think further about the ways my project needed to develop.

What needs improvement: Having opportunities to share and reflect on my work has had an enormous affect on how my work developed. I need to develop more opportunities to share what I am thinking and developing.


H. 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.

What went well: Utilizing the work of previous semesters was essential for me in terms of identifying past work that grabbed the attention of the reader. I utilized these pieces to help me develop the same process, tone and order for my Synthesis. By not only utilizing my past voice and also the input of the audience of the weekly seminar classes, they allowed me to refine my focus and identify more specifically the path I wanted to develop through the process. In developing my process and my working outline, I was cognizant that I needed to move the readers along and involve them in the chain of events that would be both parts of my project (i.e. the reflective paper and the curriculum guide). I believe that there was a clear path to understanding my focus and my ultimate goal.

What needs improvement: The sharing exercises that we engaged in weekly, not only allowed me to identify how I could modify, change or improve my ideas based on the suggestions of others, but I also gained this perspective by reading the work of others. I would like to further develop my abilities as a peer reviewer, as well as a peer sharer.


I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.

What went well: Having the opportunity to share, critique and reflect throughout this process has allowed me to become a more thoughtful reflector. I was able to identify my own strengths and skills, and also work towards building competencies in other areas along the way. By being a participant on many different levels (i.e. sharer, reader, evaluator, inquirer and researcher), I have become more intentional and disciplined in how I approach the research and reflective process.

What needs improvement: I would like to continue to develop this work as a reflective practitioner, and think of other ways that I can challenge myself to develop through reflective practices.


J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.

What went well: Throughout the process of my work this semester and throughout the CCT Program, I have become more intentional and aware of how I can be engaged in and reflect on my own learning and my influence on others. The Synthesis Seminar and process has allowed me to address my needs, as well as take ownership of and develop my own ideas, whether research or reflective-based.

What needs improvement: Developing a more specific strategic plan early in the semester in order to develop and assess work and priorities, would benefit my work in the future.


II. DEVELOPING AS A REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER, INCLUDING TAKING INITIATIVE IN AND THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

1. I have integrated knowledge and perspectives from CCT and other courses into my own inquiry and engagement in social and/or educational change.

What went well: I feel that my experience throughout this course, and throughout my experiences in CCT, have become intertwined with who I am and how I experience the world around me. The work that I have been engaged in throughout this program has re-energized who I am as an inquirer, a creator and also a thoughtful decision-maker. This revitalization has allowed me to not only integrate my knowledge-building into work that I do, but it has also allowed me to be more thoughtful and intentional in how I encourage and develop my own ideas.

What needs improvement: I would like to learn more about the CCT Alumni experience, and how the program has continued to influence them and its impact on current CCT students

2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.

What went well: I feel that my work and interactions with peers within CCT became more fluid as each course/semester passed. I have become more comfortable sharing my ideas as an inquirer, as well as sharing both positive and negative experiences about my process. I also feel that I have become more of an “accomplished novice” in designing, developing and reflecting on my own experiences with critical and creative thinking, and have learned to embrace and utilize the ambiguity that sometimes marks the path of being a critical and creative thinker.

What needs improvement: I need to continue to be intentional and reflective on my work outside of my research, that is, the process that includes outside perspectives and peer/colleague input.


3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.

What went well: I have come to understand my own process, timelines and needs throughout my time in CCT. I have a deeper understanding of what it means to be organized for myself and how I must proceed with tasks outside of the traditional research and project development (i.e. interviews, program inquiries, evaluative tools).

What needs improvement: I need to focus and reflect more on how not to become overwhelmed by my own organizational practices and learn to be more flexible with myself. In addition, I need to learn/realize that my work does not have to and will not be perfect on the first try.

4. 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.

What went well: Having many opportunities to not only write, but also for feedback were key opportunities for me in order to continuously learn how to rephrase and redevelop my ideas. Having three different perspectives read and work through my process and project with me in regards to the Synthesis was an interesting and eye-opening experience. This continuous feedback became an important tool for me because it enabled me to take on different perspectives while I wrote and challenged me to ensure that my own voice was still present after edits and suggestions were digested and incorporated. As I would write, I would revisit these comments often and try to include these perspectives or reflections in the styles I created.

What needs improvement: I continuously strive to build perspective as I write. I try to actively involve the perspective of the audience in what I create and also reflect on and reevaluate the process I use and develop.


5. I have paid attention to the emotional dimensions of undertaking my own project but have found ways to clear away distractions from other sources (present & past) and not get blocked, turning apparent obstacles into opportunities to move into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory.

What went well: As with the majority of the work that I have been involved within CCT, I have a personal/emotional commitment to what I offer, visualize, develop and create. What has helped in developing this work and the process, is my own understanding of my work, how it is connected to my life, what future connections I can make, both personally and professionally and also the support of those around me who remind me who I am within the work and how to sometimes pull me from my work and my own thought processes. Perspective-building is an important component in indentifying who I am within the work, but it is also an important tool to help remove me from the work when it becomes too daunting. The perspective of others, peers, friends and relatives, help me to find my center and therefore move me forward within the work and the process. In addition, when faced with obstacles throughout the semester and throughout my time within the CCT Program, I have found these times to not only be challenges, but also the times when I learned the most, was humbled by the process and re-energized by the thought of what I could accomplish next.

What needs improvement: I sometimes find myself becoming overwhelmed by the “big picture” and the work that needed to be completed on many different levels. I need to utilize more of my “centering” tools in order to focus on and tackle projects, thoughts and/or objectives in a more manageable manner.


6. 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.

What went well: Throughout the course of my work within CCT, I have come to have a stronger ability to share my work with my peers. I have always held the work that I have created very personal, and so it has sometimes been hard for me to not get anxious when others read, critiqued and evaluated my work. However, although I still hold on to some of these traits, in many ways, I have come to depend on the ideas and feedback of my peers in order to develop/create projects and processes that challenge and help me on my developmental journey. I have therefore built a good network of peers with which to share and build ideas. I have also integrated the work of the courses with my own personal/professional life, and have therefore asked for ideas, direction and/or critique outside the realm of CCT.

What needs improvement: Although this process has evolved for me and is becoming more embedded in the work that I do, I must remain intentional in how I solicit advice, ideas and critique from others. Even though this is something that I am doing on a more regular basis, I must stay focused on keeping this an integral part of my process.


7. I have taken the lead, not dragged my feet, in dialogue with my advisor and other readers. I didn't wait for the 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 as I do.

What went well: Throughout the semester and my time within the CCT program, I was very task-oriented, took initiative and adhered to the set assignment deadlines to stay on track for each of my courses, and created my own checklist for the specific work that was required for each of my experiences. I was very proactive in attempting and completing assignments and looked forward to comments from peers and each of my professors on how I could improve and/or reflect for next time. I also learned to take comments as suggestions and not as criticisms of my work. I therefore used these comments as guides or perspective-builders for future assignments.

What needs improvement: Sometimes, I believe that I am too task-oriented and focused on what needs to be completed. I have to become more comfortable with slowing down.


8. 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 own 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).

What went well: Throughout my experiences within CCT, I have become more accepting of feedback and have come to realize that feedback is my own perspective-building. Having the experience this semester of three perspectives (i.e. my Synthesis Advisor, reader and editor) reading and critiquing my work, has been an exercise allowing me to not build my ideas around the ideas of others, but by using their ideas to enhance what is already on the page. This has been especially interesting when these perspectives could lead me down different paths of thought. Also, how I have used these ideas will influence how I continue to write and speak and also how I think about the writing and research process. Furthermore, I have learned to use others’ comments as a part of my developmental process in reflecting and addressing areas that I feel may need some flushing out within my own research.

What needs improvement: I would like to continue to become more comfortable with feedback in order to enhance my own experience.


9. I have inquired and negotiated about 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.

What went well: Since I always strove to develop and research topics that I was interested in and passionate about, I feel that although I understood the criteria and the guidelines that were essential components of the courses of the CCT Program, I was free to develop my own ideas and also my own criteria for what this work meant to me and how I should tackle it. The process I developed within the CCT Program became embedded in the work in which I was committed. Therefore, my professional, personal and academic experiences were seamlessly connected. This also helped my focus in determining the path I chose for myself.

What needs improvement: Although I did not feel as though I was held to the constraints of the criteria of what I should be doing, I was held to my own criteria of developing or creating something poignant, meaningful and/or something that represented who I am. A strong part of my nature is to complete and/or develop something that is the best of who I am and what I can accomplish. Although I see myself in this way, I think it would behoove me to look at my work from a not so critical eye.


10. I have approached the CCT synthesis course and the CCT program 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 directions for further development.

What went well: Throughout my coursework in my Synthesis Seminar and also throughout my work within CCT, I have come to understand and gained an affinity for working through ambiguity. In understanding that everything we work, focus on and develop is part of a bigger picture that can be continuously modified, changed or improved, has come to be very important in my own process. Knowing that my work has the opportunity to be continuously expanded and modified, is not only empowering but also freeing. The “work-in-progress” component has allowed me to be not only truer to myself in the work that I want to focus on, but also in how the process could develop. As I stated earlier, the process of viewing the work as “work-in-progress” is much like viewing myself as an “accomplished novice.” Although I have learned a lot and reflected on the ever-changing perspectives that I develop and believe, there is always more opportunities to learn and grow and to realize how much I still need to know. I feel these lessons in flexibility and perspective-building will continue with me long after my experiences in CCT have ended.

What needs improvement: Understanding that my work is ongoing and involves professionals and a direct service component, I must find new ways of keeping my work current, applicable and ensuring that it still epitomizes what it means to be a work-in-progress. In order for this to continue, I must find intentional ways of keeping this work alive and seek out professionals, peer connections, research and/or programs that can reenergize my motivation, momentum and the development of this work. In developing this continuous approach to learning and living, I must always understand that I need to be the center of my own reflective processes and remain open to other reflective practitioners who are challenged to develop their own process as well.