SelfAssessRiach

Lorna Riach

May 2012

I. "MY SYNTHESIS PRODUCT SHOWS THAT..."
(adapted from the "Phases of research and engagement" in the Practicum course in the expectation that these are also relevant goals for students' work in moving towards the synthesis product)

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

• Done well: My project was defined as a personal experience of fears in creativity – and my own desire to identify fears with the goal of making a plan to work with them/through them and not have them be blocking. I think I was clear that this project (and my CCT experience) had an overarching theme of “seeking change I once didn’t know I sought” – and that in that sharing my experience, others could make connections with their own CCT experience.
• Could improve: I think I could more clearly define the wider audience and perhaps make it more explicitly clear that the tools and processes from CCT that I used in the project could be used in many different areas that one may seek personal change (not just in creativity, not just with fears.)


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.


• Done well: The vast array of research I have collected from this project tells me that I have explored (to at least identify) what others have done before me. I also think I used the availability of other CCT synthesis projects and alumni (Crystal King) to my advantage early on in the process. These references helped shape the paper content, and to a greater extent allowed me to monitor and identify my own creative process in action with the synthesis. I think I made good use of the tools for research available from the library and from CCT courses (including the formation of different annotated bibliographies) to find the sources to which I felt most connected.
• Could improve: I didn’t utilize some of the ‘alert’ features that are available on google scholar, etc – that would have informed me if any new research emerged after the last time I had researched it. In this sense, I could have done a better job of ensuring that the research I performed was still current (and not disproven) during my own synthesis of it. I also think if I had more “time” I could have explored more books that were available – since it was in the recounting of stories in book format (as opposed to the more research based articles in journals) that I connected most and found parallels in what I experienced and what others had experienced.






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.

• Done well: I think that a pivotal part of my synthesis was when I saw patterns of action, thinking and behavior in my own writing/creativity that had a larger implication for the action, thinking and behavior that I had in some life situations, as well. In doing this, I was able to better see that the change I sought in writing extended beyond just the realm of writing/creativity and instead was a mirror image of the change I seek in making bolder and more self directed choices in life. In doing so, I may find myself vulnerable for judgment and exposure of weaknesses – but also that it is in these moments that I can then foster new relationships and turn weaknesses into knowledge for strength.
• Could improve: I think I can still improve upon the melding of my different concept of “selves” that I have – in that I have work self, school self, daughter self, friend self, etc. By a large step – this project has helped me meld these selves into a more cohesive concept for my own creativity. But I think that because I indentified that I was more or less open for risk and exposure depending on the role I was playing – could have led to a more in depth exploration of the concepts of “self” and a better explanation on how to blend the various forms of “self” that someone could feel.

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.

• Done well: I think I’ve touched upon the concept of fear and how we identify and develop fears. I think a main focus is on the use of rationalization in fears – to both recognize then and to overcome them. This was probably the most defined and explicit examination of fear that I made clearest in my synthesis. I think I’ve also explained how my writing has improved my reflective practice, which is a direct relationship to one another.
• Could improve: There are several arguments or propositions related to fear that I didn’t explore. I tried to mention in the synthesis when I wasn’t touching them (i.e., phobias, cultural and social influences in detail) – but their content seemed too large to me to both include/not include. I could have done a better job at defining these more clearly.

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.

• Done well: I think through daily writing and the use of goal setting in such writing (which was a later addition to daily writing for me), I was able to establish what to leave in and what to weed out of this project. Without the ability to think critically about the content and the ability of that content to meet both the goal of the paper (in terms of due date, page requirements) and the goal of the paper in terms of content – this could have continued to be something I worked on for many months. But, the daily writing helped me set goals that I needed in order to manipulate the content for the project. The influence of reflective practice was evident in this in that I used daily writing to be a check in (on occasion) to see how my thinking and my commitment to complete things on time we in sync with one another.
• Could improve: I think because this is an area that seems (to me) to be focused in “task completion” (and to a larger extent – “task assignment”) then it leaves me in my strongest and weakest thinking patterns. It’s strong because I am task oriented, and it is through the envisioning of tasks that I complete larger goals (whether or not I can clearly articulate the tasks at each stage is another thing…) But it’s my weakest because my focus sometimes can turn to focusing on the tasks itself (once defined) that I shut down some opportunities for thinking about different opportunities for connection. This occurred early on in my project – which delayed me from getting to the ‘starting place’ of taking action in overcoming fears. I was taking the action, but the majority of my writing in the early parts of the project was on the focus of fleshing out some concepts in fear and creativity because I had tasked myself with completing a ‘chapter’ or a section (that in the end, never made it into my paper, anyway.) I’ll keep an eye on this moving forward now that I am aware of how my thinking can be influenced by the greater need to “get things done” and stay on task.


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

• Done well: I joined a couple of online forums (www.fear.com, etc) which offer blogs and weekly stories about “everyday” people overcoming fear – and these were helpful because they would ‘show up’ in my email and keep me thinking about the project and the topic – even when I wasn’t committing specific time toward it. This helped me connect the topic with the more every day implications of it. Also, because I focused on a personal change – I think in my actions and trial/error of overcoming fear, this was more meaningful than any piece of research or book alone.
• Could improve: I didn’t use my resources around me for how people (every day) were dealing with and overcoming fears in creativity or in life. I didn’t connect more with the people that I see in everyday life, or who have a role in my own life as much as I probably could have. I’m very inspired by the use of stories and I think this would have been a good way to connect how my project may have even been interpreted or connected with those already in my life.


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

• Done well: Throughout my piece I think I’m having a conversation with the reader (or to an extent, with myself). That was my goal, anyway – and that’s what I think I’ve done. There are several pieces of research or ‘actions’ that I tried that I tried to explain and provide to the reader, then provide how I was able to do or try the actions myself. I think I did well in intermixing the research and my own progress or narrative voice.
• Could improve: I think I could have fleshed some of the concepts and actions out further (and even made this more of the focus of the synthesis – and maybe not including the original chapters on fear) so that the entire synthesis could be a project about research/action that it was. It may have read better (easier?) and seemed more concise.

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.


• Done well: I think I’ve tried to have the synthesis unveil as a conversation on paper. From the beginning, I try and prepare the reader that they’re going on a journey – a journey about my own journey. I’ve found that I am most interested in reading when someone is sharing their experience with me in both explicit and action-oriented ways (so, I tell you what I have learned, then I share how I learned it or how I apply it) .. and I think I accomplished that in my own paper.
• Could improve: I think there’s a clunky transition in some of the writing between the first and second part. I feel from the mid-section (after the philosophical and researched review of fear) and on the writing reads better. But in order to keep it from being too long (in which many a reader would give up) I tried to keep the front area a bit shorter. This means I didn’t have as much of what I think I did well (see above) and this left it feeling a bit clunky and terse.


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

• Done well: Wow, this is tough for me to interpret. I think in terms of avenues I’ve taken … then I’ve taken new avenues of learning and in public participation (though my workshop experience to gain feedback from others.) If this means I’ve actually taken what I’ve learned to facilitate a classroom, workplace or public participation – then I’ve not done that well at all, since it wasn’t my focus. But it has now become something I can talk freely about to others because I’ve completed it.
• Could improve: I could have brought more people in, earlier. I could have explored more contact with writers who experience fear and personally speak with them about how they overcome it.


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

• Done well: I’ve included what worked well for me in the actions – like short bursts, rituals, exercise, feedback. These all worked well for me and allowed me to proceed through the synthesis in a way that I wouldn’t have foreseen – even as I was starting them. I also think I’ve identified what my weaknesses can be and that I know to keep an eye on them when the CCT experience is over and I’m once again free to manage my time. For example, that I don’t work so much that I forget to nurture my own creativity.
• Could improve: I think I could explore more how to really get one’s work “out there” and how to work toward publishing (or sharing) or even state that publishing something is a goal of mine. I think I could have done a better job exploring and defining the ultimate purpose for my writing. The synthesis is a moment in time for my writing- the creation or generation of a writing practice. But it would be an interesting exercise for me to have considered if I could identify any long terms foals of my writing and then included that as an explicit ‘next step’ for my projects 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.


• Done well: I have adopted many of the thinking habits from the classes – from thinking dispositions, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and the use of problem based learning techniques. My thought evaluation and processes have changed with the awareness of metacogntition and reflection, which has allowed for a deeper development of my own thinking about my thinking.
• Could improve: I have occasionally brought tools in to try at work when the people (or the mix of people) were not quite ready. I need to learn how to use CCT tools in an environment where the individuals of a group are not always available. This will bring about more change for my own workplace.



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


• Done well: I have found ways to bring the content of the CCT courses into both my personal and professional life. Personally, through the exploration of a synthesis and the development of a reflective practice. I think CCT has allowed my reflective practice voice to become strongest in my writing and for that I’m appreciative. And professionally, I have used the convergent and divergent thinking approaches that I’ve learned in process improvement projects, and problem evaluation tools for evaluation of errors for root cause analysis. These CCT processes have very much become a part of my thinking processes.
• Could improve: I could be more forthcoming with those that I am utilizing the exercises at work – I tend to “slip them in” without the announcement of their origin. In that sense, I’m not endorsing CCT in my professional setting verbally, even though in action we are modeling the CCT practices.


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


• Done well: This is my own personal strength – in that I can super organize time, make adjustments to my plans as needed and keep research materials, notes and thoughts in line. I have several bibliographies from my different classes in RefWorks and have exported them to files that I have available as needed.
• Could improve: I could improve the organization of the paper “hangover” from classes. I’m organized electronically (and the requirement of a Reflective Practitioner Portfolio has been a large proponent on keeping my electronic files organized on my wiki.) But the papers and books are in three baskets in my office and I need to think about how to best organize this information should I need it.


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.


• Done well: I have learned a wiki! When it was first introduced in PBL (my second class) – I had no idea what it was. However, I used the time to learn how to modify and make pages, etc – and this has been a lesson that has actually had more direct applicability in some of my work and personal interests. In a sense, I understand some level of basic page management and it provided me another example of how to organize written materials in a hyperlink format.
• Could improve: I think I could have experimented with the use of a Focused Conversation within CCT – as this is a tool that I can imagine has huge impact at my workplace (or even to some extent in family dynamics) and I would have liked to have the experience facilitating it within the framework of CCT students.


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.


• Done well: Well, considering my synthesis (at its core) was an exploration about emotions in thinking – I think I’ve considered this quite deeply. This has been the biggest influence of CCT in my own thinking – that I now connect the influence that emotions have on my thinking and it means that others have the same influence. CCT has been instrumental in allowing me to not “learn” this connection – but to SEE it, EXPERIENCE it, and DIGEST it. For this, I am grateful.
• Could improve: I wish that I had “seen”, “experienced”, “digested” this interest a bit earlier in the program so that I could have spent more time considering it. I am interested in the role of conscious and unconscious thought, ethical and moral thinking, and philosophical considerations of emotions and thinking. Even an exploration of EQ would have been interested. The role of emotions in thinking is something that deeply interests me.


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.


• Done well: My peer support groups this semester have been by far the most influential and meaningful of my CCT experience. This shows me that over time and development in the program, I have learned to trust in peers by revealing the information and learn how I can help support someone with my own strengths and interests. CCT has taught me how to trust that my own thinking can be shared without fear.
• Could improve: I could have improved in taking opportunities over the class experience to work out differences or frustrations with peer buddies. Some of my earlier experiences have been frustrating and not as supportive ( with unequal amounts of work/effort being put in) – and I could have used the opportunity to learn how to deal with conflict resolution in this setting.


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.


• Done well: In all of my courses, I have stayed up to date with the assignments, met with instructors or emailed them with questions. I think I was engaged with all of them, which led to a very comfortable and positive experience for me. My own discomfort in any early-on fears of judgment on writing was usurped by my task-focused nature to hand things in on time.
• Could improve: I could have brought cookies and tea when meeting with them. :) Honestly, the relationship with my instructors during the courses has always been one where I haven’t struggled with communication or utility.

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).


• Done well: I incorporated many of the comments from the advisor for my synthesis. In fact, the comments provided for synthesis were the most meaningful and influential of comments I’ve ever received. The comments suggested revision of content which required both including material in a more clear format, and deletion of material that wasn’t quite needed (or lingered from material once there.) The comments challenged some of the material that was there, but in a constructive way – that allowed me to see even more direction and larger implications of this project.
• Could improve: Since my synthesis was largely focused on a project in which I became more comfortable with the feedback from others (including peers), I think I could have better represented the CCT peer review process that I experienced during the classes. I think continuously taking my “emotional temperature” so that I monitor how I’m responding to the feedback received will be something that I will have to continue to monitor and could have done better (though, was a focus of my synthesis.)



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.


• Done well: I have never approached a CCT course from a “I need a good grade” perspective. I have taken one class at a time, with the exception of my final semester, so that I could immerse in the subject and immerse in my learning. This has worked out extremely well for me and I accomplished this goal. Rubrics confuse me a bit, when we’re talking about points, etc. I completed each assignment that I could – even if only “5” were required but “8” were offered. I most likely completed 8, because I came to CCT to learn, be challenged, get feedback and expand my knowledge and thinking. I approached each class and its assignments a opportunities to do that – and I wanted 8 opportunities, not 5.
• Could improve: That said, I imagine I could have lessened my stress during a given semester by evaluating and using the Rubric to make choices about what to complete.


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.


• Done well: I don’t leave CCT harboring any ill feelings or criticism. The program continuously asks for feedback and input and MODELS the very “works-in-progress” that this element/item speaks of, in a sense. Classes are always being evaluated by students (sometimes in the middle of the semester), communications go out and then are amended and amended again. It’s nice to see, actually – instead of a “THIS IS IT” type of communication that then is never redacted or corrected. My Reflective Practice Portfolio has been a good vessel for me to place this exact type of thinking and I’ve been able to reflect on how my thinking changed, and what insights I gained – which can be things that went well, or things that could be improved in my own experience. And be able to go back and edit on occasion when I have learned that this is now a different level of learning.
• Could improve: I could have been thinking of how I could incorporate a RPP type reflection or tool in my post-CCT life. Whether it be at the end of special projects at work, or a in a 6 month period – I have recently identified that while I can reflect more easily for CCT (due to the class structure or maybe the more reflective nature of the courses) – I’m not as organized in my own reflecting for work. Especially as a tool for monitoring my own personal creative development.

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

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




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.




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.




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.



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.




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




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




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.




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




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

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.



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




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



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.




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.




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.




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.




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).




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.




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.