SelfAssessSmithA

Andrew Smith
CCT Program
Exit Self-Assessment

I. "My Synthesis Product Shows That..."
(adapted from the "Phases of research and engagement" in the Practicum course because 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).
It hasn’t always been a strength of mine to lay out Subject, Audience, Purpose clearly. In my 692 course, Peter wrote a version of an introduction to my paper that really convinced me to be much more direct, especially with my introductions. It read like a thoughtful outline of the paper, or like a menu at a restaurant. A minimal, factual description of what’s to come in each section (or meal, to use the restaurant metaphor). Generally, a strength of mine is to write for a particular audience, and I felt that I often was able to provide reminders to do that to colleagues in the class. Much of Jeremy’s feedback commented on a weakness of mine in writing; that is to build a toward a point which I don’t actually state clearly once I get there. I have a tendency to imply what I mean, or suggest the “bottom line” or the point of some paragraphs or ideas. I feel I made progress in this area during 694 and still have lots of room for improvement in this area. Reading people who do this well has helped.

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.
I think it’s a strength of the program that this process comes through more sources than just researching academic articles. While I did do lots of that in the synthesis process, key parts of 692 and 694 were thinking about other ways of gathering perspective; interviews come to mind as the most prominent example. But, I know that I also gathered perspective from more informal channels like informal conversation with colleagues, short and medium form articles from sources like Time, the Atlantic, and Harvard Business Review. It also helps that I wrote about a topic that my organization think lots about, not just me. So, that helped make some of these avenues more fruitful.

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.
I connect a lot with this standard. At the end of my synthesis, I felt that I could imagine many necessary directions for future exploration. So, in the synthesis’ conclusion, I suggested the specific starting point, even citing the exact study that I’d suggest a future researcher should start with. I wish that I had landed on definitions of the words “meaning” and “purpose” earlier in this process, perhaps even in 692. I feel that would have helped with “expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope within the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction”. Having these working definitions allowed me to really hone in my thinking and give it precise direction. If I had come to that earlier, I think my project would have been better for it.

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.
I ended up using a lot from Stanford Psychologist Kendall Bronk in my synthesis for this very reason. Her work was very focused on this problem. She established a generally similar premise than I did, something like “teaching purpose to teenagers is important and should be done directly”, and then she really dug into a surfaced many of the barriers that exist to that happening. Her research influenced my thinking a lot and led me to the “values” + “skills” = “expression of purpose” construct that I used in my synthesis presentation. Her surfacing the barriers helped me to wrap my head around propositions. The most prominent of which, I would say, is this “zero-sum” mentality of education that seem prevalent in many traditional school, even on a relatively local level; principals and even some teachers seems to feel this way.


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.
I think this is skill of mine, as well. By comparison, I was surprised at how many of my colleagues seemed to really struggle to articulate the second and third order aspects of their projects: ie: many could name an overall topic, but weren’t able to go much deeper. In fact, even in the final month before the final due date, I recall some folks making really major changes to their plan; like changing their guiding question, or making other seemingly fundamental shifts late in the game. For me, it was a process of getting progressively better at articulating a core idea that I’ve been working on for the past year and half or so, at least since my mid-point of the CCT program. As I mentioned in response B. An area for growth in this regard, I think, comes from a mechanical long-paper writing strategy, simply defining my key terms. As I mentioned in “B”, I wish that I did this earlier, and found that it helped with the process aspects of the paper.

F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.
My year-round work, working at EXPLO, has been the lynch-pin for making this happen. The conclusion of my synthesis really articulates how beneficial this cycle of theory and application has been. In a nutshell, CCT and EXPLO have been mutually reinforcing forces in my life over the past three years, each informing the other profoundly in my thinking life. Given that, I’m confident that I wrote a paper that only I could write, that discusses real purpose and meaning curriculum that will unfold with real students this summer. The conversations and interviews that informed my thinking are also very unique to my environment. Thus, I think that I share a perspective that interested parties would need to come only to my paper in order to get. An area for growth here is to adopt a bit more of a practice-what-I-preach mentality. In my synthesis presentation, for example, I presented a couple of activities that I suggest people do with students, which I myself had not directly done and experienced. That could be improved.


G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.
I have done this. Feedback from Jeremy was key, but also feedback from Peter in 692 and colleagues from both of those classes. My group of three in 694 had very different projects, but I think that’s the best example of this standard. We very much engaged in a reflective dialogue around work on a consistent basis, centered on our responses to one another’s work. Their perspectives, and honest reactions were an absolutely essential part of my honing in on the best way to express (or update) my underlying arguments. If I were to write a long-form paper like this again, I would even more lean into the subdivision style that I used in this paper. That’s an area of growth for me. It took some effort for me to make clear how the various sections tie back to the GQ and how they tie into one another, and how they strengthen the argument. Generally, I actually found that more structure, rather than less, made the presentation of my argument clearer. Thus, I would do better, sooner, in that area, in the future.

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 opened the body of the paper with a reflective, narrative account. It took up several pages, and helped to do this GOSP process. Many folks specifically commented to me how effective that section was. People reported feeling engaged, and “hooked in”. I’m glad I did it, even though that’s very much a departure from my typical style. I remember that it came out of a freewriting session, and I never had any intention of actually using it anywhere. I wish that my paper did a better job of being able to connect back to this account. I referred back to it often in the more traditional research-oriented parts of the paper, but I never felt like I really made a perfect connection back. If I were rewriting the thesis, I would consider how to do this more closely. I think the reflective account was powerful, but would have been even more effective if I’d been able to dip back into it more fluidly and effectively through the rest of the paper. Perhaps in the future I might actually provide an account lie that in segments, like a story unfolding along side the paper, as it progresses, not sure.

I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.
Very much so. This paper is the seed of a day-long retreat for 1500+ high school students this summer. Preparing for that retreat has pushed these ideas to the foreground of many of the conversations I have at work, and I use it in order to be a thought-leader in this area. I’m not sure I have a particular area for development in this domain to report yet.

J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.
I do tend to be self-reflective and even critical of my own work. Presenting my work was a key component of reflecting on it. Collective and processing the plus/delta responses helped me to understand how my ideas land with other people, and how I can refine my presentation of them in order to make the more accessible to more people. I know that I will present on these topics many more times, and am glad to be able to use this feedback loop in order to do that well. Soon, I’ll distribute my paper to many friends and colleagues who’ve been asking about it. This will be another step in this taking stock process.


II. Developing as a Reflective Practitioner, Including Taking Initiatives 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.
Indeed I have. I ran a dialogue workshop for my colleagues at EXPLO based on the practices that I learned about in the course Dialogue Processes. I am committed to leading a similar workshop in critical thinking in the fall. As an area of improvement, I can recall a time that I sent a colleague of mine a huge pile of readings and even some of my own writing from CCT, based on a conversation we’d had. That approach wasn’t very effective, I think, because it was probably overwhelming and scared her off. In the future (and since then) I’ve been careful to build more intentional context.

2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.
I do feel that each course project is, in some ways, a reaction to the previous course final project. Several courses hinge on systematizing thinking patterns in order to make them replicable, nameable, and changeable. I feel that a part of what I have done to achieve #2 is to work backwards and identify the parts of my own thinking that I think are more effective and worth developing. Then, meta-cognitively reflecting in order to try to give some name or structures to the processes, again, in order to achieve the benefits I mentioned. An delta here is simply that I came into CCT with a greater emphasis on creative thinking. The actual creative thinking course was full of many calls to action. I always did them, but I’m not sure I reflected enough on them in order to maximize my growth in this area.

3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.
I have many tools for this. In particular, I developed a research methodology that uses Google Drive and Evernote in a harmonious way to track ideas, research, references, etc. This was a key part of merging the thinking that I’d engaged in over the last several years and bring it to the table as I needed it, while writing. If I didn’t have these systems, I would have had to re-think (and re-read) my way through many articles, books, conversations, etc. An area for improvement is in tracking bibliographies. It’s minor, but I did fail to track page numbers throughout. So, I had to take half a day and go back through my all my sources to find page locations and add them to the paper.


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.
Formally interviewing interesting people is a new tool that I was glad to add to my toolchest. I interview often people for summer jobs with EXPLO. But, in CCT, I had several chances to interview people simply about their ideas. I even had permission to record them and use their responses for future work and thinking. I also feel that this is an area where I could improve. Hearing myself interview people, and comparing it to some of the professional interviewers that make up my media diet really exposed to me how much room for growth I have with this skill.


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.
This has evolved over the program, as I have evolved. Since starting the program, I have gotten married, moved to a house in a new city, and my wife and I had out first child. My emotional relationship to this work has matured in that time. It’s also become more stressful and challenging simply to find the necessary time. This pressure is precisely what prevents me from procrastination. While it’s been stressful, the fact that I never procrastinated helped me to feel a sense of ownership and control that I know I would have lost had I gotten significantly behind at any point. I was very cognizant that if I felt miserable while engaging in this work, then my learning would be tied to that, and it would suffer. Thus, in many ways, my way of being time-effective in this program was to actually take the time to fully engage, and to stop if/when I felt my engagement slipping. An area for growth here is to try to apply that to my future CCT-like work, where I don’t necessarily have the structures provided by the program to anchor 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.
Formally and informally. Several of the courses have these kinds of structures built in. I mentioned how effective my peer group in 694 was. As detailed earlier, my contribution was to engage with my group honestly, even if it was sometimes awkward or hard to do that. And, they returned the favor to me, providing me with good, critical, honest feedback. An area to improve is simply that I know I could benefit even more from networking with some of my colleagues. I do plan to reach out to some folks since the presentations, but haven’t taken that step yet.


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.
By virtue of meeting all the deadline and completing all the assignments, the structures were in place for this to happen. That said, I could have done those things, and still been passive in the way the prompt describes. To use meetings with Jeremy as an example, I made sure that I was as prepared as possible; reviewing all this prior feedback, the course syllabus, and generating questions/ideas to use before me met. Often, I found myself “pitching” Jeremy new ideas and seeking his advise/response in our one-on-one meetings. That or asking for clarification on some of his feedback. An area for improvement/growth here would be in how quickly I revised in response to feedback. I always met the deadline, but sometimes with only a few hours to spare. Occasionally, I would have benefited from a more continuous feedback integration process.

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).
Yes, several of my responses have already commented on this. Two examples being the way that I narrowed down to my argument in response to the frank feedback from my 694 groupmates. And, the seriousness and preparedness with which I engaged with Jeremy one on one and through his written comments. All were essential to my writing, which was highly influenced by all this feedback. An area for improvement, also mentioned in response 7, is the timeliness component. Generating new content often trumped integrating feedback in my writing sessions. But, perhaps, flipping that would have allowed me to be more reflective and integrative.

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.
Yes, I think that striving just to “get a good grade” cheapens the process and would rob me of the primary benefits of this program. I feel that many weeks ago I achieved the minimum standard for the synthesis that would fulfil the requirements of the course and result in a passable or even good grade. If my primarily motivation was the grade, I would have stopped working at that point, and I have certainly not done that. My short term motivation is to get the synthesis to a place where I can share it proudly with many people within my industry and a representation of not just CCT, but also of me and of EXPLO, too. I’m not sure a specific area for growth jumps to my mind related to this prompt.


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 in the synthesis course and program as a whole and to suggest directions for their further development.
There’ve been many avenue for me to provide all my feedback; critical, constructive, and affirming. The course evaluations and conversations directly with Jeremy and Peter have been my main tools in this regard. I agree with the premise of the question which implies that holding on to criticisms or other feedback withholds potential benefits to future students as can lead to a harboring of resentment toward CCT. These are all states that I wish to avoid, and thus have expressed all that I care to express.