SelfAssessWeaver

Nathan Weaver

May 2012

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).
+ I think I did well in talking about musical things in open ways, that is, communicating in a way that non-musicians would be able to understand, showing what I wanted to show to this diverse and mostly non-musical audience some of the process of composing, and then communicating through music that composition. One example of this is showing some of the ideas I was working on that became the composition, shown through playing these selections and also pointing them out in the notation. Another item was using a not-explicitly-musical topic as primary organizing exploration in the paper, namely ideas, the abstract, and the real.
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
1
∆ While it may be that I did well in sharing this material, I need more work on showing non- musicians why this is important for them. It is one thing to share something that is important to me – I think I did this well – and to share what's important to other musicians, or even to share to non-musicians who might find it interesting, but it is something distinct to share with non- musicians why they should care about my exploration, in a way that shows what's in it for them. I attempted to do this with an argument for the abstract, a parallel to mathematics. I'm not so sure how well this came across, especially in the presentation, but I wonder if I understand now what Peter meant in the Q/A, that the chart I drew of the idea in the abstract, and the self in the real, where the project exists in-between, that the use of such a conceptualization could be something like “don't worry about making this Synthesis a magnum opus, just finish something to share for now” like we were advised in the beginning of the term. That is, the “project” is a large work, but Synthesis is only one manifestation or representation of it, so focus on completing that one representation in this course.
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.
+ This project was about composing new music, and the process of going through that in the midst of the Synthesis as a whole. The “literature review” or background information to this project was more along the lines of items that came to mind during my process. Much of this focused on jazz and improvisation, and some on the concept of ideas, especially as related to creative production. I did well with providing background information on these (and a few other) areas.
∆ I could have done better with making more attempt at trying to find other artist journals, reflections during the process of creating, and sharing this material as it related to my work. That is, what else is out there where people – artists and others – were trying to show their process of creation?
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.
+ Yes. I've been directly working on a way to explore this relation of words and music for at least 7 years. The idea has been that I want to compose new music, but I also want to write about it. It is not enough to be one who plays an instrument, I have to be a scholar / thinker as well. However, this has come with many years of skepticism regarding “academic” work, especially if it relegates and subverts reflection. Early in the term I realized that I had to compose – it was honest for me, and I was compelled to pursue it. But I also had to write – not just for the program, but for me. The goal then was to find a way to put them together that made it one project. I think I did this very well, and this combination of what became composition
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
2
and reflection on the process of both composing and reflecting (multiple layers, one project) may be the direction to take for this 7+ years of exploring. The new directions may be to do what I just did with another project.
∆ The reflections were sometimes quite broad, or so I think. It may have been more preferable – and something I could explore in the future – to focus in a bit more on one item. For example, I might focus on improvisation and jazz, or I might focus on only issues of the idea, rather than combine all these into one project. (On the other hand, I think this combination did work well in context and for this project.)
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 did identify as many items as I could, but the point of the presentation, the way of the presentation (both the presentation and the paper) was not as much to spell these things out, but to let them develop as I reflected on my process while in-process, and then let them slowly work themselves out and into more clarity. With this as my goal in presenting the work, I think I did well.
∆ The work is interpretive and not about objectivity or making claims. It is about offering conceptualizations of things – such as where ideas exist, how we use and develop them. At least, it was about how these things interacted for me in this particular project. In other contexts it may be necessary for me to make the conceptualizations that I did explore into something that could be more “concrete”.
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.
+ Part A: yes, because this was the point of the work, to have these different and interacting layers and loops of overall whole project, but also individual pieces of it (the paper, the presentation, the composition). Part B: my way of working is to work, and when I'm ready – thinking, notes, talking-through – then I put together what I need to. Eventually, things got done for this project in a way that I was happy with. So while it seemed tense and time-stressed at times, the overall evaluation that I use is whether the project got done in a way that I'm happy with. And it did. I'm not sure I could have done things any better in terms of planning in light of my disposition to see where things might go, letting things develop.
∆ The point of the project was the unfolding, the process, the development – that was my objective. I fulfilled this. I don't know if I could have done better being that this was my goal,
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
3
and this development is what happened. It is conceivable, if I were to do something like this again, that the development would happen in a different way, and may then work better for that situation. This is to say that if the point of the work is to let it develop in situ – figuratively speaking, in context to the project – it will be achieved regardless. It is not then the achievement, but the way the project goes, what it picks up along the way. I suppose one idea is that I could have realized – or decided – sooner what the writing would have looked like, how it would be, and then started some of that writing a bit earlier. But, being that I wanted the development, I wanted to not know where things would go, I'm not sure if this planning would have helped – it would have been contrary to my goal of the project.
F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.
+ I like to work on my own. Group work was required for the course, meaning the group support, “writing” workshop. I didn't think I would be so appreciative of this, but I was. The day of the presentation, I felt so much better about sharing my own work as each member of my group arrived. Because the content of my project is so subjective, I don't know if I can attribute that to the course. But this group encouragement, the setting, the support, was invaluable, and I didn't have that from other sources. Their suggestions became very important parts of the work – such as to play live, to demonstrate some of what I would do before I played, and in the development of the abstract and the real and all these layers by letting me talk through it all.
Also, the work was about my own process of composing and reflecting, sharing something that is personal, and not available elsewhere as it relates to my person process.
Additionally, much of the work was / is conceptually a synthesis of apparently distinct sources, such as anthropology and music. Thus, this synthesis in my project is something that might be unique as a way of connecting these more or less distinct explorations.
∆ Related to B. above, it might have enhanced the project if I had included artist interviews as similar to artist journals.
G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.
+ Well, I think the composition was good. And the conceptualization that I was using of the idea – where the idea is in the abstract and the self in the real and where the project exists in the in-between – eventually worked itself out. Beyond that, I wasn't attempting to make much of an argument.
∆ If anything, I could have expanded on the parallel of music-making to abstract thinking, making, possibly, an argument, or a stronger argument, that music-making is a form of abstract thinking, a way of “exercising” the brain with thinking that could be applied to other areas.
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
4
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 hope so, and I think this is also the case. The presentation opened with a (very short) story that led to talk about ideas and how the development of my Synthesis led me to these musical ideas and then what I did with them. Then I performed. And then I continued to talk about this whole process. The paper “begins” in the middle, where I specifically wanted a little bit of disorientation so that the focus would not be on a linear development but on the whole. The idea with both was to increase engagement and help the audience feel like they were part of the project, in the middle of it, so that when it reaches its fruition they can share in the work, and then sort of reflecting “back” to how it all began.
∆ On Jeremy's suggestion I added in the paper early on a note about how to read the paper, specifically because I wanted there to be some disorientation. I wanted the reader to encounter the paper is if it were a novel, and you can't sometimes really know what's going on until you finish the book and then you “get it”. That was sort of the goal for the paper, so I “began” in the middle, then moved to the “end”, and then concluded with the “beginning” (in the paper, these sections are called In Circle, Full Circle, and Enter Circle). But Jeremy was concerned that the reader would not know that the paper should be read this way, so I made a note about how to read. I hope that it was sufficient, along with reminders along the way, but it may turn out that I could have done better with presenting this paper in terms of how to read it in relation to the process I was trying to show.
I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.
+ Both the paper and presentation were structured in a way that would attempt to increase engagement with the audience, showing that process, so that people felt they were a part of it. Writing the paper specifically as reflection and in-process I hope achieved this attempt. As well, sharing little pieces of the composition before performing was a way of asking the audience to participate in the work itself.
In the paper and presentation, though this is not explicit, it could be considered / interpreted, that without the audience the composition wouldn't be what it was. That is, improvisation has many forms, one of which is hearing the work. In this way, the audience is, in a sense, performing as they listen. (This refers Bruce Benson's ideas of part of improvisation being a musical dialogue through time, referenced in my paper.)
The lesson for next steps takes inspiration from some of what Ben advised before the presentation, that there's got to be something in the presentation to engage with my audience. (This reminded me very much of a conversation I had recently with a dance artist who was sharing from her tradition that without a connection to the audience the artist has failed.) I think this had to go beyond simply performing. And I think this presentation has laid some groundwork for further attempts at engagement in performance.
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
5
∆ Especially since I wanted the work to remain “mine” as much as it could, I could have made that point about improvisation through listening – and thus the composition as existing in their minds as well – much more strongly. This may have helped the audience feel more like agents in the creation of this music I was sharing.
J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.
+ My synthesis is a journal, along with my other journals. And in it there are many interactions with the challenges that went into the creation of the composition as well as the whole work, all these layers and loops. As mentioned earlier, I've been working on some of this for at least 7 years, I've now completed something as a finished and unified project, and I'm excited about doing this again.
∆ Now that I know what a final project of this sort (the fuzzy idea in my mind for 7+ years) looks like – or looks like in some form – I can reflect and gain some further ideas about how to start an additional project, thinking a bit more about that final form while still in early stages.
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.
+ Entering CCT was a way of trying to take what I had gained from broad courses and turn them into something unified, a synthesis. I realized that I still needed to compose and think about music, but the work as a whole of Synthesis – the program as a whole with Synthesis as an exemplar – was truly a synthesis of many areas, including music theory, philosophy, and anthropology. While most of the change is personal at this time, it may lead to changes in music theory and analysis, a change in how I present music in public performance, as well as how to share work (the 7+ year thing mentioned above) in the future.
∆ I have not engaged as well as I possibly could have or could be in terms of educational change. The inquiry and exploration has been more personal for me.
2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.
+ All of graduate school has been a struggle of trying to figure out what I want to do and do Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
6
what I want to do in the midst of what others want me to do. But in anthropologist Michael Jackson's terms (referenced in my synthesis paper), life is a struggle of acting and being acted upon, and this was the formulation that I transferred to my paper and especially to the relationship to ideas. It's not so much a matter of trying not to struggle, but of what we do through it. In this case, I'm very happy with what my Synthesis became – as a capstone to the program and other graduate courses, as a way of completing a large interconnected work.
∆ Not all course explorations have been as explicit in my Synthesis and my own work in each course as they could have been. I was concerned more with what was useful to me and what I was trying to do. If something wasn't as useful, I didn't pay as much attention to it, nor did I incorporate as much into my Synthesis. I could have done more to use these sources.
3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.
+ I work as I go, thinking, noting, writing. Everything goes in my personal journal, as a way of working through ideas using words, and I also talk through things frequently at home. When I'm ready, I transfer this work into the sharable form (writing a paper, giving a presentation, etc). Everything has to be organized in way that is efficient and findable when I need it.
∆ Time is another matter. My life during this program has seen changes in job(s), a birth, 3 moves, and a few accidents along the way. Time has been an adversary. There were many situations where I could not write in my preferred way (to block off large sections of time to write) and I had to modify. The style of Synthesis was heavily influenced by this. I don't know if I could have done any better to manage time, but I want to believe that I could do better, or that someday life won't be as difficult as it seems right now.
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.
+ Every CCT course included various tools that we could apply to our projects. The strongest tool for me, that I would like to continue to use in other contexts, is the work-in-progress presentation. I've done well with this tool throughout the program, and it's flexibility as well as here and now focus is very appealing to me. This is especially true of Synthesis, which was about both showing that work-in-progress, but also the completed work, where the completed work consisted of a composition (with elements left up to the performer on any given performance), a paper showing that work-in-progress, but also this same paper showing a final work as all these things were put together into a whole.
∆ I could have possible done more to integrate the tools from throughout the program into the Synthesis itself. I've gone through the program thinking about what I would do for Synthesis, but
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
7
I could have done better to integrate various tools into Synthesis more directly. Certainly there has been experimentation, but there was also some frustration with trying to use the tools for the music things that I was exploring.
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.
+ I'm a musician. My craft, for me, is about taking things in life that are challenging and turning them into inspiration for my art.
∆ Clearing away distractions is something that happens, for me, by playing my instruments, exercising, and journaling, all of which are musical. Sometimes though I can't get past things and instead I go round and round. This is a continuous process of further learning regarding what to keep going around with and what to let go of (even if only for a time).
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.
+ Despite my disposition as more of a loner, I've attempted to make friends in this program and help others where I could, and to seek help. My group for Synthesis (see above) is an example of this.
∆ One challenge has been the lack of other musicians in the program, both professors and students. I came in thinking I'd do something explicitly with music, but it's been very challenging to engage with others regarding music. I can't talk freely about the struggles of working through my work because I can't talk about it as well as I could in a context of other musicians. This has led to lack of engagement on my part at times.
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.
+ I have taken the lead in trying to do what I want to do, exploring these ideas, through the program. I remember many conversations with Arthur late after philosophy to work through many of these ideas of improvisation and how it relates to philosophy, or simply talking through ideas and listen to what Arthur had to say about them.
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
8
∆ I have been reluctant to share writing. Some of this has to do with thinking that others in the program didn't see things the way I do, but more often it's because of how I like to write, where I think, note, reflect, talk through, then write. That writing then is a sort of final version, with only minimal proofreading. The program though likes to see many revisions, and that has been frustrating for me – sometimes because people didn't understand what I was talking about (which is likely due both to subject matter and my lack of recognition of audience in order to more clearly communicate).
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).
+ I've learned to do this more and more throughout the program, not as much in terms of changing the direction, but in terms of trying to communicate more clearly to my audience what I'm working on. An example of this (see above), though including a change in direction, were the suggestions of my group for Synthesis. I was worried about what way of sharing the composition might be a more honest reflection of the way I've moved through the program, as well as the best way for communicating the idea of the whole project. Options included live performance, live performance with live looping, and a computer version where I'd just play the recording. The question more specifically regarded which might be a better representation of the abstract, or the in-between. I was also concerned that people might be too interested in the gear (if I used live looping / recording) instead of the music itself (which the gear serves). One member of the group suggested that playing a recording is less abstract because it could be replayed. Another member suggested I offer a workshop showing how I'm using the gear so people were less interested when it came time to perform. And the third member suggested that playing the instrument live would be more abstract (no replay possible in context) and more true and honest. I followed these suggestions, re-working the presentation to incorporate them.
∆ I could have done better to be less defensive in incorporating ideas earlier on, trying to think more about my immediate audience and increasing engagement with them, and also in listening to their perception of what I was working on.
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.
+ I would really like to know about formal standards. Knowing the “rules” allows me to forget about them so I can go on and work in a way that measures to my standards. (Charlie Parker, great jazz musician, is famed to have said that one first learns all the theory, then you forget that stuff and play.) Synthesis is a good example of this. Though fewer standards were
Nathan Weaver, CCT/UMB, Exit Self-Assessment, 2012 May 14
9
communicated, the course is much more flexible and thus we need to rely on our own standards. I went in to the composition saying that my audience was the “cosmos” (which changed as I began to interact more with my immediate audience), and in this sense (which continued through the project), it is my own standards which I work to meet. I am my most difficult critic.
∆ There have been times when I was thinking about grades over my work. Not the whole course, but times within a course where I had done some work, or maybe the work met my own expectations, but I was still thinking about grades. This is not good, but it's also a fact of life, grades, especially for those who wish to continue in doctoral programs. It's something that I continue to think about and struggle with. The idea is that we do have a system of grades, so I want to know what these expectations are – so I can forget that stuff and play.
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.
+ I've been fairly outspoken in my criticisms throughout the program. An example of this is the challenge with grades and program / instructor expectations. I want to know what those expectations are. It's not a matter of meeting them, but exceeding them, playing around them. I am less free to explore my ideas without an idea of those expectations. If I know them, I can make sure that I meet them while exploring things further and in a way that is unique to my interests. I have made consistent effort throughout the program to speak my mind where appropriate with things I feel could be improved. At times this also included criticisms of creative tools. If creativity, in part, means doing what others aren't doing, and we are given tools so we all use them, by this definition of creativity we are no longer creative. If everyone is creative, no one is, according to what was offered to us in creative thinking. (Then, my view that creativity is something subjective, something that often changes through time.) This is an example of a criticism that I had in the course, and I was open about sharing it.
∆ However, I'm better at criticizing than affirming. And it might be more helpful to affirm what is working and develop and expand it than to criticize and leave gaps.

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.