Reflecting on the process of fumbling and crossing the finish line

One of the most surprising parts of participating in a collaborative project like this apprenticeship was the huge variation in pacing of the project over the weeks we worked together. We began by familiarizing ourselves with the data and context, which included physically taking the pre and post tests ourselves (which the participants in the data we analyzed, did). It was a great way to start us off- it contextualized our experience to be centered in the testing outcomes, regardless of the aim of the modules (which could have biased us to seeing certain outcomes being met that may not have been reached otherwise, but it didn’t happen, so we were good!). It went quickly and smoothly, and we were ready to move on.

We then began sketching out the paper and creating our Trello board, and along the way put together one of our appendixes, but our next big step was putting together the introduction and contextual background sections (which turned into the introduction and the literature review). We pulled from precis assignments to put these together, and through a bit of misunderstanding, ended up with about 3x the amount of what we were expecting, and took more time than I think we wanted to on slimming down the sections so the paper was balanced. We would end up working on the introduction and literature review almost until the weekend of the due date.

Next was splitting up into our pre-test and post-test coding teams, which on the other end of this project, feels like we spent half of our time on. In reality it was more like in the span of 2 classes, we had completed that, but one of the difficult things with this project was we only met once a week, for three hours, and less than an hour (except for the last class) would be allotted to the project where we talked about it and did minor logistical things during class time. Aside from the last class before we set the due date (which in itself had been pushed back), class time became a check-in, where we asked if everyone was done with their assigned parts, and then moved on and assigned more. By no fault of our own, there was no single time during the week that all of us were guaranteed to be available to work synchronously from wherever we are, and so from the coding segment onwards, there was a stretch of time where any work that was done on the shared document consisted of forever playing catch-up and relay to each other as we met or didn’t meet our aimed timelines, especially as we moved into the Thanksgiving break.

Other than the nature of the work, the coding process taught me a lot in terms of how to come to consensus in the most effective and complete manner, and the repetitive and seemingly redundant nature of that solution. Everyone needs to have the chance to get their own thoughts down, without seeing what anyone else has done. Then, come together and find where you differ. After that, take those conclusions and recode all the data individually, but then put your numerical answers together, and talk about your conclusions. Pick a consensus that will work for all cases. If it’s been done right, one person should then be able to go through qualitative answers and turn it into a set of numerical data outcomes, which we ended up doing. Unfortunately, this took us more than a few days to nail down.

After finishing the coding, we attempted to take on the rest of the project at the same time. The first step to doing this was sketching out the remaining work, which was a sobering experience as we realized we didn’t have enough manpower/energy/time to make the original deadline. We then pushed the deadline back, and created a plan to complete the paper by the final deadline at December 4th. We created a ‘final version’ document, and I ended up signing myself up for the task of formatting and pre-editing, which started with sketching out all of the sections of the paper and formatting them in the google docs outline. My main section was completing the Methods, which involved gathering the coding conclusions as well as describing the

I don’t regret it, because I know I was playing to my strengths with format, editing, and citation consistency, but the majority of the work and responsibility for delivering a product lived in the last fifth, thereabouts, of the project timeline for me. The process ramped up a great deal towards the end, as I took on the task of editing and proofreading each paragraph as it was transferred into the final document, as well as formatting so it matched and checking citations. From this project I’ve found that while doable, it exhausts me to an untold degree to be waiting on a text from someone else saying their section is done, or confirmation that I’ve copied over the right section of the portion. It’s not a process I’m comfortable with, but I can take that knowledge with me into future research projects (especially my experience that I’m not really comfortable with micromanaging or being micromanaged, for different reasons, but I’m marginally more comfortable with micromanaging others than I am with being micromanaged. I’m not sure how this will play out for me in the future, but this scenario was a great learning experience to get me on the way to figuring out how I like to work in a team.

There’s also no way any of us individually could have put together this kind of work, length primarily. It was a team and community effort, and that also highlights my last point: there were times during this apprenticeship that I fumbled the ball. I would say dropped, but it didn’t hit the floor, because my group members carried the weight of my undone work to the point where we could keep moving. On my own, that would have been a project-stalling mishap. With a group, we can all push at different rates, and regardless of how I fell behind at the beginning, I was able to make up for it by volunteering to proofread the final document as sections were completed and submit it by the deadline, which if I had messed up, would have affected everyone’s grade — not just mine. Additionally, when a certain member of the team didn’t assign themselves to certain tasks, or make themself available in the final days to be assigned the small one-off tasks necessary to filling the minutiae of the paper to completion (such as; porting over the appendixes, formatting the paragraphs to be ‘justified’ instead of ‘left-aligned’). He was not available for those — instead, when other team members were done with the discussion or findings or abstract, they mentioned in the group chat they could pick up tasks, and when I mentioned what needed to be done, they completed it, and were even able to harry the remaining group member into actually saying which bits he’d done and completed, so I could then go through and work on which sections could be passed on to combine with what we already had written. This was an exercise in the long haul, and having a group means that when we falter, we can work together to trade off the weight of the project we’re carrying over the finish line.