A random thought

Dr. Baumbach has invited the reviewers for my portfolio-as-comp. That has gotten me thinking about the kinds of questions they'll ask and how I'll introduce them to my work. Since this is an experiment, I believe they'll ask me about my experience and not just content. This morning I was thinking that the most difficult part of the portfolio process - at least for me - has been the reflective writing. I don't suppose that should come as a big surprise. It is, after all, a good place for metacognition to happen. As I pursued that line of thinking (metacognitively, of course!) I realized that the reflective writing is much easier when I'm considering a "rich" artifact that gives me plenty to say. The drivel that sometimes comes out in the reflective process is, I think, appearing when the artifact doesn't demonstrate all that much.

I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps there actually is a correlation between the quality of the reflection and the richness of the artifact. (That might be a decent qualitative question to ask in future research.) Perhaps this is an indicator that the artifact under consideration really isn't worth including in the portfolio. Or perhaps my 5:00 am observation is simply wrong and I shouldn't blog about the things that wake me up.