Associate Name: Jorge Espinosa
Main Advisor and OP Reviewer: Jennifer Dauksha-English Morgan

Output Packet #:  	3	Year: Capstone MSc
Date Submitted: Dec. 27th, 2019
Date Reviewed: Jan. 2nd, 2020
Title: Regenerative Agriculture
Self Mark: A
Pro Mark: 80
Grade: A
Time Spent on Review: 5 hrs

Dear Jorge,

Wonderful work. This is an excellent OP. I truly didn’t know what to expect, given the difficulties you were having around the subject. You pushed through and ended up submitting what I think is your best OP to date. Well done for getting into warrior mode and really making this high quality work - which would not have been as accessible had you focussed on the challenges. You did a fantastic job navigating your learning journey here. I’m so very impressed by the increased quality of these past two OP’s from where you were at in October when you sent me the first draft. Excellent progress. I’m excited to see the fruits of your hard work and attention. Congratulations you’re more than 1/2 way finished now!

My review is broken into these sections:
1. Evaluation Form 
2. Comments Per Section

Required next step: 
- Where is the self and peer reviews? I see your email, thanks. I can’t finish grading this though until they are uploaded. I saw Ava’s reply, that it’s not an issue with size, you should be able to upload files. Were you logged into the site? Are you still having trouble?
and for future OPs…
- I really want to see these different design models you used for all 4 OP’s and projects compared and contrasted in OP 5. Also I want to see you speak on your evolution as a designer. Which models are best suited for you?
- I want further/extensive critical reflection in OP 5 - see notes below on page 1 ‘critical evaluation’.
- I’d love to see a cumulative annotated resource review that has at least 40 unique resources in your OP 5. If you don’t have enough in OPs currently then use some additional books that shaped you over the years, or do some additional research on action learning or design for OP 5.
- OP design is lacking - I want to see this thoroughly attended to in OP 5. Add a section on how your OPs evolved, and what types of design tools you used specifically in creating the OP itself, not the projects.
- Tracking - create some kind of tracking system in OP 5. Perhaps of goals of pathway, or feedback, or PoDAPO marks.
- Cumulative OP review - share the self review for OP 5 and then also talk about how you’ve grown in each area - give examples.

Recommended next step:
- Do one more round of editing.
- Add a more integrative conclusion.

I respect your integrity in managing your pathway through to completion in such a narrow, focussed window of time. I'm glad to be your advisor during this final push of your pathway! It’s been wonderful getting to reconnect with you and the great work you’ve accomplished.

Cheers,
Jennifer

OP REVIEW-------------------------

1. EVALUATION FORM-------------------- 

(attached to OP)

2. COMMENTS PER SECTION---------------

Landing Page
- I love the opening picture and quote. I appreciate that you took the time to add something inspirational and anchoring.
- I would not put the Digiphon at the top of the page - I prefer the bottom, as you have it in the draft OP 4 I just reviewed. My reasoning is pattern to detail and this feels like a detail at the very beginning of the OP.
- First sentence of the OP Specification is a bit confusing to me. What do you mean by ‘lacking in any educational opportunities’? You mean that regenerative agriculture is lacking within agricultural based Universities? The way you have it written seems a bit unclear and could have a number of different meanings.
- Instead of calling your project reviews (in first paragraph of summary) consider calling them overviews, briefs, or case studies. Using the word review in the same paragraph as mentioning the word reviewer, in referring to OP Reviewer seems like an overuse of a word, and could be confusing. One might think you are providing draft or peer reviews of your work. Same in paragraph two where you call them “review pages” in quotes.
- I think I’d like to add my draft reviews of your work to each archived draft OP, what do you think? You’ve really come a long way since the first review and I think it’s good supporting evidence.
- I like how you explain the style of the OP. Good navigational notes provided.
-  The paragraph on goals has some sentence structure issues - revisit and edit if you have time. Also, how are you tracking your goals - consider adding.
- You mention the OP being grossly over the word count though don’t provide any numbers. I like that you make recommendations for reviewer to read/engage with content.
- I’m appreciating how you posed a question to frame the focus of this OP, followed by some context of the current state of agriculture academia - as a field. I’m still confused by ‘what really should not be yet are’ - what does this mean? Can you follow this up with an example.
- End of Life and Pathway section, you use the word projects multiple times, I wonder if you could eliminate one or two?
- I know you felt very unsupported by your colleagues and peers during the time this project was implemented. I’m glad you were able to push through that restimulation and focus on the process and outcomes, instead of the triggers. You did great!
- Wonderful overview on how you created the OP and your documentation process. Well done!
- Nice overview of timeline and phases for project and documentation completion. This is very helpful in seeing the overall big picture.
- Good overview of goals, I only wonder how you are tracking these. I noticed in the OP 4 draft as well - you articulate goals but don’t follow-up with a clear assessment or tracking system.
- On design, I noticed your first project stated was through emergence. Yet you don’t explain what you mean by this particular design method. I wrote one of my OPs on emergent design and know one can elaborate on the method extensively. I wonder if you might further define what you mean?
- On path of least resistance - consider adding an image and a few sentence description.
- Same with the circle you mention for project 3. 
- I really want to see these different models compared and contrasted in OP 5. I would like to see it here additional, yet I will only require it of you in your cumulative reflection of final OP.
- I’m appreciating that you have a critical reflection, which you use as a ‘what I would do differently’. I’m noticing however that you don’t often have external referencing and critiques of the field through the lens of other authors, as a comparative narrative baking up, adding to, or positioning your own work. I’d like to see more of this in OP 5 as well. What I mean is that you research and directly share the work of others in the field as a critical reflection of your own work. Feedback loops also fit into this type of reflection. Consider mentioning the feedback you were given by students, colleagues, and peers.
- Great to see the table format for articulation of results. Note that in the description of NA, you use the word destining but I think you meant disseminating.
- In results, i.e. life path tracking - can you go into more detail about tracking methodology, other than just saying you created the portfolio? How are you specifically paying attention to the progress of your goals and outcomes?
- How is artist farmer a pattern within artist farmer? In this row, who did you disseminate writings to? And were the hundred students all at once or over a year?
- You’re using a lot of field specific words in the results - perhaps but a defining link or glossary. Examples: Aggradation. Succession. And for that matter, I think you could benefit from a definition on what you mean by regenerative agriculture in the above specification.
- Nice inclusion of a video as an example of shadow work.
- Good annotations included in the resource review. I’d love to see a cumulative annotated resource review that has at least 40 unique resources in your OP 5.

Project Review 1
- I love the concept of a farmer artist, and art may be applied as a teaching tool for complex ecological processes.
- Great overview of subjects included. The main thread is clear in this section - art as a tool. You do well at explaining navigation and context to the reader.
- I like that you’re using footnotes in this section. 
- When you say the OP’s design allows for… I think here is where we can re-language the use of design as a word. The design is the process, method, and set of principles. The OP documentation and structure is a result of the design process. You do have an OP that meets a lot of purposes, and I love that you staked functions to repurpose the material. However, you haven’t really explicitly articulated the OP design process. I feel that you addressed the project design, yet could go deeper into delineating between project and OP production. Instead of saying the OP design allows for, I might say that the OP is structured to …
- Project specification has a number of typos. on is spelled ion. Earth is spelled eearth.
- I am really loving this bit on exploration in the specification - that hones in on key themes. Beautiful.
- Nice inclusion of a poem.
- Great context of the field of the artists farmer and your personal meaning/passion in the introduction. Lovely language and perspective. I like that you combine personal engagement with worldly trends of going back to the land. This paragraph flows nicely and captures my attention. 
- You bring up archetypes - explain what you mean by this, and perhaps use an analogy. 
- There seems like a sentence is missing from the part on archetypes to Charles C. Mann’s work. Can you connect the two thoughts by bringing a comparison of Mann’s work with perhaps another authors work on archetypes?
- Farming artists and designers - love it! Also creative conscious beings.
- Each and everyone of your art projects are captivating. Such wonderful photography and an amazing description of interconnected meaning. This is very powerful thinking, using expressive and kinesthetic art to engage the students deconstruction/reconstruction and emergence of perspective. The macro and micro experience with each exercise is profound. One aspect that I’m confused by is the process reflection - would Jorge have students participate in these experiences and then write about their perspective? Or would they discuss the journey? And what was your role in any of that? Were you the silent photographer? Were you helping Jorge think through not only implementation of the installation, but the experiential reflection?
- The conclusion feels a bit like a new section speaking to the future or what needs to happen. How about summarizing the key talking points from all the experiments and linking them back to the threads outlined within the introduction - to me that is more of a conclusion, than fresh thinking. I always like to summarize first, and then consider where we go from here.
- I do love the bit in the conclusion that captures your farewell to Jorge, and the choices about how to disseminate the art. I’m wondering if you two ever did a gallery presentation at Zambrano? Did the students who participated get to see these images? And what about the rest of the University?
- I love the language you’re using inside the conclusion, such as madness, genius, hunger - all very passionate words, rich with a sense of fully embodied engagement in the project - like true digging your hands into the earth.
- Cool that no postproduction editing was done - you’re a skillful photographer!

Project Review 2
- Good overview/introduction.
- Aye! Your grandfather was assassinated. That’s intense. Such a loving gesture to lovingly wipe his white board and burn the cloth. Beautiful. I’d be interested in hearing more about your grandparents lives if you ever feel like sharing.
- I’m impressed with the role of facilitator that you began to play within the family - and as healer/dreamer. IT seems that you all are quite passionate beings, and some more so than others skilled with emotional literacy/group process. Inter personal skills are not something many were taught, so it does not surprise me that challenges arouse in your family unit. Main stream society did not provide such structure for cohesive group process. It something that had to be sought after.
- Did you give this beautiful letter to Tere, your grandmother or was this an exercise? I have much I’d like to say and ask about the letter but I’m deciding to just leave it sit with me, as I know the topic is very triggering to you.
- I love how this project is framed through letters to grandmother. Very creative and also integrative - as the meaning of the project itself is connection to lineage and the earth, as the stories told to our ancestors can rewrite what we inherited. Especially if we can heal the thread and story within our own hearts and minds.
- I imagine you wrote all of this in Spanish and then translated it for the OP?
- This, at a glance seems like quite a profitable regenerative design, including a complex system of income generated - to meet real needs and the concerns of your elders. I’m curious how much you interviewed the various stakeholders regarding their needs/concerns? Did that factor into this design you pitched?
- It’s like you generated a business plan. How was it presented?
- Again I find myself with all sorts of observations, questions and inquiries, and once again, I think I’ll choose to just refrain, as I know the subject is so tender. If you want to discuss one day, I am open. Especially if you do seek reconciliation or forward collaborative steps, perhaps some space holding/mentoring around the topic might be useful.
- In any case, very beautifully written. I read all your letters, the proposal, and the reflection. 
- I’m appreciating the closing reflection - what you gained, despite the pain.

Project Review 3
- Due to my time constraints, I’ve already spent four hours reviewing the rest of your OP and I still need to do the evaluation form, I’ve decided to only skim over this section.
- I’ll say that it feels very much like supporting evidence of your skills gained and applied through this journey. 
- Since you our over your word count, I would love to see you summarize the key takeaways from each of these three projects and post them at the top with a note to read further for more detail. 
- I really am liking the summary tables at the end of each of these sections - it provides quite a bit of insight.
- Fascinating that this part of your work was the easiest, required the least resources, yet was the most difficult to wrap your thinking around. I see that you navigated that well however, and it turned out pretty seamless. I think this section had less raw passion and idealism than the other two. More logical. Practical. Less theoretical. Less hinged on the collaboration or perspective of others. Yet really showcases the depth of skill you’ve gained.

— I’m really wanting a conclusion to the entire OP, that incorporates all three projects and wraps up/integrates the key thread on regenerative agriculture and sub thread introduced in the introduction.

Reflections
- Wonderful overview on the matrix and I love the example of Jairo coming to the school to teach - which seemed quite the experience - he shook up the establishment. I think it would benefit you to unpack why the field is as it is - maybe talk a bit more about greed/corruption/money trail.
- Can you give examples of educational institutions or bodies that are not revolving doors?
- Aside from using good renegotiation and communication tools, are there any other devices or tools you use for time management?
- When you speak of those you worked with, and mention them by name - perhaps also include their role/relationship to you/project.
- I’m surprised you say you feel less inspired and qualified to mentor others, given your position as a teacher in many of these and other pathway projects.
- In process reflection, I’m grateful you stuck through this OP to its end, despite the challenges around Molino in particular.

Self Review
- In the self review, stating something like ‘it made waves still being felt’ for transformation of context, isn’t quite a review of your work. I’d like a bit more explanation, an example even. What type of waves and why was this important? 
- I don’t agree that OP design and OP management are the same redundant question in PoDAPO. OP management has to do with your ability to meet requirements of the PoDAPO, your LIPD, and the OP template, and that you were timely or communicated your timeline to peer and pro reviewers as needed. Whereas, OP design has to do with the design method you used to create the OP. Not the project, but the OP. You might have used GaSAADIE for instance. Telling us your process of documentation and editing, is not the same as using a design method. You did not answer this question or meet this particular criteria well. After hearing my explanation and rereading the criteria, please let me know if it’s still confusing, or if you think the language is misleading.
- You also mention that you have very adequate tracking in place - where? Documentation is not equal to tracking, specifically in qualitative and quantitative metrics. I do like the tables at the end of each section - this is going in the direction of qualitative tracking. Consider creating a tracking tool, such as a decision making matrix, or a feedback tracker, or using the PoDAPO as a tool to track your marks/grades over time in OP 5.
- Finally, stating there were harsh lessons doesn’t mean you had critical evaluation present. 
- I appreciate how in the section benefits to the field, you include a note on where the reviewer can find this in the OP.
- I applaud your efforts in breaking down/reflecting on these skills with each OP - and I encourage you to hone in on this more cumulatively in the OP 5. This includes providing feedback to Gaia U if you really feel something is worded in a misleading manner. I know PoDAPO has been a source of re-triggering for you. Have you considered where this frustration stems from?

Draft Page
- Seems like this draft collection is missing the last three content section - no worries, I know you’re just offering it as a supporting document.
- You might want to add a topic intro at the top of this page explaining why you’ve added the draft and what you’d like the reader to notice/gain.

—

This is really a very impressive portfolio of your work in Regenerative Agriculture. I’m hoping you can be proud of yourself. I’m also hoping you can, as you say, stack functions and use some of this material for future grants writing or project development.