EDLD 5304 – Leading Organizational Change
Self‑Assessment Score: 88

Throughout this course, I have approached my learning with intentionality, rigor, and professional investment. My engagement in EDLD 5304 reflects my commitment to becoming a more effective change-leader within Dallas College. After reviewing the self‑assessment marking guide, I am assigning myself a score of 88, which reflects strong fulfillment of key contributions while acknowledging areas where I fell short, specifically in consistently meeting all course deadlines.

Reflection on What Is Working

          One of the strongest aspects of my performance in this course has been the depth and quality of my intellectual engagement. I completed all assigned readings, videos, and supporting materials and consistently integrated course frameworks, such as Influencer, 4DX, Crucial Conversations, and systems‑based leadership into my discussions and assignments. My discussion posts were substantive, and included research, and aligned with APA standards. At times I exceeded the minimum posting requirements and, in several cases, submitted discussion responses prior to the deadline in order to allow peers time to engage with my ideas.

          Additionally, I approached each assignment not as a compliance task but as a developmental opportunity connected to my innovation project, Crux. My “What’s Your Why” submission, change implementation plan, and systems integration reflections were revised iteratively. I incorporated peer and instructor feedback and refined both clarity and theoretical grounding. This iterative revision process reflects Fink’s (2013) assertion that significant learning requires students to assess the quality of their own work and refine it accordingly.

          I also contributed meaningfully to Collaborative Discussions within the class through consistent feedback and strategic insight. Due to the limited number of students in the course, members of my base collaboration group included the entire class.  Here are some of the students I engaged with regularly, several of whom with which I have developed rapport through other shared courses: Rose Hill, Sophia Escamilla, Jashua Hogue & Patricia Silva.

          In our exchanges, I provided constructive feedback. Additionally, where appropriate, I attempted to include clarity of change rationale, alignment between goals and lead measures, and strengthening of “Why” statements to appeal emotionally as well as strategically. I frequently connected peer ideas back to course frameworks to deepen analysis. My intent was not simply to affirm, but to strengthen collective thinking.

Reflection on Contributions to the Learning Community

          Beyond our collaborative discussions, I participated actively in all assigned activities. My contributions reflected both breadth and depth of thinking, integrating research to support assertions and citing appropriately in APA format. When peers expressed uncertainty about implementation resistance or execution challenges, I drew from both course readings and professional experience to offer structured guidance.

          In particular, I engaged in discussions around self‑differentiated leadership and systems thinking, highlighting how organizational anxiety often manifests as resistance to innovation. These exchanges contributed to a shared understanding that change leadership is less about persuasion and more about emotional regulation and clarity of purpose.

          Where appropriate, I made additional posts beyond those required, offering encouragement, posing clarifying questions, and affirming colleagues’ progress. These contributions supported psychological safety within the learning environment, aligning with principles emphasized in Crucial Conversations.

Areas for Improvement

          While I am confident in the intellectual quality of my work and the consistency of my engagement, I did not fully meet the expectation of consistently adhering to all deadlines indicated in the course calendar.

This semester presented several significant contextual demands:

• The passing of my father‑in‑law required me to be fully present for my family during a period of grief and transition.

• As Program Director at Dallas College, the summer term includes onboarding a new cohort. It is an administratively intensive period.

• Simultaneously, our institution is undergoing a full WorkDay integration, which has significantly increased the time required to complete essential administrative responsibilities.

          Although these factors were real and substantial, I recognize that the marking guide evaluates performance based on contribution criteria rather than context. While I remained engaged, completed the work, and maintained quality, I did not consistently meet all deadlines. For that reason, though it pains me to say, I personally cannot justify a score within the 90–100 band, though I do hope the above context will be considered as I did my best to communicate and resist the urge to withdraw.  Juggling two courses this semester, in addition to the afore mentioned demands, was almost too great a load to bare, but I am an overcomer and I do not give up easily.

          This experience has reinforced an important principle of adaptive leadership: high standards require proactive boundary management. Moving forward, I can improve by building greater buffer time into assignment planning, especially during known institutional transition periods. Additionally, earlier communication when unexpected disruptions occur would better align with professional expectations.

Commitment to Self‑Directed Learning

          Despite deadline challenges, I maintained full engagement in course content. I revised assignments thoughtfully, integrated feedback intentionally, and connected theory to professional application. The intellectual growth I experienced in this course, particularly in understanding change as a systems phenomenon rather than a linear implementation plan. has already influenced my leadership practice.

          Fink (2013) emphasizes that powerful performers become self‑directed learners by assessing and improving the quality of their own work. This reflection represents that commitment. I am proud of the analytical depth of my contributions, the leadership responsibility I assumed, and the integration of theory into practice. At the same time, I acknowledge the importance of consistent timeliness as part of professional contribution.  I require ot of my own students, though I will say I am student-centric and always willing to consider extenuating circumstances.

          For these reasons, a score of 88 accurately reflects strong engagement and meaningful contribution, with a clear and honest acknowledgment of one key area needing improvement.