For my most recent SDA (SDA 2), I am actually really fond of the format. I might use it more often in the future, but I also think that maybe a small podcast or some form of voice recording that goes along with it in order to further explain my thinking behind this can be used. I was recently talking to my dad about this SDA, and we spoke about a lot of the things I wrote about, especially things concerning Gramsci's critiques of the superstructure. I realized that, although I had enough of a grasp of the concept to withhold an argument, how my writing conveyed the theory behind it isn't at its best coherency. I think a sort of vague idea is presented in my writing, but I never really come to a solid conclusion or takeaway, which brings me back to my previous point. I want to maybe add a sort of voice recording where I can explain further in-depth on certain parts of my writing, or I could just extend what I already have and just add one or two more pages. Of course, this extra work would require more time out of my day in order to fulfill it, and I do think I have it. The part that took up the most time (apart from the research) is the formatting of the article. I used real references from articles such as Avanti! and L'Unita in order to make it as realistic as possible. Now that I have the format done and ready to use, I think the only thing that will really take up a significant amount of time is the research and then choosing how to structure what and how to present what I learned.
In this SDA, I think I have a good amount of the five C's (creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, curiosity). The creativity was the idea of using something that Gramsci actually participated in and then the challenge to immerse myself as Gramsci as best as possible. Critical thinking came from immersing myself. I had to pick out the biases and opinions Gramsci had, understand his passion and persona, and then be able to translate that into words. I'm not fully confident in my use of communication. Although I think that I managed to put forth the basics of Gramsci, I think that in doing so I had to compromise a lot of the information. I used collaboration with my father, making sure that the concepts I took from reading Gramsci weren't misinterpreted in any way. Lastly, I think all of this was possible due to my curiosity. I was curious to research more on Gramsci and his theory on Hegemony, and I was curious how my SDA could turn out with the idea I had in mind. This month of research allowed me to gain a better understanding of the concept behind Hegemony. I've stumbled across the word Hegemony many times already in the past year while reading about Marxism, but I would only vaguely understand what it meant. Reading primary resources from Gramsci that explained his thoughts behind Hegemony did serve some help, but I think what really drove me home was reading multiple other sources from credited researchers who explained their own interpretation of Gramsci's Hegemony. Reading these sources, one can notice the slight differences depending on the context and person, but a common thread was still noticeable.
For the future, I want to save some space and time to develop my own thoughts. This month was primarily dedicated to research and presentation. Though I give a bit of self-reflection on the third page of the SDA, it is much more of a restatement of what I researched and understood about Gramsci. As for the HOTQs, they did help guide me through this SDA. I did, after all, decide to answer the questions under the Knowledge and Comprehension branches. The two of those don't give much room for self-interpretation, which is what I aim to do more of in the future.

Problems with my topic (Gramsci and his politics):

1. Gramsci lived in the early to mid 20th century. His ideas can be seen as antiquated and irrelevant. I wonder, however, if some of his ideas still ring true to society today, and understand which of his perspectives can still be useful.

This is a problem to my research because I'm dedicating all this time to learning and understanding Gramsci's critiques, but if they end up serving as something useless to societal benefit, I wonder what's the point. Apart from it just being my natural interest, I wonder if it can provide itself useful to society's benefit. Although this problem can be taken to a global level, it's also something personal. It has society's interest involved, but it's also an issue that I personally have on the issue as well. If the research ends up having parts of it that can help to better understand society, then it could transition into a global problem. However, simply put into a question, it's only something personal.
I've found various sources, from people who argue that Gramsci is no longer relevant to others that instead make points for why Gramsci should still be studied. What was interesting is that as I looked for sources, I found an abundance of those who made arguments for why Gramsc is still relevant over those who argued against. However, it is often the counter-argument from those who typically are more fiscally conservative, which I find could be an interesting addition to my research.

2. I can't think of another problem; I'll post it ASAP once an idea comes to mind.

Thus far into EMC, I'd say my biggest weakness is not being sure of where exactly I want to take my research. I know that I'm interested in Gramsci, but that's where it stops. I'm not sure if I want to take this idea and create a compare and contrast narrative, where I could use an American Marxist or another Italian Marxist to compare to Gramsci's ideology. I could also just look at Gramsci's effects on Italian politics, and how they've translated themselves into modern-day policies, or look at the dynamic relationship between Italian marxism and Italian fascism. The confusion spills over into my journal posts and my research time. As I write my journal posts, I find myself with a writers block, unable to coherently write down my thoughts. With research, I'm unable to plan accordingly and efficiently without worrying about wasting time.

Biggest "Need to Know": Gramsci lived in the early to mid 20th century. His ideas can be seen as antiquated and irrelevant. Are some of Gramsci's ideas still relevant to society today, and if so, in what ways?

I chose this as my most important (as of now) mainly because I just couldn't think of any other problems. I could focus more on Gramsci's ideology in itself, and find problems in his logic, but I don't feel like I have enough of a grasp on his ideas to take it to that step yet. I do think, however, that once I do get to that stage, I'd prefer going down the route of analyzing Gramscism itself instead of the more abstractual question I proposed above.

For break, I'm looking forward to seeing my sister once again and to get a break from school. As a senior, these last couple of months have been really stressful, but I'm looking forward to the break being a turning point. Although there are still the AP exams that I worry for, and those pop quizzes in my BC Calc class, I'm excited to get this year over with and slowly inching closer to graduation.