SS and Tech, 04/12/07

24 mintues of writing

I received an email from Eric stating he approves of my sending the manuscript for review to Social Education. Because I've not heard back from the editors regarding whether they will accept e-submissions, I prepared a printable cover letter and their requested title page for the hard copy submission. I cannot print and send the copies until I return to UNLV on Monday (I'm still at AERA in Chicago); perhaps I'll hear from them about the possibility of e-submissions before then. The manuscript is completely ready to go for Monday's printing.

I also spoke today with Mark about the SpEd Law paper. He said he may or may not be interested in taking first authorship of the paper, but he is certainly open to me being sole author. He is busy next week, but agreed to meet with me the following week to discuss directions for the paper. I emailed him tonight to set up an appointment for a week from Monday.

AERA has certainly been productive. In the few hours I was able to focus on writing this week, I've made great progress. I have one paper ready to get back under review starting Monday. I have one paper being considered by a possible co-author (Jacqui will get back to me in two weeks about whether she wants to work on the literature review for the assessment paper), I have two papers under review by a co-author (I am very eager to hear how Lynne wishes to proceed with the Instrument and Comparison papers), I have plans to possibly get help with the SpEd Law paper, and I've made substantial writing progress on a new paper. Now, I'm going to write and email to check on the WebQuest Methods paper.

My new goals are to:

1. Get the SS and Tech paper under review ASAP.
2. Continue writing the Tech in SSM paper, hoping to finish a first draft within the next week.
3. Wait one week to see if Lynne wishes to continue on the papers and email her again if I haven't heard by then.
4. Plan to meet with Mark in 1.5 weeks.
5. Plan to hear from Jacqui in 2 weeks.
6. Begin collecting information for the action research (NECC SSM paper).
7. Outline the 21st Century SS paper while it's still fresh in my mind.
   

Tech in SSM, 04/12/07

63 minutes of writing

I reviewed the text I began preparing yesterday and found that it didn't sound as bad as I thought it would. It does ramble a bit, but it will be easy to cut our extraneous sections. I also added to the text (about one page, or five audio minutes). I am currently at 25 minutes into the audio version of the presentation (the basis for the paper); it is about 65 minutes total.

I'm wondering if I might actually have two papers here. The first could simply be a general presentation about why technology should be incldued in methods classes. I make a strong case for integrating technology in K-12 environments and also a strong case for integrating technologies in methods courses. In addition, many of my suggestions are not subject-specific. The second paper would be subject-specific methods integration techniques, providing a rationale for each.

For now, I plan to write the paper as one long manuscript. When I finish, I will consider the length of the first draft and see if I should break it into two. So, I will continue to prepare the manuscript assuming my audience is social studies methods instructors. I can later remove the social studies explanations if I decide to break up the article.

Assessment Paper, Comparison Paper, and Instrument Paper, 04/12/07

84 minutes of writing

I realized I have a lot of good work that needs revising and that I need help with these revisions.

Assessment Paper
This paper has a lot of potential and really just needs a good literature review and a few minor changes in the methodology to make it publishable. The problem is that I do not have the time to do the literature review. I would rather focus my time on preparing the literature review of the learning styles paper. In commisurating about my problems to my AERA roommate, Jacqui Garcia, she stated that she might be willing to write a literature review in exchange for authorship. Because the data is getting old and the literature already in the paper is quickly aging, I believe it would be better to give up sole authorship than keep it on my desktop forever. Also, should the paper get published (and I know there is interest in the paper from QJDE), I would be helping a doc student get published. I know how much each publication helps when seeking a job so I think this would be a win-win situation.

I sent the paper and reviewer comments to Jacqui. She will review the paper and let me know if she would like to work taking on second authorship.

Instrument Paper
This paper was rejected by AJDE several years ago because it doesn't add much to the field of online education. What's important is the resulting instrument, and I don't know how to publish the instrument itself. I think a distance education journal that has an interest in psychometrics would be a much better fit, but I don't know of any. If I don't find a pschymetrics journal, I will need to come up with a better way to answer the "So What?" question. While the information, I think, is very interesting, I don't think it has much appeal to a broader audience unless they are a.) interested in developing instruments, or b.) the paper focuses more on the elements identified (which would significantly lengthen the paper). I am attaching the paper and the two reviewers' comments.

The good news is that Lynne is a co-author on this paper (since it's directly from my dissertation and the outcome of an AERA presentation immediately following my defense). So, I sent Lynne the article and reviewers' comments and asked if she would like to continue working on the article.

If Lynne wishes to continue working on the article, I know there will be tons more work to complete, but the end result will be wonderful. If she chooses to give up second authorship (I'm not sure she's even read the article before now so I don't see that this would be a disrespectful gesture), I will need to identify a journal on my own and start revisions myself.

Comparison Paper
This paper is in the same boat as the Instrument Paper. Lynne is co-author and it's been rejected by JRTE with helpful feedback. Their suggestions require major changes and state that in its current form the manuscript may be better suited to a journal like JALN or QJDE.

If Lynne chooses not to continue with this article, I can make the chnges myself and I believe I should be able to find a suitable journal to which I could submit the new version. I think the paper is quite good and worthy of publication.

SpEd Law
I asked Mark if he could take first authorship of the SpEd Law paper. It simply needs framing. He said (by audioconference last week) that he didn't have time. He and I need to find a time to get this paper done. It doesn't require much time. If he cannot find time to work on it in the next month, I will ask if he minds that I take sole authorship (it's text I wrote for the AJDE SpEd Elements Paper and I'm fairly certain he didn't make changes to my original draft). I worry that the laws and guidelines will be updated before the manuscript gets into print (since the field and special education move so quickly).

Tech in SSM, 04/11/07

90 minutes of writing

I began writing the Tech in SSM paper based on the NCSS presentation delivered last December. I decided to write it by listening to the audio of the presentation and writing directly from the audio. It took 90 minutes to write the first four pages, and I'm only about 12 minutes into the audio (it's about 45 minutes long). I have yet to read the transcript thus far and am worried it will not make sense (though I know the presentation made sense and was well received by the audience).

I hope to finish a first draft (at least) of this paper this week. I've looked and it won't work for TRSE, but it will work for SSRP (the practice section).

SS and Tech, 04/10/07

117 minutes of writing

I continued work on the SS and Tech paper and completed my editorial changes. I believe I adequately address the reviewers concerns from the previous submission of the article. Though I'm not sure I adequately address the Moersch issue, I think I've done a fairly good job. I hope Eric will find any inconsistencies.

I emailed the paper to Eric (co-author) for his review and editorial comments. I also emailed ncss@publications to see if they really need four hard copies of the manuscript (it says online that they want hard copies and they only want e-copies once the manuscript is accepted for publication.

I hope Eric has time to review this paper soon so I can get it back under review. I'm not sure which paper I'll utnr to next, but it will probably be either ther 21st century social studies or general social studies methods paper. The latter will help me in my preparations for my NECC research, but the former is still relatively fresh in my head.

So far, I've kept to my hour-a-day writing during AERA and I have one paper nearly ready to go. Yahoo!

Oh, also...

I need to touch base with Mark Horney to see if he wants to pursue the SpEd law paper. If not, I may just frame the paper myself and get it out as a sole author (though I'm not sure when I'll have time to do this).

SS and Tech, 04/09/07

135 minutes of writing

My goal at AERA, as stated in a previous post is to try to write at least an hour a day. In light of that goal, I had success for the first day!

Today I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. I've been trying to find a way to organize the table so it would align with the Moersch continuum. I realized, however, that this is not possible because the Moersch LoTi framework does not necessary align with needed technological competencies. For instance, a teacher may need exceptionally high skills to complete some exploration-level activities; or, s/he may need few skills to engage in a student-centered approach. All student-centered approaches lie high on Moersch's continuum.

I decided to do the following:

1. Explain that the needed skills and Moersch levels do not coincide. I'm worried that this may be seen as a critique of Moersch's work (which it it NOT intended to be). Ideally, a teacher should be very technologically competent in which case s/he could teach on any level of the continuum. Then, the teacher could choose the technologies and LoTi levels based on the needs of the stduents and the lesson, not simply based on teacher capability.
2. I modified the table slightly. Though I maintained the original categories (e.g., "Starting Small," "Taking the Next Step," and "Beginning to Excel," I re-arranged the line items within those sections so they progress along the LoTi framework. In some cases, this was problemmatic because the recommendations straddled two levels because I offer more than one method of using the technology.

I need to re-read this paper with a very careful eye. I'm worried now that the paper includes too much about the Moersch framework, which really fails to address our main point. The point is that teachers should start where they are in terms of technological comfort and then move forward. Moersch's framework challenges teachers to move from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered instruction. These really are two different constructs. I worry that by combining them, I will confuse the reader. On the other hand, this is what one of the reviewers recommended (albeit I'm not sure the end result is what they were seeking).

Tomorrow I hope to re-read and revise this paper. Hopefully, I will have a clear enough head to create a final copy to send to Eric for his review. If so, I will assume (with his approval) that it will be ready to send for a second review with Social Education. It sure would be nice to get this out the door so can continue on the 21st century social studies piece and the 21st social studies methods piece. I need to get these done so I can get working on the NECC piece.

Also, being at AERA has re-invigorated my interest in getting my assessment and learning styles papers out the door. They are both so close to being ready to review.

And, I'm beginning to get very excited about research project proposals relating to residential institutes and micro-societies. I must find ways to connect these studies to technology!