Tuesday, December 9, 2008

IRB Proposals

0 minutes of writing

This is a follow-up to the previous post for today. I've completed the research protocol for the digital storytelling study. Tomorrow, I hope to prepare a chapter proposal for an editor that specifically recommended I submit for his book. Next, I need to get the assessment paper back under review, complete reports for the service learning study, clean the data from the micro-communities study, and begin writing a general article (probably for the Kappan) about micro-communities.

IRB Proposals

0 minutes of writing

I have been remiss at writing for publication lately, but have been working on research-related activities. I prepared an IRB protocol form for the service learning study that Steve will submit tomorrow. I will need to create the third and fourth action research reports (which I will need to do for class before the Civil Rights/Service Learning module begins anyway). Hopefully, by the time those reports are complete and the IRB approves the protocol, I will be ready to work on data analysis and full data reporting.

I've also been working with Vicki and Steve on the first-year teacher study. Vicki and I refined the project outline and I prepared the research protocol and all related documents. Vicki prepared a grant application that would support the study, and Steve will submit the protocol to UNLV's IRB tomorrow along with the service learning protocol.

I've been in contact with OPRS personnel to inquire about whether the digital storytelling study will fall under the exempt category and whether there is a need for consent forms for the study. I hope to hear from them today so I may prepare that research protocol later today for Steve to also submit tomorrow.

The assessment paper was rejected by JRTE so I am thinking about another journal for submission. I have not yet made the reviewers recommended changes and need to address these post haste.

Vicki and I are discussing the possibility of becoming accountability partners for our writing projects. I am in desperate need of help in this area. I would like to join Academic Ladder again, but the cost is prohibitive.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Assessment Paper, 11/3/08

56 minutes of writing

Steve sent me all the remaining required content for the assessment paper so I completed the paper and emailed it to the editor. The editor requested the manuscript in RTF, but it was too big to send so I had to send it in DOC. I added a note about file size restrictions and our willingness to re-send it in RTF (though I don't know how) or PDF if requested.

Title: Assessment in Online Environments: A Cross-School Description of Secondary Courses
Word Count: 8,071 [147 (Abstract); 4,816 (Article); 1,986 (Table 1); 1,096 (References)]
Submission Location: Journal of Research in Technology Education
Submission Date: November 2, 2008

Monday, October 27, 2008

Assessment Paper, 10/27/08

17 minutes of writing

Well... not really writing, just cleaning. I reviewed the manuscript to see what still needs completing. The only items still needing attention are the Brown and Richardson citation and page numbers for the articles Steve referenced. I called him and he promised me I would have the information tonight (except for one detail he's unable to locate which I said I would deal with). Also, per the editor's requirements, I created PICT files of the two graphics in the text. Finally, I reviewed and made minor changes to the submission letter.

Items still to do:
  • Add page numbers to citations
  • Cite the Brown and Richardson quotation
  • Add Steve's biographical information
  • List the word counts in the submission letter
  • Change "Keeler" to "Author" within the text
  • Save the file in RTF
  • Send it for review
While I await the final items from Steve, I will begin the IRB protocols for the service learning, digital storytelling, and first year teacher studies.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Assessment Paper, 10/23/08

28 minutes of writing

I completed all the editorial changes on the Assessment paper except for those awaiting Steve's input. I will need to remove the author's names and prepare separate JPG files of the graphics after receiving Steve's items. Then... it's off! :-)

Steve and I spoke yesterday about the SpEd Law paper. I suggested we bring in a third person who knows SpEd (including special education law) really well. He said he would give it some thought.

Once this is out, I will have to decide where to focus my efforts. Given that Francie Summers my have some time now that she's recently retired, I think I should complete the data cleaning from the micro-communities study and get out a Kappan article for review. The other piece needing attention quite quickly is IRB protocols on digital storytelling, service learning, and first year teachers. Unfortunately, the protocols and data cleaning won't count as writing.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Assessment Paper, 10/21/08

~120 minutes of writing

I returned to the Assessment paper, knowing that there is little left to do and I've waited long enough to get it out the door. All that is really left to complete is minor editing (though I am really doing minor wordsmithing at this point) and inserting all the references Steve added (and I few I thought needed to be added). I completed the wordsmithing (though I still need to edit the Word document), but still need to work on the references. I've requested information from Steve, and the letter to the editor is complete except for details awaiting Steve and final word counts. I hope to get this out within the week since I have nothing under review except the WebQuest paper.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Tech Integration in Methods, 4/23/08

84 minutes of writing

I continued editing the Tech Integration in Methods paper for JCTE. They've requested my updated manuscript be delivered no later than June 1, 2008.

I was able to focus on the slightly more complicated issues addressed by the reviewers. Some comments required additional clarification and one set of comments (addressed by all reviewers) would require an entire new focus to the paper. I emailed the editor about these changes. First, I requested clarification so am now ready to fix on the the areas of recommended change. Second, I requested the opportunity to retain the present focus of the paper. The reviewers requested an earlier mention of social studies and greater literature review relating to social studies. My desire was to make this paper a general tech integration in methods paper, and I have another paper (the one delivered at NCSS in 2006) that will focus just on social studies. I made the argument that focusing on social studies requires much more detail and that the concepts addressed in the current paper are cross-disciplinary. The editorial team accepted my recommendation to retain the general focus for the paper. Now, I have a lot of work to give the paper a much clearer cross-curricular focus from the beginning. That's my next task: finding examples from science and language arts standards relating to tech integration and finding literature in math, science, and language arts, and social studies that supports integrating technology into methods instruction. That's quite a task I have in front of me!

Tech Integration in Methods, 4/22/08

141 minutes of writing

I received confirmation that this paper was conditionally accepted by JCTE and was provided with a list of items to address. In preparation for starting the process, I re-read the paper today and made my own editorial changes (mostly wordsmithing). Then, I began focusing on the reviewers comments and started editing the paper based on these. Most of the editorial remarks I addressed today were minor, requiring only small word changes.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Assessment Paper, 3/10/08

111 minutes of writing

I received Steve's first draft of the literature review for the assessment paper and spent time this morning re-working it. His citations were excellent and I believe we have enough to substantially support the paper. I made my recommended edits and returned it to Steve for his feedback and additional edits. Hopefully, we will complete the literature review in the next day or two, and we can situate it in the full paper this week. I would like to get this under review next week at the latest.

In Steve's literature review, he included several items I felt were not needed for the current paper, but might work well in a follow-up manuscript. We've discussed some other possibilities, but floored the conversations until this paper is complete. When this paper is under review, I would like to revisit the "extraneous" ideas appearing in his literature review to see how we could work them into a separate article.

Friday, February 29, 2008

SITE Lit Review, 2/25/08

54 minutes of writing

I worked on defining "strategy" and the theme terms for the SITE Literature Review today. I've been meeting regularly with Scott and Amy (co-authors) regarding the inter-rater reliability process and developing the database. I've also made significant progress on ensuring the empiricism of the study by reviewing the data with an excruciatingly detailed eye. I feel we finally can confidently state our numbers of the available articles and we are ready to move to the review stage. We found 60 articles, but I anticipate we will find between 1 and 30 strategies per article. That's going to be a lot of data! Unfortunately, to date I've not been successful with getting the database online. This process would be much simpler if we could more easily share our data (instead of having to cut/paste/convert to Excel), but at least this method allows me to control the data and ensure it is accurate before it appears in the database.

If there are any readers out there would can help me get a FileMaker Pro 5.0 database online (I've done it before and I'm not stuck at the TCP/IP stage), I'd appreciate any help... :-)

I also received confirmation today (I'm writing this on 2/29/08) that my NECC article from last year was conditionally accepted at JCTE. Woo-hoo! Time to get to work!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

SS and Tech, 2/10/08

126 minutes of writing

I had not planned on working today (I spent most of the day with family or packing for our move next weekend), but received feedback from the SSRP editor who is requesting the changes by tomorrow. The journal editors were very kind to give me until 2/8/08 to complete my first round of edits (they had requested a 2/1/08 deadline) so I want to provide the with the quickest turn-arounds of the highest quality I can possibly provide.

I was pleased to read that the editor felt my changes had strengthened the paper, and he accepted all that I recommended. I did, however, note that all the areas he was requesting additional changes were those that he had commented on during the previous editing round. I had clearly not yet met his expectations for some sections. I feel badly that I was not able to make completely acceptable changes during the first round. I attribute this failure to one of two things:
  1. I am so close to the manuscript at this point that I can't see the errors like and outside reader can see them; or,
  2. I am so new to the academic writing and editing process that I am not yet able to see issues that would concern a journal editor or reviewer.
I figure that the truth is probably a combination of these two, and much, much more. Being new to academic writing, there is so much I still have to learn! Through experience I shall prevail... My father, though, often quotes Omar E. Bradley as saying: "Good judgment comes from experience, but experience comes from bad judgment." I just hope my experience comes from the bad judgment of those who came before me and not from me!

Here was my email response to the editor:

"I have addressed all your comments to the best of my ability. If I have failed to meet your expectations, please provide me with more guidance. I am learning a lot through this process, and even though my eyes are blurring and everything in the manuscript now is so familiar I feel that I am continually repeating myself, I do want to ensure that Eric and I provide the best possible manuscript we can to the journal..."

I hope this is one of many, many positive experiences I have with academic journal editors. To date, I have found academic writing and editing to be a very rewarding experience and the people with whom I've worked on journal articles and books in chapters have proven themselves to be wonderful at helping me to provide them with my best quality of work.

Friday, February 8, 2008

SS and Tech, 2/08/08

201 minutes of writing

I made changes to all the editorial remarks provided by Mark Hofer for the SS and Tech article. When I began working on the article, I ended up doing a great deal more editing than I had planned (and he had requested). I'm quite eager to hear his reactions to the updated manuscript. In fact, I'm a bit nervous that he will feel I have done more damage than good to the piece. I guess that's a worry of all authors. I know the paper will never be good enough for me.

He informed me that he will review my changes over the weekend and hopes to have the manuscript to the final editing team by Monday for a March publication date.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

SS and Tech, 2/07/08

21 minutes of interrupted writing

I worked on editing the Social Studies and Tech paper, but was interrupted a lot during the process. It is due tomorrow so it will become my first priority tomorrow morning. I have nothing else on my schedule until this paper is completed and sent to the editor.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

SS and Tech, 2/06/08

42 minutes of writing

I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. Though I had hoped to complete it before the deadline on the 8th, it looks like it will take me to the 8th to complete it.

Friday, February 1, 2008

Advocating for Tech Integration and SITE Lit Review, 2/1/08

213 minutes of writing

I spent my morning updating the SITE Proceedings for the Lit Review paper. I was very glad when someone from AACE agreed to place the updated copy online (though I doubt it will go onto whatever hard copy they provide).

I then worked on an submitted the EDge proposal. I was so excited about this opportunity to write an invited article and am now worried that the quality of my proposal will not enable me to have the opportunity. My fingers are crossed!

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Tech Integration in Methods, 1/30/08

75 minutes of writing

I had not planned on revisiting the Tech Integration in Methods paper until after I heard about its disposition in the review process. Then, I communicated with Brendan Calandra of the AERA SIG-IT Young Researcher Award and learned that this paper may qualify for inclusion in the applicant pool. Because I do not have an AERA paper scheduled for delivery this year (this is the first time since 2004), I thought it might be worthwhile to apply. Also, this is the last year I qualify to apply for the award since I received my doctorate in 2003 (to be eligible, you must have completed your doctorate within the past five years).

So, I spent the evening scripting/editing a cover letter for the award and then spent my writing time editing the paper. Regardless of whether the paper is accepted for the journal (it's under review), I've cleaned it a bit and now know where I am able to cut if the editors require I lose words in the manuscript (it's currently over by 1,000 words).

Advocating for Tech Integration, 1/30/08

15 minutes of writing

I edited the EDge proposal for the Advocating paper. Though I wouldn't normally include proposals in this blog, I'm including this one because I plan to use the abstract and manuscript sample in the proposal in the actual paper.

I am so glad that I edited this yesterday morning. I was able to take it to my research writing circle and they provided me with fantastic feedback. I have a lot of work today - the proposal is due tomorrow.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Advocating for Tech Integration, 1/29/08

57 minutes of writing

I revisited the Advocacy paper after communicating with Erin Young regarding the EDge submission. She felt that a more general approach (addressing all content areas/TPCK) would align better with the focus on the journal than the social studies approach. So, I’ve decided to expand the article to be more inclusive of all subject areas. Most of the paper is written if it were to be for just social studies and I now have a lot of room for adding in (and having fun with) the other subject areas. The new approach will take significantly more time to write, but I think the final product and the venue for sharing it will make more of an impact that the more specialized article. Also, the process of writing the article will require me to delve deeply into TPCK so I will be very well-versed on that literature (a great thing since it’s such a hot topic).

So, I spent time writing. I edited the social studies version of the paper and kept a copy in case I want to later submit something just for social studies. I then worked on my “abstract.” The abstract is currently more in the form of a proposal, certainly lacking all components of the paper. It still needs a lot of work, but I think I have a great start. I also plan to write a paper outline and provide a sample from the proposed manuscript that is due on 2/1/08. I’ve requested from Erin whether these are items they would like to see in the article, or whether they would prefer a different format. As soon as I hear from her, I’ll start on the outline. Before tomorrow morning, I would like to further refine the abstract and identify a suitable “sample” to include in the proposal. I will then use that scaled-down proposal to share in my writing circle tomorrow.

SITE Lit Review, 1/29/08

108 minutes of writing

I began the day in a Skype audio conference with Amy and Scott regarding the SITE Lit Review. We established our next steps and target dates for completion of the data collection, analysis, and writing. We will meet again on 2/19/08 to plan the analysis phase and prepare for the SITE presentation. I also found myself taking a leadership role in the process. I was feeling that I wasn’t “doing my duties” as first author because I know Scott has spent significantly more time than me in data collection thus far. Today, I was able to establish myself as first author by assigning tasks and leading the edits. I feel we are working well as a team and am very glad to be working with these two professionals on this project. I’m also very happy to be doing my first publishable meta-analysis. I’ve learned a lot about the process and a lot about the journals we’re reviewing (we’re reviewing almost 1,500 articles). It’s a great way to “get my feet wet” in social studies education and the intersection between my two fields (educational technology and social studies education).

After our conference call, I spent today’s writing time re-writing the SITE proceedings. I feel MUCH better about the updated manuscript and hope the co-authors will accept all the revisions. I was writing with a much clearer mind today! As soon as I receive their approvals and additional edits, I will re-submit the manuscript with hopes it will appear in the printed proceedings. Amy and I still have work to do on our numbers, but these shouldn’t change the findings and discussion. This paper is a great beginning to our full paper.

My next task for this paper is to go back and complete data collection (word content analysis for JRTE and JCTE and full reviews for SSYL. This will take a substantial amount of time. Then, I need to get the database online, modify the SITE paper to be the full paper, write the methodology for the strategy extraction and categorization phases (the categorization will require lots of editing later, but I’d like to address it as much as possible at this phase). The methodology section must include a plan the inter-rater reliability testing and a strong definition for the word “strategy”). [Note to self: Ask Amy and Scott to help in identifying resources to help in defining this construct.]

I am still crazy trying to manage everything. I have an EDge proposal due in two days. I’ve not started preparing the proposal though I at least have received confirmation that my proposal idea sounds like it will align with items of interest to the editor and I have a previous start that may help.

Also, I have lots of work to do in terms of the Teaching American History Grant and the related research. I need to prepare the IRB for the service learning study ASAP (as soon as I complete the EDge proposal) and I need to get my reflections on virtual paper before I grade the next set of student work. I also have the SSRP article to edit and re-submit for March publication, ad I am meeting with Steve to discuss the literature review for the assessment paper tomorrow. He seems to be progressing well independently with the study so I can forget about it for awhile and just be available as needed on this paper. Also, who knows when I might have something to do on the Wikipedia study. I try to respond to Adam and Tom quickly when they send something. It sure is nice to not be first author on a paper for once! J

And, don’t forget… I present this Saturday on geography learning centers. Remembering the mantra “If it isn’t published, it didn’t happen” (Sandra Odell), I should think about writing….

Thursday, January 24, 2008

SS and Tech, 1/24/08

45 minutes of writing

I edited the SS and Tech paper per the editor's suggestions. I worked only on paper and need to transfer my corrections to the electronic copy of the manuscript.

I'm concerned because I've been making the corrections when I'm completely drained and don't feel my writing is of the quality I would expect of myself. I suppose it's better to get something down on paper and then I can go back and edit it when I'm mentally healthier.

Monday, January 21, 2008

SITE Lit Review, 1/21/08

78 minutes of writing

My co-authors and I have been working feverishly to complete our Proceeding's submission for the 2008 SITE Conference. I have spent the last few days writing, editing, and engaging in data collection. I still have some data to collect, but I believe we have a nice Proceeding's paper and a great start to an excellent, publishable literature review. Though the content would probably not be suitable for Review of Educational Research, I've made sure to ensure the empiricism of the method would meet their standards. We're ready to move into the next phase.

For now, I need to take a break from this paper to get out the SS and Tech article, prepare a proposal for an EDge Invited article, and think about finding something to possibly submit for the SIG-IT Young Researcher Award.

Friday, January 18, 2008

SITE Lit Review, 1/18/08

69 minutes of writing

I finally was able to get my head in the game for the SITE Lit Review paper. Though I failed in collecting the data I had hoped to complete collecting today (and now I MUST complete it all tomorrow), I did make many accomplishments on the paper. First, I rethought, refined, and actually wrote the methodology for the paper. I believe I wrote it in a manner that will allow all three authors to find the articles to suit our needs while providing enough rigor and detail to denote empiricism throughout the process.

I was also very grateful to hear that one of the authors, Scott, completed all of his first-tier data collection today. We are truly making progress and may make our 1/21/08 deadline.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

SS and Tech, 1/15/08

24 minutes of writing

I received recommended editorial changes from Mark Hofer relating to the SS and Tech paper and began making the changes. I've completed all the easily corrected recommendations (e.g., reformatting) and changed the paper from blind to including the author names. There are still many changes to make, but the remaining ones require more intellectual thought than I had available to expend tonight.

The editors did not request a substantial amount of work on the paper so I hope I can finish all the edits within the next few days. I am, however, doing this at the cost of doing work on the research for the SITE Lit Review.

Regarding the SITE Lit Review, Amy and Scott approved the changes I recommended yesterday. I need to take the next step and assign duties so we can get started with data collection ASAP. It would be nice if we could start analysis over the weekend so we would have a few days to prepare a first draft. We're really curring this one close! The team does see that this will be a smaller selection of literature to review, but we all agree we would like to expand the review to include databases (at least) for a more thorough review in a later paper).

I am currently on my second day in the Academic Ladder Writing Club and wanted to be sure to write at least 15 minutes today so I could say I had written. I realize that I need to save projects like this for days like today when I need less mental engagement.

Monday, January 14, 2008

SITE Lit Review, 1/14/08

40 minutes of writing

I took time today to conceive of and write out the methodology for the SITE Lit Review paper. I also spent time (other than my writing time) communicating with the co-authors, Amy Good and Scott Waring, to confirm they were amendable to the methodology.

The methodology would provide us the data necessary for the publishable manuscript in a social studies, teacher education, or technology integration journal, but I do not believe it is strong enough for an RER paper. The data, however, could be used as the basis for an RER paper if we enjoy the process and later wish to expand the scope. I've been careful in the methodology to ensure empiricism so the RER avenue will remain open for the future.

On another note, I received word today that the SS and Tech article was accepted with revisions for SSRP for the March issue. It needs additional writing and fine tuning and I look forward to working with the editors to make their recommended changes. Eric, the co-author, has approved my offer to make the changes and review them just before final submission. Woo-hoo!

And, on another note...
I received word from PDK that my This is a Public School? article may be suitable for the Kappan (though it is suitable for EDge), but my Advocating for Social Studies Integration article is not suited for the EDge. There is a possibility I could re-work the article to be cross-disciplinary. Alternatively, if the Integrating Tech in Methods Courses article is rejected by JCTE, EDge may be a suitable alternative. It's a particularly enviable alternative because they accept longer articles.

Friday, January 11, 2008

SITE Lit Review and Tech Advocacy for SS, 1/11/08

36 minutes of writing

Tara Gray has continued to support me in my writing by emailing and/or calling on a daily basis to encourage my daily writing. Her persistence is exactly what I'm needing. She's agreed to continue mentoring me until I begin with Academic Ladder next week.

Here is the progress I made today:
I realized I'm really working on 3 manuscripts right now. On one (the Wikipedia article), I'm the third/fourth author so it only takes editing time. But, since the IRB protocol is due next week, this article is taking a few hours a week now. On another (the SITE article), I'm lead author and need to get my team working ASAP on data collection. I reworked the SITE proposal today and identified next steps for the literature review (which is, in fact, the methodology since the paper is a lit review). So far, I have nothing to write on that paper, but will hopefully have something to write soon. I also worked on editing a paper I think may work for the invited manuscript I need to propose by 2/1 for the EDge (Advocacy for Technology in Social Studies). And, I emailed the editor regarding that manuscript to get her recommendations on which of my articles might best fit the journal's directions.

So, though the computer doesn't look any different (except in my Outbox), I have lots of written notes on drafts of manuscripts.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

This is a Public School?, 1/5/08

72 minutes of writing

After a long break from writing (read… after ignoring writing by making it the last priority on my work list), I read in the TAA newsletter that experienced authors were willing to serve as mentors to struggling authors like me. I also noticed that Tara Grey’s name was on the list. It was Tara who inspired the creation of this blog during her one-day seminar at UNLV titled “Becoming a Prolific Scholar.” I immediately emailed Tara to inquire if she might be willing to be my mentor, and she responded with “Are you up for writing tomorrow?” No, I wasn’t up to writing, but the challenge was enough to get me started.

Today, I began writing an article intended for the Kappan. The article is an introduction to Garehime’s microcommunity. I would like it to be the basic introduction to the community, from which I hope to write several spin-off articles. This article is the overview. Some possible spin-offs might include:
  • “Being an Instructional Leader” for Educational Leadership (with James Crawford?)
  • Something about service learning (with Jennifer Ponder?)
  • Focus on individual agencies/ventures for social studies journals
  • First year teachers in microcommunities for a teaching journal