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….