Keeler Research

This is a Public School?, 2/16/10

2010-02-17T13:53:00.001-08:00

15 minutes of writing

I again looked at the microcommunities manuscript, and, again, was concerned about the personal perspective. So, I sent it off to Vicki and Joel for their feedback. Both concurred; it's too much of the first-person perspective. They provided excellent feedback and suggestions for new directions.

I don't think de-personalizing the manuscript will be terribly difficult, but I'd prefer to finish with the assessment paper before continuing on this one.

This is a Public School?, 2/14/10

2010-02-17T13:50:00.000-08:00

20 minutes of writing

I revisited the "This is a Public School?" paper and really like it a lot... But, it's so personal/first person perspective that I worry it might not appeal to a Kappan audience. I sent it to Char with a request for edits and she provided some great feedback (which I have yet to integrate into the paper).

Assessment Paper, 2/12/10

2010-02-17T13:49:00.000-08:00

22 minutes of writing

I worked on editing the rest of the assessment paper and there were only small changes to make. Char provided me with editorial suggestions and I hope to hear Steve's recommended editorial remarks within the next few days.

Assessment Paper, 2/7/10

2010-02-07T21:43:00.000-08:00

30 minutes of writing

I edited the beginning through the literature review of the assessment paper. The section needs greater cohesion, but I'm not sure how to do that. I'm getting happier with the dates of the citations, but this is also a concern (particularly given that the first citation in the introduction is from 1996.

Being accountable to my writing with Char has been very beneficial. I've written more this week than I have in a long time. I hope to keep up even this minor improvement.

Assessment Paper, 2/3/10

2010-02-02T11:53:00.000-08:00

110 minutes of writing

Thanks to Char, I'm trying to get back on the "writing horse." Steve has also worked hard to motivate me to finish the literature review for the assessment paper so we can get it back under review.

In reviewing the literature review, I saw that there was no discussion of the exciting work being done at Harvard with emerging technologies. I also couldn't avoid adding in some mention of the Gee and Squires work on digital gaming in educational environments.

I have not re-worked the entire section, but did add a significant portion to the end of the literature review. I think this makes the paper much stronger.

Next, I need to review the entire paper (it might need some updating in regard to citations), and, again, get it ready and send it out for review.

Virtual Museums, 10/28/09

2009-11-01T15:32:00.000-08:00

44 minutes of writing

I began outlining and pseudo-writing the virtual museums L&L article co-authored with Greg Telhorster. I have been quite remiss at working on this article and it is time to begin buckling down and working fastidiously. I plan to email Greg (with a cc to Diane Heitzenrater) as soon as possible with the work I've done. As soon as he and I approve a final outline, I would like to write my portion within a few days.

Microcommunities, 7/22/09

2009-07-22T21:34:00.000-07:00

75 minutes of writing

In preparing an AERA proposal for 2010 (Denver), I worked on developing the beginnings of a paper on the microcommunities research. I combined information from the IRB protocol with the paper I began writing: "This is a Public School?" The proposal is quite poor and I do not believe it will be accepted, but it really peaked my interest in finishing "This is a Public School" as a paper for the Kappan.

I do hope the proposal is accepted because I feel indebted to the people from Garehime for the generous gift of their time. I need to get their ideas on paper to be shared with a wide audience. They deserve it and other schools need to know that the possibility of a truly dynamic, citizenship-based program is available for their use.

Sped Law Paper, 5/26/09

2009-05-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

25 minutes of writing

I edited the SpEd Law paper. There's a lot of good writing and information in the paper, but it still lacks a cohesive structure that makes a bold point. I've requested content editing by Dr. McCord and he's said he would do it as soon as he finishes his summer teaching.

Sped Law Paper, 5/1/09

2009-05-01T20:35:00.000-07:00

360 minutes of writing

I spent the day completely focused on the SpEd Law paper and was able to complete a first full draft. In addition to bringing in the new references (and finding another gem to add to the collection), I was able to identify some related case law. I worked on the section on UDL and the conclusion, but neither make the point I wish to make to my liking. I need a much stronger ending and probably need to change my conclusion to a "Stakeholders" section, expand that section, and write a separate conclusion. I also need to make my UDL section much more relevant to my topic of law. Basically, I currently have a lot of good, but disjointed work.

I've submitted the manuscript to Bob McCord for his review. I hope he will be able to offer a lot of guidance for improvement. I just want to be done with this paper. I would LOVE to finally catch up with my "almost ready to go in the outbox" box.

Sped Law Paper, 4/30/09

2009-05-01T20:33:00.000-07:00

45 minutes of writing

I began delving back into the research for the SpEd Law paper. In addition to the articles I authored on the topic, I found three other recent gems from JSET. I began editing the paper to include these pieces and to improve the text already in existence.

Sped Law Paper, 4/26/09

2009-04-27T09:36:00.000-07:00

20 minutes of writing

I am dedicating this week to completing the special education law paper. I began by reviewing the paper and integrating the outline I prepared about a month ago. I see that the paper will require a review of more recent literature - most references are pre-2004. I also need to inquire with Dr. McCord whether he is aware of any case law that may be relevant to my topic.

My next task is to review the major tech and special education journals for recent articles relating to the topic. I also need to revisit the "What Works'" and AJDE papers (which I know I will need to reference in this paper).

Service Learning Paper, 3/2/09

2009-03-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

44 minutes of writing

I worked on the service learning paper by beginning a proposal for CUFA. The paper needs lots of editing (it's over 5,000 words and needs to be under 2,000), but what exists is a decent start to a full paper. I need to complete the final report (phase 4) and begin analyzing across all reports.

Feature Articles

2009-02-05T17:04:00.000-08:00

0 minutes of writing

I was recently featured on two websites, one for the Textbook and Authors Association and one for the National History Education Clearinghouse. Originals of these articles are available here:

Feature Article—Busy TAA People: “Blogging Keeps Author on Track to Write Regularly, ” (by K. Seidel) The Academic Author (Textbook Authors Association), 2009 (originally available at http://www.taaonline.net/membersonly/busytaapeople/index.html)
Feature Article—Project Spotlight: “Civil War and Digital Storytelling: Perspectives on Abraham Lincoln [Nevada],” (by Lee Ann Ghajar) National History Education Clearinghouse, 2009 (originally available at http://teachinghistory.org/tah-grants/project-spotlight/20759)

IRB Proposals

2008-12-09T20:50:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-09T10:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Assessment Paper, 11/3/08

2008-11-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

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

Assessment Paper, 10/27/08

2008-10-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Assessment Paper, 10/23/08

2008-10-23T15:11:00.001-07:00

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.

Assessment Paper, 10/21/08

2008-10-21T21:39:00.000-07:00

~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.

Tech Integration in Methods, 4/23/08

2008-05-05T09:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Assessment Paper, 3/10/08

2008-03-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

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.

SITE Lit Review, 2/25/08

2008-02-29T14:04:00.000-08:00

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!

SS and Tech, 2/10/08

2008-02-10T21:50:00.000-08:00

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:

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,
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.

SS and Tech, 2/08/08

2008-02-08T18:09:00.000-08:00

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.

SS and Tech, 2/07/08

2008-02-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

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.

SS and Tech, 2/06/08

2008-02-06T20:35:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2008-02-01T18:42:00.000-08:00

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!

Tech Integration in Methods, 1/30/08

2008-01-31T23:05:00.001-08:00

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

2008-01-31T09:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Advocating for Tech Integration, 1/29/08

2008-01-29T16:04:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T16:03:00.000-08:00

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….

SS and Tech, 1/24/08

2008-01-24T20:01:00.000-08:00

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.

SITE Lit Review, 1/21/08

2008-01-21T22:02:00.000-08:00

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.

SITE Lit Review, 1/18/08

2008-01-18T20:07:00.001-08:00

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.

SS and Tech, 1/15/08

2008-01-15T18:13:00.000-08:00

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.

SITE Lit Review, 1/14/08

2008-01-14T22:42:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2008-01-11T17:07:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2008-01-05T13:03:00.000-08:00

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

Editorial: Integrating Tech in SS, 10/22/07

2007-10-31T13:19:00.000-07:00

213 minutes of writing

Feeling that I needed to provide the field of social studies education with a justification for integrating technology, particularly so I could reference it in my works and not have to continue repeating myself, I decided to write one. I deleted several sections from other papers that justify the reason(s) for integrating technology in social studies education because they lacked the needed room to make a convincing case. I also deleted sections that provided methods for moving toward greater integration. I combined these and began a new paper.

SS and Tech/Tech Integration in Methods, 09/14/07

2007-09-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

153 minutes of writing/editing

Today was incredibly productive.

I began by reviewing the shell of the paper with the working title "Beyond PowerPoint: Integrating Technology into Social Studies Methods Courses" and determined that it should be broken into two papers.

The first paper is mostly written - an editorial. I think this section of the previous working paper would make a great persuasion piece for "The Social Studies," but I should also check in "Social Education" to see if it may fit there as well. It is quite short, 6.5 pages, and needs lots of wordsmithing to help with the flow of the manuscript. I hesitate to do any more with the article until I review the two journals, select a suitable location for submission, and review their similarly published pieces. That is where I would like to start tomorrow.

The second piece would be a "how to" on technology integration in methods courses. This paper may be good for Social Studies Research and Practice (the "Practice" section). Unfortunately, little of it is written <2 pages. Though it is conceptually done in the form of the NCSS 2007 presentation, it still has lots of work to go.

The second thing I did today was review the Technology in Integration Methods paper. It was quite good, only needing copy editing and minor wordsmithing. It was so good (in my opinion, of course), that I deemed it ready for review and submitted it to the Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. I think this is a perfect forum for the paper, but doubt they will accept it for two reasons. First, it is 6,000 words and they request manuscripts to be 2,000-4,000 words. Second, it is action research and uses an informal writing style in some sections. If it is not accepted by JCTE, I may try the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction.

Another great accomplishment today was getting the co-written (with Eric) PowerPoint to Podcasts article under review (the submission process worked with a different browser).

It feels great to now have three items under review (including the WebQuests chapter) and more in the queue to get out soon. My current goal is to try to get out this editorial on tech integration in social studies, and then I'll either begin writing on the technology integration in methods courses, 21st century social studies paper, or return to the learning styles and assessment papers. I think addressing the latter two is my best bet to get items under review.

Looking ahead at future research, I've made great progress in the last few weeks. I begin data collection on phase one of the microcommunities study next week (YES!!!!), I will be working with Vicki Kilbury to finalize a research for a first-year teachers study next week, and I have an appointment with Don Anderson to discuss the Teaching American History grant evaluation and possible research questions/data.

Today, the world looks good! :-)

SS and Tech, 09/11/07

2007-09-11T11:32:00.000-07:00

156 minutes of writing

It's time to get writing again! My goal is to publish, publish, publish this year since I am not teaching full-time.

Today I edited the PowerPoint to Podcasts article so it could be submitted to CITE. It is ready to be uploaded to the submission system, but there were errors in the uploading process. I've contacted the system administrator for help with the problem.

I am concerned about submitting to CITE because it cautions that the review process can take 5 months. This is such a long time in the tech world and I'm not sure the editors will see the journal as a suitable forum for the article. I think a practitioner-based journal might be better, but I like the audience of CITE and feel the article will be read more if published there (anyone can access back articles). In an email from Cheryl Mason Bolick in response to a request for a recommended list of journals to which I should submit this article, she suggested CITE, The Social Studies, and JCTE. I do not believe it is research-based enough to be published in JCTE and I have other articles I think would be better suited to that journal. The Social Studies would be a good choice, but the articles in this journal are not publicly available and the journal is quite young. One benefit is that it comes in print and electronic formats, but I don't think that would help readership.

My first goal is to now get the article under review (and let Eric know it's back under review). I've also sent an email about the WebQuest Chapter and hope that is still planned for printing.

My next goal is to determine where I am in my writing and plan a schedule for getting more manuscripts under review.

Garehime Research, 6/28/07

2007-06-29T08:44:00.000-07:00

237 minutes of writing

I spent the afternoon and late evening and night working on the research proposal for the Garehime study. Though the proposal is far from done, I made good progress.

Because today is the last day for principals in CCSD, I had to get the proposal to Francine by this morning. I let her know that the proposal still needs lots of work, particularly in the areas of literature review and methodology.

I hope to make more progress on the methodology section today and to begin to prepare the IRB form. I also plan to contact someone at UNLV to review the IRB paperwork with me before I submit it (perhaps Sandra Odell).

Tech Integration in Methods, 6/18/07

2007-06-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

144 minutes of writing

I completed the first round of editing of the Tech Integration in Methods paper and re-uploaded it to the NECC website. Though I feel it still needs tightening and a strong, more enticing opening, I think it's quite a good start. Currently, it's 6,800+ words so the tightening is absolutely necessary. I think I may consider revising it after the NECC research paper round table and submit it for review at Journal of Computing in Teacher Education (though this would require a stronger research base) or Journal of Creative Teaching.

Now that this draft is done, I will return to preparing the research proposal for the Garehime research.

Tech Integration in Methods, 6/17/07

2007-06-17T21:03:00.000-07:00

81 minutes of writing

I spent time reviewing and editing the Tech Integration paper for NECC. It's better than I thought it would be, but still needs work. I've edited half-way through the results section and will continue there tomorrow. I then will need to add the edits (currently on a hard copy) to the original file. I need to finish this so I can get to the Garehime paper before seeing Francie for the Garehime research on Wednesday.

I feel like I'm working so slowly on everything. Being at home is wonderful because when the boys or Mike ask me to do something (e.g., Mommy will you play a game with me), I can. But, it's also hard to find focused time to work.

At least I'm making daily progress...

Tech Integration in Methods, 6/16/07

2007-06-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

150 minutes of writing

I completed the first draft of the Tech Integration paper and now need to begin the editing process. I would like to complete a decent draft by tomorrow afternoon to upload to the NECC site. That will then give me time to get working on the Garehime Research proposal.

I also need to rework the ISTE SIG-TE Forum Survey this weekend.

Tech Integration in Methods, 6/15/07

2007-06-15T23:17:00.000-07:00

135 minutes of writing

Yes, this blog has experienced deep silence for several months. Note that the silence is not due to a lack of productivity, but it is due to very slow productivity. In addition to a slowed pace due to the end of the academic year, lots of travel, and the beginning of summer break for my wonderful boys, I have spent time writing for other venues (e.g., preparing applications for awards and summer institutes, writing for the Balloon Boy book) and have dedicated time to other parts of the research process. I also spent time proof editing the AJDE paper which should be out soon.

Today, I worked on the Tech Integration in Methods paper. Though it is not finished, I uploaded a first draft to the NECC website (papers were due today). I have two sections left to write, and plan to complete these tomorrow morning.

The paper will need a lot of editing. In fact, I know I want to re-write or add to the opening, but this is work that could be done when preparing the paper for publication.

I need to finish this paper so I can return to writing the research proposal for the Garehime study. As soon as that is finished, I need to begin the research proposal for the We the People study. And, finally, I have three articles to get under review (Social Studies Technology Ideas - it was rejected by Social Education - and the Assessment and Learning Styles papers).

Tech Integration in Methods, 4/30/07

2007-04-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

66 minutes of writing

First of all, I am very disappointed that I haven't written in two weeks (ever since AERA). Mike's been out of town a lot (as has Mom), I've not overworked myself because I needed a break after AERA, and the end of the semester is near. But... no excuses!

Today, I was able to spend a good hour writing. I started on the NECC paper in hopes that I can load a first draft before May 7. If I can finish the first draft and load it, my paper will be considered for the SIG-TE Research Paper Award. If not, final drafts need not be uploaded until June 15th.

I was pleased to see that much of the work I did on the NECC proposal was useful in the paper. I have a lot of data-finding and analysis to do, but many sections of the paper are already written. A concern noted by my research writing circle, however, is that the writing is very dry. John suggested I add some color, perhaps with a vignette. On Colleen's recommendation, I may use the quote about the lack of change in public school classrooms since the 1800s.

My next step on this paper is to begin collecting data. Therefore, I may not write for a few more days, but at least I'll be engaged with research.

I hope to finish this paper fairly soon so I can return to and finish the Tech in SSM and 21st C Social Studies papers and get them under review. After that, I want to paper research proposals/IRB materials for new research on residential institutes and micro-societies, work on Balloon Boy with BJ, finish all my online instructional design papers, and plan for a longitudinal repeat of my dissertation study.

I am sad to say that today was probably the last day my research writing circle will meet. We are planning to continue work over the summer using Google Docs and we will re-evaluate who is at UNLV and wishes to continue in the circle in the new school year. We cannot continue to meet face-to-face because of our schedules (plus, John will be in Turkey all summer).

SS and Tech, 04/12/07

2007-04-12T21:40:00.000-07:00

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:

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

Tech in SSM, 04/12/07

2007-04-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-11T22:25:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-11T11:18:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-10T21:40:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-09T20:29:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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!

SIG-IT Bio and NSC Application, 04/03/07

2007-04-03T20:38:00.000-07:00

75 minutes of non-publishable writing

I am estimating on the timing because my SDS Time application is not working very effectively - something I'll need to work on next week (or later).

Today I worked on two non-publishable items.

First, I decided to apply for a national board position on AERA's SIG-IT Governing Board. Today was the last day to apply and I figured I had nothing to lose. All that was required was a 150 word biography. I prepared my biography and sent it off to the president of the SIG, Bill Kealy. He emailed me back within an hour and told me my nomination was accepted and that I would have an option of the secretary-treasurer or webmaster positions. I stated that I would be open to fill whichever position is most needed by the Board and he, again quickly, returned my email and stated he feels the webmaster position is most crucial at this point. I am very excited about the possibility of serving in AERA!

Second, I continued to work on the NSC cover letter. Dr. Grubaugh provided some useful comments on my previous draft and I added in the changes he recommended. His main concern was my lack of mention of my grant involvement. This is an area I will need to be sure to address on my vita. When finished with the edits, I sent in my application materials and am now officially in the application pool.

I'm very concerned that my recent writings have not been leading to publishable papers. I still have to prepare a poster for AERA next week and work on departmental service responsibilities so will have little time later this week to write. I'm depending on finding some time at AERA next week to write. I think I should schedule an hour a day next week for this process. I need to get the following works under review:

SS ad Tech
21st Century Social Studies
Tech Integration in Social Studies Methods

Each of these simply requires time, not much additional research. If I complete these, I will be able to dedicate my time upon returning to the NECC paper.

I also hope to work with Mark Horney next week to progress on the SPED Law paper. I would like him to accept first authorship and complete the article.

P.S. I did not meet with my writing circle this week because it is Spring Break in CCSD and I was with the boys. I will also miss next week because of AERA. I hope I will have plenty for them to review upon my return.

NSC Application, 04/01/07

2007-04-02T14:17:00.000-07:00

120 minutes of non-publishable writing

I prepared the first draft of a cover letter for an application to Nevada State College. The letter includes sections from previously written cover letters as well as some new writing.

I must get this out within the next few days because I need to be preparing for AERA's poster session.

During AERA next week, I hope to revisit the SS and Tech paper and perhaps work on the 21st century social studies paper. The latter is probably due soon.

DEN Application, 03/27/07

2007-03-27T12:47:00.000-07:00

75 minutes of writing

I completed editing my DEN application and emailed it off. I'm not very confident I will be selected for participation because I spoke with Jannita last night who stated that the Bahama's institute will focus on previous institute participants. I wish I were available to apply for the other institutes!

I would like to revise my RQ to include more technology components, or to explicit state they will be considered as part of the research project. The new working RQ is: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogical and technological skills do teachers gain during residential insitutes."

DEN Application, 03/26/07

2007-03-27T12:45:00.000-07:00

15 minutes of writing

I spent time editing my DEN application before my research writing circle met. The members of the writing circle agree that this type of writing should count toward "writing" because the goal is to increase my writing time and skills. I'm not sure I agree. I believe my writing time should be focused on writing for publication. My goal, ultimately, is to increase my peer-reviewed publications.

DEN Application, 03/25/07

2007-03-27T12:42:00.000-07:00

75 minutes of writing (pseudo)

I began preparing my application for the Discovery Education Network summer institute. I hope to be accepted because I would like to use this experience to collect research data to officially begin addressing the RQ: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogy knowledge do teachers gain when participating in residential institutes?"

I question whether this type of writing (basically a proposal rather than writing for publication) should count toward "writing" in my blog and with my research writing circle.

21st Century SS, 03/20/07

2007-03-20T21:06:00.000-07:00

75 minutes of writing

I began writing a paper based on the CUE presentation on 21st Century Social Studies. I think I should finish the SS and Tech paper before I return to this one again.

Interestingly, I wrote most of it on my way to work using my iPod. This technique doesn't seem to work too well because I found that what I said and what I would write are completely different things. Also, it was time consuming to re-type what I wrote. In fact, I currently have 4 pages of the new manuscript, and I'm only half-way through re-typing.

SS and Tech, 3/15/07

2007-03-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

12 minutes of writing

I know... this is a pathetic amount of time after such a long period of not writing. It's Spring Break and I'm trying to relax a bit in preparation for the remainder of the school year. I am also trying to keep up on grading this semester by returning papers to students within a week of their due dates.

My writing today consisted of reviewing the conclusion to the SS and Tech paper based on recommendations from the last writing circle meeting. I believe the only remaining changes in the paper are on the table. The table will need substantial work if I am to align it with the Moersch framework. This will be my next step.

Despite my lack of writing, I have spent time researching. I sent in the AERA paper and spent time in preparation for the NECC paper. I'm needing to learn much more on action research and begin to collect data from the previous SSM courses and student comments (audio and written). I think the paper has a lot of potential, but it is still in its conception stage. I need to really begin focusing on the paper.

I've also considered the possibility of writing up the paper from the CUE conference -- 21st century social studies. That might be a good practitioner piece for the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction's summer social studies issue. And, best of all, it probably wouldn't take too long to write. One major thing I need to do to make that into a possible paper is re-record the presentation. The CUE audio is extremely poor and I've not learned the audio enhancing skills to remove all the white noise. It will probably take less time to re-record it.

SS and Tech, 3/05/07

2007-03-05T12:57:00.000-08:00

54 minutes of writing

I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper with a focus on aligning statements with Moersch's LoTi framework. Because I hear Moersch speak at CUE this last weekend, I have a better grasp of the LoTi framework and feel more comfortable writing about it. I'm still concerned about aligning his levels with the table at the end of this paper, but I will be able to have others look this section over to check my work.

TAH Grant, 02/26/07

2007-02-26T12:45:00.000-08:00

60 minutes of writing

I edited the TAH grant. I will now be taking it to my writing circle for their review before I make final changes. My sections will be completed and sent to the co-directors and grant writers tonight.

TAH Grant, 02/25/07

2007-02-26T12:44:00.000-08:00

276 minutes of writing

I worked on the pedagogical modules for the TAH grant. I completed the task, but need to edit my work. I plan to have it to the grant writers and co-directors no later than tomorrow.

What Works, 2/24/07

2007-02-24T14:58:00.000-08:00

81 minutes of writing

I finished it! I finished the writing and editing of the "What Works" chapter. The only section about which I had serious concern was a paragraph I added today. Lynne was online and I was able to get her approval on the paragraph.

In addition to the final draft, I prepared a second document for the editors (and co-authors) identifying the changes (and justifications for lack of changes) between the reviewers' comments and the final draft. I sent both the final and edited versions to the editors and co-authors. It's now out of my hands and I hope the editors are pleased enough to truly make this the final draft.

I also spent a few minutes looking at the TAH grant. After speaking with Stephanie Hirsch last night, I learned that I need only elaborate of three of the modules in the grant. Though they plan to use all the modules, only three will appear in the grant application. I've promised Stephanie I'll have my modules to her by tomorrow night.

It's been very rewarding to get out this chapter and the WebQuest chapter over the last week. Once I finish the TAH grant, I'll be able to spend the rest of the week focusing on the CUE Conference (21st century social studies).

What Works, 2/22/07

2007-02-24T13:34:00.000-08:00

33 mintues of writing

I contacted Jonathon for information about the CAST screenshots so I could add a section (per Lynne's recommendation) to describe the shots. He sent them immediately and I was able to begin writing.

In addition, I worked on devising a plan of how to best send our edits to the editors. I think I'll send three documents. The final cleanly edited version, a version showing the editorial changes, and the version with all our editorial comments. I'm not yet convinced this is the best plan.

What Works, 2/21/07

2007-02-24T13:32:00.000-08:00

36 minutes of writing

I received Lynne's edits and began cleaning the final draft for the editors. Lynne added her changes to mine so the product I received includes many editorial remarks which may make it difficult for the editors.

Methods of SSM: WebQuest Lesson, 02/20/07

2007-02-20T21:13:00.000-08:00

75 minutes of writing

I made final edits to the WebQuest Lesson Chapter and mailed it off to the text editor. I sure hope it is accepted!

I also communicated with the Teaching American History Grant writer, Tamra, who recommended I communicate with Drs. Green and Beachly regarding the content changes I made to the grant. I will do that this evening. When I complete adding my sections to the grant proposal, I will then share the remainder of my edits with them.

Tomorrow I need to work on grading (I need to return students' units plans ASAP) and then focus on the grant. As soon as the grant is done, I can switch my focus to the 21st century skills paper/presentation for CUE. CUE is only a week away.

TAH Grant, 02/19/07

2007-02-19T21:24:00.000-08:00

186 minutes of writing

I began working on the Teaching American History (TAH) grant, "Inside American History." The works of Drs. Deanna Beachly and Michel Green make this process incredibly easy because of their clear writing and attention to detail. Though I've engaged in lots of copy editing, there's been very little content editing.

To this point, I've only reviewed the main text of the grant application (up to the individual module descriptions). Though there were substantive changes to the expectations in terms of content pedagogy, the only other major changes were in terms of the annual trip. I'm not certain the grant team will approve of my recommended changes because they require a lot more on the part of the attending teachers, but I feel there needs to be some responsibility during their excursion and upon their return. For example, I recommend an application process to attend and as part of that process I suggest they develop classroom materials ot engage in in-servicing upon their return. I also recommend journal writing during the field experience. This latter piece would definitely enhance the long-term benefits of the field experience and would certainly provide a rich data source for research. I hope the grant team agrees to these changes.

I hope, too, that Drs. Green and Beachly are not offended by my editing. They truly did a beautiful job with the initial draft. Because of my work with Lynne, my expectations for clarity are so high that I feel much more comfortable with the draft I've edited. I hope they will feel that way, too (as will the other grant team members).

My next step is to begin work on the modules. This is the section tht will require my true expertise.

Methods of SSM: WebQuest Lesson, 02/17/07 and 2/19/07

2007-02-19T15:56:00.000-08:00

9 minutes of writing on 2/17/07
21 minutes of writing on 2/19/07

I continued editing the Methods chapter on WebQuests. I still am not pleased with the tone, but, because I'm approaching the deadline, I plan to send it off soon anyway. I've asked Mom to review the paper for her impression on tone.

I'm still awaiting Lynne's edits on the What Works chapter. She said I would have them by this morning so I'm rather concerned that the editing process was more cumbersome than anticipated.

Methods of SSM: WebQuest Lesson, 02/17/07

2007-02-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

105 minutes of writing

I continued work on the methods/webquest chapter and completed the first draft. I'm still not pleased with the tone and know the chapter needs lots of work. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to improve it. I will print it out and continue to edit it later today.

I also spoke with Lynne this morning about the What Works chapter. She will review my edits and make further editorial changes and will return the final draft to me no later than Monday morning.

I am very eager to complete both these chapters and get them to the editors. I need to begin focusing my attention on the Teaching American History (TAH) grant due in two weeks and begin preparing for the CUE conference.

Methods of SSM: WebQuest Lesson, 02/14/07

2007-02-15T11:21:00.000-08:00

39 minutes of writing

I edited the webquest methods chapter based on the feedback of my writing circle colleagues and added a bit more text. I also did additional editing to the paper based on my own reading of the manuscript.

I'm concerned with the tone of the piece. It reads: "I do this, and then this, and then I..."

I received an email from Lynne this morning with concerns about the What Works Chapter. I hope to talk with her by phone this eveing to address her concerns.

Methods of SSM: WebQuest Lesson, 02/12/07

2007-02-12T19:43:00.000-08:00

117 minutes of writing

I am so excited to announce that I completed the CITI Human Subjects course late last night. I am now eligible to submit human subjects protocols to UNLV's IRB (though I may not be able to be a principal investigator since I am in a visiting position -- I'll have to look into this).

Because March 1st is fast approaching, I decided I need to begin focusing on writing for the manuscripts due by 3/1. This revelation fortunately came at a time when there is a slight lull in my teaching and service responsilibities. I decided to begin by working on preparing a chapter for submission to the Methods of Teaching Social Studies Methods text. Though there are several chapters that interest me, I decided to begin with a chapter describing my lesson on web-based resources. This is a very unique lesson and I feel the students learn such critically important technology skills during the lesson while learning so much about web-based social studies resources. The chapters are very short (2000 words) and not research-based. My plan is to complete this chapter quickly, send it off to the text editor, and offer to write an additional chapter if she feels my work is suitable for the text.

I spent the morning preparing a first draft of the first half of the manuscript, and I spent part of the afternoon editing the first few pages. I finished in time to take those pages to my writing circle where I received very helpful feedback (as always!). I hope to revisit, revise, and continue writing on this manuscript tomorrow, and keep working on it until it is ready to send to the editor.

I also need to be thinking about a CUFA proposal (I really don't know what to submit at this point and am not sure I should submit anything given my questionable status as a social studies educator).

I also need to begin preparing a research protocol for my NECC research. I'm still not sure of my research questions and hope to edify those questions tomorrow. I have the privilege of meeting with Sandra Odell who can hopefully give me guidance in this area as well as help me identify directions for my research agenda.

Finally, CUE is just around the corner. I will presenting on 21st Century Social Studies and have LOTS of preparation to do. I'm hoping that part of the preparation will involve the writing of a paper I can submit for review.

Currently, the biggest problem I foresee with my research is the lack of scientific scrutiny. I have many suggestions and examples of social studies and technology integration at the K-12 and teacher education levels, but no data to support that these lead to greater student learning or enhanced use of technological tools. I must begin to address this issue - the NECC research is a great strting point for this problem.

What Works and SS and Tech, 2/09/07

2007-02-10T11:08:00.000-08:00

81 minutes of writing

What Works:
I received word back from Jonathon that the manuscript is ready to send to the editors, but I'm still concerned that the CAST screenshots represent professional development courses instead of K-12 classes (the audience of and title for the book). I've emailed the remaining authors with a request for them to give their final approval on the chapter and respond to my concern about these screenshots. I stated that I will await sending the final draft to the editor until I receive approval from Mark and Lynne.
I'm really tired of this paper.

SS and Tech:
I spent time making the changes recommended by my writing group. There is one paragraph that still potentially needs work, but I'm not confident about their recommended suggestions. I'm considering asking Greg Levitt to read the paragraph to see if he thinks it should be changed.
This paper is definitely getting closer to having an updated draft, but still has a long was to go. I need to revisit the Moersch/SS connection and then relate items in the tables at the end to the framework. This will take substantial time.

SSM and Tech Research:
I met with Leora Baron at the TLC to discuss moving from scholarly teaching to scholarship of teaching and learning. She suggested some research questions I may wish to use to drive my NECC paper, but I'm not ready to commit to any specific question. She did convict me to complete the human subjects online course and begin communicating with one of the IRB members about whether this research would be exempt from review. I'm sure it will be, and since I don't have my RQs yet, I'll wait until I get further along in my proposal.

For next week:
It's critical I start thinking about my CUE presentation (and the paper I hope to write to go along with it). Also, the SSM book chapters are due 3/1. I'm thinking that revisiting literature on 21st century skills would be a good start for both works. I wish, though, that I could begin writing the first draft of the SSM chapter before Monday's writing circle.

What Works, 2/07/07

2007-02-07T21:16:00.000-08:00

27 minutes of writing

I received the CBSS and CAST screenshots from Jonathon yesterday, but didn't have time to integrate them into the What Works paper until today. I added them into the paper and sent the paper to Jonathon for final review.

I also spent time with Leora Baron today at the TLC discussing issues related to teaching and research. She assisted me in conceptualizing the NECC paper that will focus on research related to my social studies methods course. She recommended I quickly begin the human subjects course and IRB process so I can collect survey data at least twice this semester. It is critical that I begin developing my research agenda, get IRB approval, and conceptualize all pieces of the research process ASAP for this study. Otherwise, my paper will simply be descriptive.

I also would like to talk with Neal to see if he will help me with the conceptualization process.

SS and Tech, 2/05/07

2007-02-05T12:52:00.000-08:00

51 minutes of writing

I worked on editing SS and Tech based on the suggestions from my Writing Circle colleagues. I was disappointed to realize that I had forgotten some of their valuable comments and did not clearly write the suggested corrections on my hard copy. Clearly, I should revise drafts immediately after (or within 24 hours) I meet with my Writing Circle.

I've still not received the screenshots for What Works.

What Works, 2/01/07

2007-02-02T09:42:00.001-08:00

45 minutes of writing, editing, and researching

Today is the day the What Works paper was due to the editor. Second co-author Jonathon responded to some of concerns regarding the paper that enabled me to make additional changes to the paper. Per the reviewers comments, we are still in need of three screenshots. Two are needed from CATE and one from CAST. Jonathon is awaiting arrival of the CAST screenshot and I've requested the CATE screenshots from him. I also sent Jonathon the copyright permission so he can forward it onto CAST.

I sent the edited copy of the manuscript back to the editor, Cathy, and let her know we're still awaiting three screenshots. I also asked her if she would prefer I place the screenshots into the version I have when I receive them or if I should send them directly to her. The location of these screenshots is clearly marked in the edited version I emailed her today.

The only concern (other than receiving these screenshots in a timely manner to meet the editors' deadline) is the section with bulleted comments. The reviewers requested screenshots of this section. I argued that they would not be helpful, but said we would write text for that section if the editors would like us to do so. I hope they don't. I ready to be done with this chapter!

Most of my time today was spent reviewing the manuscript and sending emails to Jonathon and Cathy.

NCSS Proposal, 1/31/07

2007-01-31T13:08:00.000-08:00

81 minutes of writing

I continued work on the NCSS proposal and was able to send it out. Included in the proposal is a presentation outline that should assist greatly when planning the actual presentation (if it is accepted).

I submitted the proposal as a sole author per Eric's suggestion. I still hope to receive his "official" approval so I feel comfortable presenting the material alone. In the proposal, I included a notation that this presentation is based on an article and stated that I would recognize the co-author during the presentation. To allow for adequate blind review of the proposal, I did not include Eric's name in that statement.

I am very eager to get back to the SS and Tech article, but the What Works Chapter is due tomorrow. Also, I need to begin my NECC research proposal and the chapter for the social studies methods book. I'm quite disappointed that I didn't have any new writing to share with my writing circle last week and it appears I won't have anything to share this week (since I've already sent the proposal). I'm torn between starting the NECC research plan, continuing on SS and Tech, or getting out a first draft of the methods chapter. What shall I do?

NCSS Proposal, 1/30/07

2007-01-31T11:35:00.000-08:00

63 minutes of writing

I worked on an NCSS proposal based on the article Eric and I are writing on SS and Tech. I emailed Eric to see if he is available to be a co-author on the proposal and he said he would prefer not to be on the program as a presenter. I've emailed him to confirm that I have his permission to present our jointly conceived content as a sole presenter.

I played with the possibility of using just the "Starting Out Small" section, but decided instead to do a broad sweep of ed tech integration possibilities for social studies productivity and instruction.

What Works, 1/25/07

2007-01-25T18:32:00.000-08:00

27 minutes of writing

I worked on What Works making final editorial changes before sending it off to the co-authors. I'm at a point when I've made all the changes I am able to make without their assistance. I've asked for their immediate attention.

Per their feedback, I should still be required to complete two tasks: 1.) add in the screen shots (though they'll probably do this), and 2.) re-work the bullet point section in "Online Courses and Universal Design for Learning." I'm not sure how they'll recommend we address the reviewers comments in this section.

I received information about the social studies methods text and would really like to participate. Short manuscripts are due by March 1st. Though this sounds manageable, I want to finish SS and Tech and prepare presentation proposals for NCSS and CUFA (both before March 1). Also, I need to begin research in my methods class so I'll have findings at NECC in June.

I'm feeling extremely overwhelmed. Teaching is extremely time consuming - and grading has barely begun. I'm working so many hours that I'm not able to do my best work now.

What Works, 1/23/07

2007-01-23T19:14:00.000-08:00

21 minutes of writing

I had a few minutes before attending the Blues Schoolhouse so pulled out the reviewers edits from "What Works" and worked on editing the electronic manuscript per their instructions. The changes I made today were simply copy editing and formatting (of the table).

Lynne commented on some of the questions I sent to the co-authors last week. I need to review her comments in light of the edits I made and then call Jonathon to see whether he, Mark, and Mary are planning to comment on my questions. I hope to make that call tomorrow.

Tomorrow I'd like to work on this paper again - I really want to finish it so I can focus solely on the SS and Tech paper.

SS and Tech, 1/22/07

2007-01-22T12:46:00.000-08:00

30 minutes of writing

I continued work on the social studies and technology paper beginning with the section on Moersch's framework. I had difficulty with writing this section because it seemed very repetitive. To deal with this issue, I chose to present the material in bullet and prose format instead of straight prose. I like the examples I used, but am concerned about the quality of the writing (surely it needs editing) and the accuracy of my understanding of Moersch's framework.

I would like to ask Neal Strudler to review this section to ensure I am properly capturing Moersch's concepts.

Tech in SS with Eric, 1/16/07

2007-01-16T21:46:00.000-08:00

15 minutes of writing

Classes started today so I did not write until right before going to sleep. I was very eager to skip today's session, especially since it was so late, but remembered my committment to my blog, my writing circle colleagues, and myself.

Though I wanted to work on the What Works chapter, I did not have the reviewers comments. So, instead I worked on SS and Tech. I also did not have the LoTi framework descriptions so was unable to write that section.

Eric emailed me a new conclusion so I added this into the text. I haven't spent any time writing it. I also worked on the transition between the new Moersch section and the set-up for the three sections. To address the concern of one reviewer, I explained a reason for having an extended "Starting Out Easy" section, but I'd like to re-visit this. It would be nice to find research to support my assertion that it is harder to start out than to work once you're on a roll with technology.

I gave some thought to the table (per comments by my reviewers at the Tara Grey presentation and reviewers suggestions on What Works). I'm curious if the the table might be better if broken into three sections and placing each section as a sidebar next to the corresponding text sections.

Though I will need to return to What Works tomorrow, when I return to this paper I would like to continue work on the Moersch section. I'd like to complete a first draft so I can start editing it before writing circle next Monday.

What Works, 1/14/07

2007-01-14T09:54:00.000-08:00

51 minutes of research, not writing

Again, I did not make any progress on my writing. This was because I still lck the reviewed manuscript (the one sent by the editor included our editorial remarks). I've requested the clean e-copy so I can begin the actual writing process.

I'm continuing to work on editing the "What Works" chapter per the reviewers suggestions, albeit in writing and email format. Today, I focused on communicating with the co-authors about the reviewers suggestions. I asked them how I should respond to certain comments (e.g., finding a better LEP citation than the one's I've been able to find, and how we should deal with their requests for screen shots for sections that are more visionary than reality-based). I also request some of the co-authors begin preparing the screen shots requested by the reviewers.

I hope to have the e-copy by tomorrow so I can start to truly make the editorial changes. I want to have this chapter done within the week so I can return to the SS and Tech paper. Of course, I'm at the mercy of the editor and my co-authors to ensure this happens.

What Works, 1/12/07

2007-01-12T12:19:00.000-08:00

24 minutes of research, not writing

I was unable to work on the SS and Tech paper today because I received the What Works paper that needs immediate revision (due 2/1). I began making changes on the hard copy yesterday and wanted to begin transferring those to the e-copy today. Unfortunately, I realized I didn't have the manuscript that went to the reviewers. I contacted Cathy who sent me the original so I can begin tomorrow.

I used my time today to make hard copy changes (mainly trying to find synonyms for the word "access"). I also spent a great amount of time finding a citation showing the increase in numbers of students with LEP. I found a source, but am not pleased with it.

Tomorrow I will begin making the e-copy changes. I also need to email the co-authors to see if any of them know of a reference for the LEP comment.

Tech in SS with Eric, 1/11/07

2007-01-11T08:43:00.000-08:00

21 minutes of writing

I didn't have much time to work this morning because of meetings, but am dedicated to making sure I work daily so took a few minutes first thing in the morning to write.

I didn't make much progress in terms of writing because I began by reviewing the Moersch model and trying to align the model with the table items at the end of the paper. There were some clear connections. To make these connections more explicit, I may need to make some changes to the table. I see that the order of the activities does not necessarily align with the Moersch continuum in his order. It shouldn't take much work to fix.

I spent time beginning writing the Moersch section (which has been moved to the introduction). I wrote partially through a section that explains the Moersch model in terms of social studies. This is where I will begin tomorrow.

Tech in SS with Eric, 1/10/07

2007-01-10T10:20:00.000-08:00

45 minutes of writing

Today I worked again on the introductory section to better align it with the reviewers needs. I see that I need to add a section on what defines quality tech integration. I'll need to return to the literature for this piece.

I tried deleting the Moersch section altogether, but later realized this was what a reviewer saw as a potential strength of the paper.

I deleted the ending section and plan to use this in another paper (with Eric's permission). I will replace that section with a more traditional conclusion. If Eric has time, perhaps he could work on this section.

Tomorrow I want to work on the "What defines quality integration" section and try to align the three sections (Starting Out Easy, Taking It to the Next Step, and Beginning to Excel) with the Moersch framework.

Tech in SS with Eric, 1/09/07

2007-01-10T09:13:00.000-08:00

48 minutes of writing

Yesterday I worked on revising the Tech in SS article per the recommendations of my teammates at the Tara Gray presentation. I lso began responding to the editorial feedback on the paper. My goal is to make the editorial changes ASAP and get it under review again for Social Education. Based on reviewers comments, I'm not sure if I should delete the Moersh section, or keep it.