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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
This is a Public School?, 2/14/10
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).
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
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.
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.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Assessment Paper, 2/7/10
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Assessment Paper, 2/3/10
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.
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.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Virtual Museums, 10/28/09
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Microcommunities, 7/22/09
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sped Law Paper, 5/26/09
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.
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.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sped Law Paper, 5/1/09
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sped Law Paper, 4/26/09
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).
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).
Monday, March 2, 2009
Service Learning Paper, 3/2/09
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.
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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Feature Articles
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:
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)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
IRB Proposals
0 minutes of writing
This is a follow-up to the previous post for today. I've completed the research protocol for the digital storytelling study. Tomorrow, I hope to prepare a chapter proposal for an editor that specifically recommended I submit for his book. Next, I need to get the assessment paper back under review, complete reports for the service learning study, clean the data from the micro-communities study, and begin writing a general article (probably for the Kappan) about micro-communities.
This is a follow-up to the previous post for today. I've completed the research protocol for the digital storytelling study. Tomorrow, I hope to prepare a chapter proposal for an editor that specifically recommended I submit for his book. Next, I need to get the assessment paper back under review, complete reports for the service learning study, clean the data from the micro-communities study, and begin writing a general article (probably for the Kappan) about micro-communities.
IRB Proposals
0 minutes of writing
I have been remiss at writing for publication lately, but have been working on research-related activities. I prepared an IRB protocol form for the service learning study that Steve will submit tomorrow. I will need to create the third and fourth action research reports (which I will need to do for class before the Civil Rights/Service Learning module begins anyway). Hopefully, by the time those reports are complete and the IRB approves the protocol, I will be ready to work on data analysis and full data reporting.
I've also been working with Vicki and Steve on the first-year teacher study. Vicki and I refined the project outline and I prepared the research protocol and all related documents. Vicki prepared a grant application that would support the study, and Steve will submit the protocol to UNLV's IRB tomorrow along with the service learning protocol.
I've been in contact with OPRS personnel to inquire about whether the digital storytelling study will fall under the exempt category and whether there is a need for consent forms for the study. I hope to hear from them today so I may prepare that research protocol later today for Steve to also submit tomorrow.
The assessment paper was rejected by JRTE so I am thinking about another journal for submission. I have not yet made the reviewers recommended changes and need to address these post haste.
Vicki and I are discussing the possibility of becoming accountability partners for our writing projects. I am in desperate need of help in this area. I would like to join Academic Ladder again, but the cost is prohibitive.
I have been remiss at writing for publication lately, but have been working on research-related activities. I prepared an IRB protocol form for the service learning study that Steve will submit tomorrow. I will need to create the third and fourth action research reports (which I will need to do for class before the Civil Rights/Service Learning module begins anyway). Hopefully, by the time those reports are complete and the IRB approves the protocol, I will be ready to work on data analysis and full data reporting.
I've also been working with Vicki and Steve on the first-year teacher study. Vicki and I refined the project outline and I prepared the research protocol and all related documents. Vicki prepared a grant application that would support the study, and Steve will submit the protocol to UNLV's IRB tomorrow along with the service learning protocol.
I've been in contact with OPRS personnel to inquire about whether the digital storytelling study will fall under the exempt category and whether there is a need for consent forms for the study. I hope to hear from them today so I may prepare that research protocol later today for Steve to also submit tomorrow.
The assessment paper was rejected by JRTE so I am thinking about another journal for submission. I have not yet made the reviewers recommended changes and need to address these post haste.
Vicki and I are discussing the possibility of becoming accountability partners for our writing projects. I am in desperate need of help in this area. I would like to join Academic Ladder again, but the cost is prohibitive.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Assessment Paper, 11/3/08
56 minutes of writing
Steve sent me all the remaining required content for the assessment paper so I completed the paper and emailed it to the editor. The editor requested the manuscript in RTF, but it was too big to send so I had to send it in DOC. I added a note about file size restrictions and our willingness to re-send it in RTF (though I don't know how) or PDF if requested.
Steve sent me all the remaining required content for the assessment paper so I completed the paper and emailed it to the editor. The editor requested the manuscript in RTF, but it was too big to send so I had to send it in DOC. I added a note about file size restrictions and our willingness to re-send it in RTF (though I don't know how) or PDF if requested.
Title: Assessment in Online Environments: A Cross-School Description of Secondary Courses
Word Count: 8,071 [147 (Abstract); 4,816 (Article); 1,986 (Table 1); 1,096 (References)]
Submission Location: Journal of Research in Technology Education
Submission Date: November 2, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/27/08
17 minutes of writing
Well... not really writing, just cleaning. I reviewed the manuscript to see what still needs completing. The only items still needing attention are the Brown and Richardson citation and page numbers for the articles Steve referenced. I called him and he promised me I would have the information tonight (except for one detail he's unable to locate which I said I would deal with). Also, per the editor's requirements, I created PICT files of the two graphics in the text. Finally, I reviewed and made minor changes to the submission letter.
Items still to do:
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
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/23/08
28 minutes of writing
I completed all the editorial changes on the Assessment paper except for those awaiting Steve's input. I will need to remove the author's names and prepare separate JPG files of the graphics after receiving Steve's items. Then... it's off! :-)
Steve and I spoke yesterday about the SpEd Law paper. I suggested we bring in a third person who knows SpEd (including special education law) really well. He said he would give it some thought.
Once this is out, I will have to decide where to focus my efforts. Given that Francie Summers my have some time now that she's recently retired, I think I should complete the data cleaning from the micro-communities study and get out a Kappan article for review. The other piece needing attention quite quickly is IRB protocols on digital storytelling, service learning, and first year teachers. Unfortunately, the protocols and data cleaning won't count as writing.
I completed all the editorial changes on the Assessment paper except for those awaiting Steve's input. I will need to remove the author's names and prepare separate JPG files of the graphics after receiving Steve's items. Then... it's off! :-)
Steve and I spoke yesterday about the SpEd Law paper. I suggested we bring in a third person who knows SpEd (including special education law) really well. He said he would give it some thought.
Once this is out, I will have to decide where to focus my efforts. Given that Francie Summers my have some time now that she's recently retired, I think I should complete the data cleaning from the micro-communities study and get out a Kappan article for review. The other piece needing attention quite quickly is IRB protocols on digital storytelling, service learning, and first year teachers. Unfortunately, the protocols and data cleaning won't count as writing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/21/08
~120 minutes of writing
I returned to the Assessment paper, knowing that there is little left to do and I've waited long enough to get it out the door. All that is really left to complete is minor editing (though I am really doing minor wordsmithing at this point) and inserting all the references Steve added (and I few I thought needed to be added). I completed the wordsmithing (though I still need to edit the Word document), but still need to work on the references. I've requested information from Steve, and the letter to the editor is complete except for details awaiting Steve and final word counts. I hope to get this out within the week since I have nothing under review except the WebQuest paper.
I returned to the Assessment paper, knowing that there is little left to do and I've waited long enough to get it out the door. All that is really left to complete is minor editing (though I am really doing minor wordsmithing at this point) and inserting all the references Steve added (and I few I thought needed to be added). I completed the wordsmithing (though I still need to edit the Word document), but still need to work on the references. I've requested information from Steve, and the letter to the editor is complete except for details awaiting Steve and final word counts. I hope to get this out within the week since I have nothing under review except the WebQuest paper.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Tech Integration in Methods, 4/23/08
84 minutes of writing
I continued editing the Tech Integration in Methods paper for JCTE. They've requested my updated manuscript be delivered no later than June 1, 2008.
I was able to focus on the slightly more complicated issues addressed by the reviewers. Some comments required additional clarification and one set of comments (addressed by all reviewers) would require an entire new focus to the paper. I emailed the editor about these changes. First, I requested clarification so am now ready to fix on the the areas of recommended change. Second, I requested the opportunity to retain the present focus of the paper. The reviewers requested an earlier mention of social studies and greater literature review relating to social studies. My desire was to make this paper a general tech integration in methods paper, and I have another paper (the one delivered at NCSS in 2006) that will focus just on social studies. I made the argument that focusing on social studies requires much more detail and that the concepts addressed in the current paper are cross-disciplinary. The editorial team accepted my recommendation to retain the general focus for the paper. Now, I have a lot of work to give the paper a much clearer cross-curricular focus from the beginning. That's my next task: finding examples from science and language arts standards relating to tech integration and finding literature in math, science, and language arts, and social studies that supports integrating technology into methods instruction. That's quite a task I have in front of me!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)