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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
SITE Lit Review, 1/21/08
78 minutes of writing
My co-authors and I have been working feverishly to complete our Proceeding's submission for the 2008 SITE Conference. I have spent the last few days writing, editing, and engaging in data collection. I still have some data to collect, but I believe we have a nice Proceeding's paper and a great start to an excellent, publishable literature review. Though the content would probably not be suitable for Review of Educational Research, I've made sure to ensure the empiricism of the method would meet their standards. We're ready to move into the next phase.
For now, I need to take a break from this paper to get out the SS and Tech article, prepare a proposal for an EDge Invited article, and think about finding something to possibly submit for the SIG-IT Young Researcher Award.
My co-authors and I have been working feverishly to complete our Proceeding's submission for the 2008 SITE Conference. I have spent the last few days writing, editing, and engaging in data collection. I still have some data to collect, but I believe we have a nice Proceeding's paper and a great start to an excellent, publishable literature review. Though the content would probably not be suitable for Review of Educational Research, I've made sure to ensure the empiricism of the method would meet their standards. We're ready to move into the next phase.
For now, I need to take a break from this paper to get out the SS and Tech article, prepare a proposal for an EDge Invited article, and think about finding something to possibly submit for the SIG-IT Young Researcher Award.
Friday, January 18, 2008
SITE Lit Review, 1/18/08
69 minutes of writing
I finally was able to get my head in the game for the SITE Lit Review paper. Though I failed in collecting the data I had hoped to complete collecting today (and now I MUST complete it all tomorrow), I did make many accomplishments on the paper. First, I rethought, refined, and actually wrote the methodology for the paper. I believe I wrote it in a manner that will allow all three authors to find the articles to suit our needs while providing enough rigor and detail to denote empiricism throughout the process.
I was also very grateful to hear that one of the authors, Scott, completed all of his first-tier data collection today. We are truly making progress and may make our 1/21/08 deadline.
I finally was able to get my head in the game for the SITE Lit Review paper. Though I failed in collecting the data I had hoped to complete collecting today (and now I MUST complete it all tomorrow), I did make many accomplishments on the paper. First, I rethought, refined, and actually wrote the methodology for the paper. I believe I wrote it in a manner that will allow all three authors to find the articles to suit our needs while providing enough rigor and detail to denote empiricism throughout the process.
I was also very grateful to hear that one of the authors, Scott, completed all of his first-tier data collection today. We are truly making progress and may make our 1/21/08 deadline.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
SS and Tech, 1/15/08
24 minutes of writing
I received recommended editorial changes from Mark Hofer relating to the SS and Tech paper and began making the changes. I've completed all the easily corrected recommendations (e.g., reformatting) and changed the paper from blind to including the author names. There are still many changes to make, but the remaining ones require more intellectual thought than I had available to expend tonight.
The editors did not request a substantial amount of work on the paper so I hope I can finish all the edits within the next few days. I am, however, doing this at the cost of doing work on the research for the SITE Lit Review.
Regarding the SITE Lit Review, Amy and Scott approved the changes I recommended yesterday. I need to take the next step and assign duties so we can get started with data collection ASAP. It would be nice if we could start analysis over the weekend so we would have a few days to prepare a first draft. We're really curring this one close! The team does see that this will be a smaller selection of literature to review, but we all agree we would like to expand the review to include databases (at least) for a more thorough review in a later paper).
I am currently on my second day in the Academic Ladder Writing Club and wanted to be sure to write at least 15 minutes today so I could say I had written. I realize that I need to save projects like this for days like today when I need less mental engagement.
I received recommended editorial changes from Mark Hofer relating to the SS and Tech paper and began making the changes. I've completed all the easily corrected recommendations (e.g., reformatting) and changed the paper from blind to including the author names. There are still many changes to make, but the remaining ones require more intellectual thought than I had available to expend tonight.
The editors did not request a substantial amount of work on the paper so I hope I can finish all the edits within the next few days. I am, however, doing this at the cost of doing work on the research for the SITE Lit Review.
Regarding the SITE Lit Review, Amy and Scott approved the changes I recommended yesterday. I need to take the next step and assign duties so we can get started with data collection ASAP. It would be nice if we could start analysis over the weekend so we would have a few days to prepare a first draft. We're really curring this one close! The team does see that this will be a smaller selection of literature to review, but we all agree we would like to expand the review to include databases (at least) for a more thorough review in a later paper).
I am currently on my second day in the Academic Ladder Writing Club and wanted to be sure to write at least 15 minutes today so I could say I had written. I realize that I need to save projects like this for days like today when I need less mental engagement.
Monday, January 14, 2008
SITE Lit Review, 1/14/08
40 minutes of writing
I took time today to conceive of and write out the methodology for the SITE Lit Review paper. I also spent time (other than my writing time) communicating with the co-authors, Amy Good and Scott Waring, to confirm they were amendable to the methodology.
The methodology would provide us the data necessary for the publishable manuscript in a social studies, teacher education, or technology integration journal, but I do not believe it is strong enough for an RER paper. The data, however, could be used as the basis for an RER paper if we enjoy the process and later wish to expand the scope. I've been careful in the methodology to ensure empiricism so the RER avenue will remain open for the future.
On another note, I received word today that the SS and Tech article was accepted with revisions for SSRP for the March issue. It needs additional writing and fine tuning and I look forward to working with the editors to make their recommended changes. Eric, the co-author, has approved my offer to make the changes and review them just before final submission. Woo-hoo!
And, on another note...
I received word from PDK that my This is a Public School? article may be suitable for the Kappan (though it is suitable for EDge), but my Advocating for Social Studies Integration article is not suited for the EDge. There is a possibility I could re-work the article to be cross-disciplinary. Alternatively, if the Integrating Tech in Methods Courses article is rejected by JCTE, EDge may be a suitable alternative. It's a particularly enviable alternative because they accept longer articles.
I took time today to conceive of and write out the methodology for the SITE Lit Review paper. I also spent time (other than my writing time) communicating with the co-authors, Amy Good and Scott Waring, to confirm they were amendable to the methodology.
The methodology would provide us the data necessary for the publishable manuscript in a social studies, teacher education, or technology integration journal, but I do not believe it is strong enough for an RER paper. The data, however, could be used as the basis for an RER paper if we enjoy the process and later wish to expand the scope. I've been careful in the methodology to ensure empiricism so the RER avenue will remain open for the future.
On another note, I received word today that the SS and Tech article was accepted with revisions for SSRP for the March issue. It needs additional writing and fine tuning and I look forward to working with the editors to make their recommended changes. Eric, the co-author, has approved my offer to make the changes and review them just before final submission. Woo-hoo!
And, on another note...
I received word from PDK that my This is a Public School? article may be suitable for the Kappan (though it is suitable for EDge), but my Advocating for Social Studies Integration article is not suited for the EDge. There is a possibility I could re-work the article to be cross-disciplinary. Alternatively, if the Integrating Tech in Methods Courses article is rejected by JCTE, EDge may be a suitable alternative. It's a particularly enviable alternative because they accept longer articles.
Friday, January 11, 2008
SITE Lit Review and Tech Advocacy for SS, 1/11/08
36 minutes of writing
Tara Gray has continued to support me in my writing by emailing and/or calling on a daily basis to encourage my daily writing. Her persistence is exactly what I'm needing. She's agreed to continue mentoring me until I begin with Academic Ladder next week.
Here is the progress I made today:
I realized I'm really working on 3 manuscripts right now. On one (the Wikipedia article), I'm the third/fourth author so it only takes editing time. But, since the IRB protocol is due next week, this article is taking a few hours a week now. On another (the SITE article), I'm lead author and need to get my team working ASAP on data collection. I reworked the SITE proposal today and identified next steps for the literature review (which is, in fact, the methodology since the paper is a lit review). So far, I have nothing to write on that paper, but will hopefully have something to write soon. I also worked on editing a paper I think may work for the invited manuscript I need to propose by 2/1 for the EDge (Advocacy for Technology in Social Studies). And, I emailed the editor regarding that manuscript to get her recommendations on which of my articles might best fit the journal's directions.
So, though the computer doesn't look any different (except in my Outbox), I have lots of written notes on drafts of manuscripts.
Tara Gray has continued to support me in my writing by emailing and/or calling on a daily basis to encourage my daily writing. Her persistence is exactly what I'm needing. She's agreed to continue mentoring me until I begin with Academic Ladder next week.
Here is the progress I made today:
I realized I'm really working on 3 manuscripts right now. On one (the Wikipedia article), I'm the third/fourth author so it only takes editing time. But, since the IRB protocol is due next week, this article is taking a few hours a week now. On another (the SITE article), I'm lead author and need to get my team working ASAP on data collection. I reworked the SITE proposal today and identified next steps for the literature review (which is, in fact, the methodology since the paper is a lit review). So far, I have nothing to write on that paper, but will hopefully have something to write soon. I also worked on editing a paper I think may work for the invited manuscript I need to propose by 2/1 for the EDge (Advocacy for Technology in Social Studies). And, I emailed the editor regarding that manuscript to get her recommendations on which of my articles might best fit the journal's directions.
So, though the computer doesn't look any different (except in my Outbox), I have lots of written notes on drafts of manuscripts.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
This is a Public School?, 1/5/08
72 minutes of writing
After a long break from writing (read… after ignoring writing by making it the last priority on my work list), I read in the TAA newsletter that experienced authors were willing to serve as mentors to struggling authors like me. I also noticed that Tara Grey’s name was on the list. It was Tara who inspired the creation of this blog during her one-day seminar at UNLV titled “Becoming a Prolific Scholar.” I immediately emailed Tara to inquire if she might be willing to be my mentor, and she responded with “Are you up for writing tomorrow?” No, I wasn’t up to writing, but the challenge was enough to get me started.
Today, I began writing an article intended for the Kappan. The article is an introduction to Garehime’s microcommunity. I would like it to be the basic introduction to the community, from which I hope to write several spin-off articles. This article is the overview. Some possible spin-offs might include:
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
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Editorial: Integrating Tech in SS, 10/22/07
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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2007
SS and Tech/Tech Integration in Methods, 09/14/07
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! :-)
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! :-)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
SS and Tech, 09/11/07
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.
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.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Garehime Research, 6/28/07
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).
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).
Monday, June 18, 2007
Tech Integration in Methods, 6/18/07
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.
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.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Tech Integration in Methods, 6/17/07
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...
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...
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Tech Integration in Methods, 6/16/07
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.
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.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tech Integration in Methods, 6/15/07
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).
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).
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tech Integration in Methods, 4/30/07
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).
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).
Thursday, April 12, 2007
SS and Tech, 04/12/07
24 mintues of writing
I received an email from Eric stating he approves of my sending the manuscript for review to Social Education. Because I've not heard back from the editors regarding whether they will accept e-submissions, I prepared a printable cover letter and their requested title page for the hard copy submission. I cannot print and send the copies until I return to UNLV on Monday (I'm still at AERA in Chicago); perhaps I'll hear from them about the possibility of e-submissions before then. The manuscript is completely ready to go for Monday's printing.
I also spoke today with Mark about the SpEd Law paper. He said he may or may not be interested in taking first authorship of the paper, but he is certainly open to me being sole author. He is busy next week, but agreed to meet with me the following week to discuss directions for the paper. I emailed him tonight to set up an appointment for a week from Monday.
AERA has certainly been productive. In the few hours I was able to focus on writing this week, I've made great progress. I have one paper ready to get back under review starting Monday. I have one paper being considered by a possible co-author (Jacqui will get back to me in two weeks about whether she wants to work on the literature review for the assessment paper), I have two papers under review by a co-author (I am very eager to hear how Lynne wishes to proceed with the Instrument and Comparison papers), I have plans to possibly get help with the SpEd Law paper, and I've made substantial writing progress on a new paper. Now, I'm going to write and email to check on the WebQuest Methods paper.
My new goals are to:
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Assessment Paper, Comparison Paper, and Instrument Paper, 04/12/07
84 minutes of writing
I realized I have a lot of good work that needs revising and that I need help with these revisions.
Assessment Paper
This paper has a lot of potential and really just needs a good literature review and a few minor changes in the methodology to make it publishable. The problem is that I do not have the time to do the literature review. I would rather focus my time on preparing the literature review of the learning styles paper. In commisurating about my problems to my AERA roommate, Jacqui Garcia, she stated that she might be willing to write a literature review in exchange for authorship. Because the data is getting old and the literature already in the paper is quickly aging, I believe it would be better to give up sole authorship than keep it on my desktop forever. Also, should the paper get published (and I know there is interest in the paper from QJDE), I would be helping a doc student get published. I know how much each publication helps when seeking a job so I think this would be a win-win situation.
I sent the paper and reviewer comments to Jacqui. She will review the paper and let me know if she would like to work taking on second authorship.
Instrument Paper
This paper was rejected by AJDE several years ago because it doesn't add much to the field of online education. What's important is the resulting instrument, and I don't know how to publish the instrument itself. I think a distance education journal that has an interest in psychometrics would be a much better fit, but I don't know of any. If I don't find a pschymetrics journal, I will need to come up with a better way to answer the "So What?" question. While the information, I think, is very interesting, I don't think it has much appeal to a broader audience unless they are a.) interested in developing instruments, or b.) the paper focuses more on the elements identified (which would significantly lengthen the paper). I am attaching the paper and the two reviewers' comments.
The good news is that Lynne is a co-author on this paper (since it's directly from my dissertation and the outcome of an AERA presentation immediately following my defense). So, I sent Lynne the article and reviewers' comments and asked if she would like to continue working on the article.
If Lynne wishes to continue working on the article, I know there will be tons more work to complete, but the end result will be wonderful. If she chooses to give up second authorship (I'm not sure she's even read the article before now so I don't see that this would be a disrespectful gesture), I will need to identify a journal on my own and start revisions myself.
Comparison Paper
This paper is in the same boat as the Instrument Paper. Lynne is co-author and it's been rejected by JRTE with helpful feedback. Their suggestions require major changes and state that in its current form the manuscript may be better suited to a journal like JALN or QJDE.
If Lynne chooses not to continue with this article, I can make the chnges myself and I believe I should be able to find a suitable journal to which I could submit the new version. I think the paper is quite good and worthy of publication.
SpEd Law
I asked Mark if he could take first authorship of the SpEd Law paper. It simply needs framing. He said (by audioconference last week) that he didn't have time. He and I need to find a time to get this paper done. It doesn't require much time. If he cannot find time to work on it in the next month, I will ask if he minds that I take sole authorship (it's text I wrote for the AJDE SpEd Elements Paper and I'm fairly certain he didn't make changes to my original draft). I worry that the laws and guidelines will be updated before the manuscript gets into print (since the field and special education move so quickly).
I realized I have a lot of good work that needs revising and that I need help with these revisions.
Assessment Paper
This paper has a lot of potential and really just needs a good literature review and a few minor changes in the methodology to make it publishable. The problem is that I do not have the time to do the literature review. I would rather focus my time on preparing the literature review of the learning styles paper. In commisurating about my problems to my AERA roommate, Jacqui Garcia, she stated that she might be willing to write a literature review in exchange for authorship. Because the data is getting old and the literature already in the paper is quickly aging, I believe it would be better to give up sole authorship than keep it on my desktop forever. Also, should the paper get published (and I know there is interest in the paper from QJDE), I would be helping a doc student get published. I know how much each publication helps when seeking a job so I think this would be a win-win situation.
I sent the paper and reviewer comments to Jacqui. She will review the paper and let me know if she would like to work taking on second authorship.
Instrument Paper
This paper was rejected by AJDE several years ago because it doesn't add much to the field of online education. What's important is the resulting instrument, and I don't know how to publish the instrument itself. I think a distance education journal that has an interest in psychometrics would be a much better fit, but I don't know of any. If I don't find a pschymetrics journal, I will need to come up with a better way to answer the "So What?" question. While the information, I think, is very interesting, I don't think it has much appeal to a broader audience unless they are a.) interested in developing instruments, or b.) the paper focuses more on the elements identified (which would significantly lengthen the paper). I am attaching the paper and the two reviewers' comments.
The good news is that Lynne is a co-author on this paper (since it's directly from my dissertation and the outcome of an AERA presentation immediately following my defense). So, I sent Lynne the article and reviewers' comments and asked if she would like to continue working on the article.
If Lynne wishes to continue working on the article, I know there will be tons more work to complete, but the end result will be wonderful. If she chooses to give up second authorship (I'm not sure she's even read the article before now so I don't see that this would be a disrespectful gesture), I will need to identify a journal on my own and start revisions myself.
Comparison Paper
This paper is in the same boat as the Instrument Paper. Lynne is co-author and it's been rejected by JRTE with helpful feedback. Their suggestions require major changes and state that in its current form the manuscript may be better suited to a journal like JALN or QJDE.
If Lynne chooses not to continue with this article, I can make the chnges myself and I believe I should be able to find a suitable journal to which I could submit the new version. I think the paper is quite good and worthy of publication.
SpEd Law
I asked Mark if he could take first authorship of the SpEd Law paper. It simply needs framing. He said (by audioconference last week) that he didn't have time. He and I need to find a time to get this paper done. It doesn't require much time. If he cannot find time to work on it in the next month, I will ask if he minds that I take sole authorship (it's text I wrote for the AJDE SpEd Elements Paper and I'm fairly certain he didn't make changes to my original draft). I worry that the laws and guidelines will be updated before the manuscript gets into print (since the field and special education move so quickly).
Tech in SSM, 04/11/07
90 minutes of writing
I began writing the Tech in SSM paper based on the NCSS presentation delivered last December. I decided to write it by listening to the audio of the presentation and writing directly from the audio. It took 90 minutes to write the first four pages, and I'm only about 12 minutes into the audio (it's about 45 minutes long). I have yet to read the transcript thus far and am worried it will not make sense (though I know the presentation made sense and was well received by the audience).
I hope to finish a first draft (at least) of this paper this week. I've looked and it won't work for TRSE, but it will work for SSRP (the practice section).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)