SITE Lit Review, 1/29/08

108 minutes of writing

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

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

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

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

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

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