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!
Friday, February 1, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tech Integration in Methods, 1/30/08
75 minutes of writing
I had not planned on revisiting the Tech Integration in Methods paper until after I heard about its disposition in the review process. Then, I communicated with Brendan Calandra of the AERA SIG-IT Young Researcher Award and learned that this paper may qualify for inclusion in the applicant pool. Because I do not have an AERA paper scheduled for delivery this year (this is the first time since 2004), I thought it might be worthwhile to apply. Also, this is the last year I qualify to apply for the award since I received my doctorate in 2003 (to be eligible, you must have completed your doctorate within the past five years).
So, I spent the evening scripting/editing a cover letter for the award and then spent my writing time editing the paper. Regardless of whether the paper is accepted for the journal (it's under review), I've cleaned it a bit and now know where I am able to cut if the editors require I lose words in the manuscript (it's currently over by 1,000 words).
I had not planned on revisiting the Tech Integration in Methods paper until after I heard about its disposition in the review process. Then, I communicated with Brendan Calandra of the AERA SIG-IT Young Researcher Award and learned that this paper may qualify for inclusion in the applicant pool. Because I do not have an AERA paper scheduled for delivery this year (this is the first time since 2004), I thought it might be worthwhile to apply. Also, this is the last year I qualify to apply for the award since I received my doctorate in 2003 (to be eligible, you must have completed your doctorate within the past five years).
So, I spent the evening scripting/editing a cover letter for the award and then spent my writing time editing the paper. Regardless of whether the paper is accepted for the journal (it's under review), I've cleaned it a bit and now know where I am able to cut if the editors require I lose words in the manuscript (it's currently over by 1,000 words).
Advocating for Tech Integration, 1/30/08
15 minutes of writing
I edited the EDge proposal for the Advocating paper. Though I wouldn't normally include proposals in this blog, I'm including this one because I plan to use the abstract and manuscript sample in the proposal in the actual paper.
I am so glad that I edited this yesterday morning. I was able to take it to my research writing circle and they provided me with fantastic feedback. I have a lot of work today - the proposal is due tomorrow.
I edited the EDge proposal for the Advocating paper. Though I wouldn't normally include proposals in this blog, I'm including this one because I plan to use the abstract and manuscript sample in the proposal in the actual paper.
I am so glad that I edited this yesterday morning. I was able to take it to my research writing circle and they provided me with fantastic feedback. I have a lot of work today - the proposal is due tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Advocating for Tech Integration, 1/29/08
57 minutes of writing
I revisited the Advocacy paper after communicating with Erin Young regarding the EDge submission. She felt that a more general approach (addressing all content areas/TPCK) would align better with the focus on the journal than the social studies approach. So, I’ve decided to expand the article to be more inclusive of all subject areas. Most of the paper is written if it were to be for just social studies and I now have a lot of room for adding in (and having fun with) the other subject areas. The new approach will take significantly more time to write, but I think the final product and the venue for sharing it will make more of an impact that the more specialized article. Also, the process of writing the article will require me to delve deeply into TPCK so I will be very well-versed on that literature (a great thing since it’s such a hot topic).
So, I spent time writing. I edited the social studies version of the paper and kept a copy in case I want to later submit something just for social studies. I then worked on my “abstract.” The abstract is currently more in the form of a proposal, certainly lacking all components of the paper. It still needs a lot of work, but I think I have a great start. I also plan to write a paper outline and provide a sample from the proposed manuscript that is due on 2/1/08. I’ve requested from Erin whether these are items they would like to see in the article, or whether they would prefer a different format. As soon as I hear from her, I’ll start on the outline. Before tomorrow morning, I would like to further refine the abstract and identify a suitable “sample” to include in the proposal. I will then use that scaled-down proposal to share in my writing circle tomorrow.
I revisited the Advocacy paper after communicating with Erin Young regarding the EDge submission. She felt that a more general approach (addressing all content areas/TPCK) would align better with the focus on the journal than the social studies approach. So, I’ve decided to expand the article to be more inclusive of all subject areas. Most of the paper is written if it were to be for just social studies and I now have a lot of room for adding in (and having fun with) the other subject areas. The new approach will take significantly more time to write, but I think the final product and the venue for sharing it will make more of an impact that the more specialized article. Also, the process of writing the article will require me to delve deeply into TPCK so I will be very well-versed on that literature (a great thing since it’s such a hot topic).
So, I spent time writing. I edited the social studies version of the paper and kept a copy in case I want to later submit something just for social studies. I then worked on my “abstract.” The abstract is currently more in the form of a proposal, certainly lacking all components of the paper. It still needs a lot of work, but I think I have a great start. I also plan to write a paper outline and provide a sample from the proposed manuscript that is due on 2/1/08. I’ve requested from Erin whether these are items they would like to see in the article, or whether they would prefer a different format. As soon as I hear from her, I’ll start on the outline. Before tomorrow morning, I would like to further refine the abstract and identify a suitable “sample” to include in the proposal. I will then use that scaled-down proposal to share in my writing circle tomorrow.
SITE Lit Review, 1/29/08
108 minutes of writing
I began the day in a Skype audio conference with Amy and Scott regarding the SITE Lit Review. We established our next steps and target dates for completion of the data collection, analysis, and writing. We will meet again on 2/19/08 to plan the analysis phase and prepare for the SITE presentation. I also found myself taking a leadership role in the process. I was feeling that I wasn’t “doing my duties” as first author because I know Scott has spent significantly more time than me in data collection thus far. Today, I was able to establish myself as first author by assigning tasks and leading the edits. I feel we are working well as a team and am very glad to be working with these two professionals on this project. I’m also very happy to be doing my first publishable meta-analysis. I’ve learned a lot about the process and a lot about the journals we’re reviewing (we’re reviewing almost 1,500 articles). It’s a great way to “get my feet wet” in social studies education and the intersection between my two fields (educational technology and social studies education).
After our conference call, I spent today’s writing time re-writing the SITE proceedings. I feel MUCH better about the updated manuscript and hope the co-authors will accept all the revisions. I was writing with a much clearer mind today! As soon as I receive their approvals and additional edits, I will re-submit the manuscript with hopes it will appear in the printed proceedings. Amy and I still have work to do on our numbers, but these shouldn’t change the findings and discussion. This paper is a great beginning to our full paper.
My next task for this paper is to go back and complete data collection (word content analysis for JRTE and JCTE and full reviews for SSYL. This will take a substantial amount of time. Then, I need to get the database online, modify the SITE paper to be the full paper, write the methodology for the strategy extraction and categorization phases (the categorization will require lots of editing later, but I’d like to address it as much as possible at this phase). The methodology section must include a plan the inter-rater reliability testing and a strong definition for the word “strategy”). [Note to self: Ask Amy and Scott to help in identifying resources to help in defining this construct.]
I am still crazy trying to manage everything. I have an EDge proposal due in two days. I’ve not started preparing the proposal though I at least have received confirmation that my proposal idea sounds like it will align with items of interest to the editor and I have a previous start that may help.
Also, I have lots of work to do in terms of the Teaching American History Grant and the related research. I need to prepare the IRB for the service learning study ASAP (as soon as I complete the EDge proposal) and I need to get my reflections on virtual paper before I grade the next set of student work. I also have the SSRP article to edit and re-submit for March publication, ad I am meeting with Steve to discuss the literature review for the assessment paper tomorrow. He seems to be progressing well independently with the study so I can forget about it for awhile and just be available as needed on this paper. Also, who knows when I might have something to do on the Wikipedia study. I try to respond to Adam and Tom quickly when they send something. It sure is nice to not be first author on a paper for once! J
And, don’t forget… I present this Saturday on geography learning centers. Remembering the mantra “If it isn’t published, it didn’t happen” (Sandra Odell), I should think about writing….
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….
Thursday, January 24, 2008
SS and Tech, 1/24/08
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.
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.
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)