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).
Monday, April 30, 2007
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).
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
SS and Tech, 04/10/07
117 minutes of writing
I continued work on the SS and Tech paper and completed my editorial changes. I believe I adequately address the reviewers concerns from the previous submission of the article. Though I'm not sure I adequately address the Moersch issue, I think I've done a fairly good job. I hope Eric will find any inconsistencies.
I emailed the paper to Eric (co-author) for his review and editorial comments. I also emailed ncss@publications to see if they really need four hard copies of the manuscript (it says online that they want hard copies and they only want e-copies once the manuscript is accepted for publication.
I hope Eric has time to review this paper soon so I can get it back under review. I'm not sure which paper I'll utnr to next, but it will probably be either ther 21st century social studies or general social studies methods paper. The latter will help me in my preparations for my NECC research, but the former is still relatively fresh in my head.
So far, I've kept to my hour-a-day writing during AERA and I have one paper nearly ready to go. Yahoo!
Oh, also...
I need to touch base with Mark Horney to see if he wants to pursue the SpEd law paper. If not, I may just frame the paper myself and get it out as a sole author (though I'm not sure when I'll have time to do this).
I continued work on the SS and Tech paper and completed my editorial changes. I believe I adequately address the reviewers concerns from the previous submission of the article. Though I'm not sure I adequately address the Moersch issue, I think I've done a fairly good job. I hope Eric will find any inconsistencies.
I emailed the paper to Eric (co-author) for his review and editorial comments. I also emailed ncss@publications to see if they really need four hard copies of the manuscript (it says online that they want hard copies and they only want e-copies once the manuscript is accepted for publication.
I hope Eric has time to review this paper soon so I can get it back under review. I'm not sure which paper I'll utnr to next, but it will probably be either ther 21st century social studies or general social studies methods paper. The latter will help me in my preparations for my NECC research, but the former is still relatively fresh in my head.
So far, I've kept to my hour-a-day writing during AERA and I have one paper nearly ready to go. Yahoo!
Oh, also...
I need to touch base with Mark Horney to see if he wants to pursue the SpEd law paper. If not, I may just frame the paper myself and get it out as a sole author (though I'm not sure when I'll have time to do this).
Monday, April 9, 2007
SS and Tech, 04/09/07
135 minutes of writing
My goal at AERA, as stated in a previous post is to try to write at least an hour a day. In light of that goal, I had success for the first day!
Today I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. I've been trying to find a way to organize the table so it would align with the Moersch continuum. I realized, however, that this is not possible because the Moersch LoTi framework does not necessary align with needed technological competencies. For instance, a teacher may need exceptionally high skills to complete some exploration-level activities; or, s/he may need few skills to engage in a student-centered approach. All student-centered approaches lie high on Moersch's continuum.
I decided to do the following:
Tomorrow I hope to re-read and revise this paper. Hopefully, I will have a clear enough head to create a final copy to send to Eric for his review. If so, I will assume (with his approval) that it will be ready to send for a second review with Social Education. It sure would be nice to get this out the door so can continue on the 21st century social studies piece and the 21st social studies methods piece. I need to get these done so I can get working on the NECC piece.
Also, being at AERA has re-invigorated my interest in getting my assessment and learning styles papers out the door. They are both so close to being ready to review.
And, I'm beginning to get very excited about research project proposals relating to residential institutes and micro-societies. I must find ways to connect these studies to technology!
My goal at AERA, as stated in a previous post is to try to write at least an hour a day. In light of that goal, I had success for the first day!
Today I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. I've been trying to find a way to organize the table so it would align with the Moersch continuum. I realized, however, that this is not possible because the Moersch LoTi framework does not necessary align with needed technological competencies. For instance, a teacher may need exceptionally high skills to complete some exploration-level activities; or, s/he may need few skills to engage in a student-centered approach. All student-centered approaches lie high on Moersch's continuum.
I decided to do the following:
- Explain that the needed skills and Moersch levels do not coincide. I'm worried that this may be seen as a critique of Moersch's work (which it it NOT intended to be). Ideally, a teacher should be very technologically competent in which case s/he could teach on any level of the continuum. Then, the teacher could choose the technologies and LoTi levels based on the needs of the stduents and the lesson, not simply based on teacher capability.
- I modified the table slightly. Though I maintained the original categories (e.g., "Starting Small," "Taking the Next Step," and "Beginning to Excel," I re-arranged the line items within those sections so they progress along the LoTi framework. In some cases, this was problemmatic because the recommendations straddled two levels because I offer more than one method of using the technology.
Tomorrow I hope to re-read and revise this paper. Hopefully, I will have a clear enough head to create a final copy to send to Eric for his review. If so, I will assume (with his approval) that it will be ready to send for a second review with Social Education. It sure would be nice to get this out the door so can continue on the 21st century social studies piece and the 21st social studies methods piece. I need to get these done so I can get working on the NECC piece.
Also, being at AERA has re-invigorated my interest in getting my assessment and learning styles papers out the door. They are both so close to being ready to review.
And, I'm beginning to get very excited about research project proposals relating to residential institutes and micro-societies. I must find ways to connect these studies to technology!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
SIG-IT Bio and NSC Application, 04/03/07
75 minutes of non-publishable writing
I am estimating on the timing because my SDS Time application is not working very effectively - something I'll need to work on next week (or later).
Today I worked on two non-publishable items.
First, I decided to apply for a national board position on AERA's SIG-IT Governing Board. Today was the last day to apply and I figured I had nothing to lose. All that was required was a 150 word biography. I prepared my biography and sent it off to the president of the SIG, Bill Kealy. He emailed me back within an hour and told me my nomination was accepted and that I would have an option of the secretary-treasurer or webmaster positions. I stated that I would be open to fill whichever position is most needed by the Board and he, again quickly, returned my email and stated he feels the webmaster position is most crucial at this point. I am very excited about the possibility of serving in AERA!
Second, I continued to work on the NSC cover letter. Dr. Grubaugh provided some useful comments on my previous draft and I added in the changes he recommended. His main concern was my lack of mention of my grant involvement. This is an area I will need to be sure to address on my vita. When finished with the edits, I sent in my application materials and am now officially in the application pool.
I'm very concerned that my recent writings have not been leading to publishable papers. I still have to prepare a poster for AERA next week and work on departmental service responsibilities so will have little time later this week to write. I'm depending on finding some time at AERA next week to write. I think I should schedule an hour a day next week for this process. I need to get the following works under review:
I also hope to work with Mark Horney next week to progress on the SPED Law paper. I would like him to accept first authorship and complete the article.
P.S. I did not meet with my writing circle this week because it is Spring Break in CCSD and I was with the boys. I will also miss next week because of AERA. I hope I will have plenty for them to review upon my return.
I am estimating on the timing because my SDS Time application is not working very effectively - something I'll need to work on next week (or later).
Today I worked on two non-publishable items.
First, I decided to apply for a national board position on AERA's SIG-IT Governing Board. Today was the last day to apply and I figured I had nothing to lose. All that was required was a 150 word biography. I prepared my biography and sent it off to the president of the SIG, Bill Kealy. He emailed me back within an hour and told me my nomination was accepted and that I would have an option of the secretary-treasurer or webmaster positions. I stated that I would be open to fill whichever position is most needed by the Board and he, again quickly, returned my email and stated he feels the webmaster position is most crucial at this point. I am very excited about the possibility of serving in AERA!
Second, I continued to work on the NSC cover letter. Dr. Grubaugh provided some useful comments on my previous draft and I added in the changes he recommended. His main concern was my lack of mention of my grant involvement. This is an area I will need to be sure to address on my vita. When finished with the edits, I sent in my application materials and am now officially in the application pool.
I'm very concerned that my recent writings have not been leading to publishable papers. I still have to prepare a poster for AERA next week and work on departmental service responsibilities so will have little time later this week to write. I'm depending on finding some time at AERA next week to write. I think I should schedule an hour a day next week for this process. I need to get the following works under review:
- SS ad Tech
- 21st Century Social Studies
- Tech Integration in Social Studies Methods
I also hope to work with Mark Horney next week to progress on the SPED Law paper. I would like him to accept first authorship and complete the article.
P.S. I did not meet with my writing circle this week because it is Spring Break in CCSD and I was with the boys. I will also miss next week because of AERA. I hope I will have plenty for them to review upon my return.
Monday, April 2, 2007
NSC Application, 04/01/07
120 minutes of non-publishable writing
I prepared the first draft of a cover letter for an application to Nevada State College. The letter includes sections from previously written cover letters as well as some new writing.
I must get this out within the next few days because I need to be preparing for AERA's poster session.
During AERA next week, I hope to revisit the SS and Tech paper and perhaps work on the 21st century social studies paper. The latter is probably due soon.
I prepared the first draft of a cover letter for an application to Nevada State College. The letter includes sections from previously written cover letters as well as some new writing.
I must get this out within the next few days because I need to be preparing for AERA's poster session.
During AERA next week, I hope to revisit the SS and Tech paper and perhaps work on the 21st century social studies paper. The latter is probably due soon.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
DEN Application, 03/27/07
75 minutes of writing
I completed editing my DEN application and emailed it off. I'm not very confident I will be selected for participation because I spoke with Jannita last night who stated that the Bahama's institute will focus on previous institute participants. I wish I were available to apply for the other institutes!
I would like to revise my RQ to include more technology components, or to explicit state they will be considered as part of the research project. The new working RQ is: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogical and technological skills do teachers gain during residential insitutes."
I completed editing my DEN application and emailed it off. I'm not very confident I will be selected for participation because I spoke with Jannita last night who stated that the Bahama's institute will focus on previous institute participants. I wish I were available to apply for the other institutes!
I would like to revise my RQ to include more technology components, or to explicit state they will be considered as part of the research project. The new working RQ is: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogical and technological skills do teachers gain during residential insitutes."
DEN Application, 03/26/07
15 minutes of writing
I spent time editing my DEN application before my research writing circle met. The members of the writing circle agree that this type of writing should count toward "writing" because the goal is to increase my writing time and skills. I'm not sure I agree. I believe my writing time should be focused on writing for publication. My goal, ultimately, is to increase my peer-reviewed publications.
I spent time editing my DEN application before my research writing circle met. The members of the writing circle agree that this type of writing should count toward "writing" because the goal is to increase my writing time and skills. I'm not sure I agree. I believe my writing time should be focused on writing for publication. My goal, ultimately, is to increase my peer-reviewed publications.
DEN Application, 03/25/07
75 minutes of writing (pseudo)
I began preparing my application for the Discovery Education Network summer institute. I hope to be accepted because I would like to use this experience to collect research data to officially begin addressing the RQ: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogy knowledge do teachers gain when participating in residential institutes?"
I question whether this type of writing (basically a proposal rather than writing for publication) should count toward "writing" in my blog and with my research writing circle.
I began preparing my application for the Discovery Education Network summer institute. I hope to be accepted because I would like to use this experience to collect research data to officially begin addressing the RQ: "Beyond intended content, what pedagogy knowledge do teachers gain when participating in residential institutes?"
I question whether this type of writing (basically a proposal rather than writing for publication) should count toward "writing" in my blog and with my research writing circle.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
21st Century SS, 03/20/07
75 minutes of writing
I began writing a paper based on the CUE presentation on 21st Century Social Studies. I think I should finish the SS and Tech paper before I return to this one again.
Interestingly, I wrote most of it on my way to work using my iPod. This technique doesn't seem to work too well because I found that what I said and what I would write are completely different things. Also, it was time consuming to re-type what I wrote. In fact, I currently have 4 pages of the new manuscript, and I'm only half-way through re-typing.
I began writing a paper based on the CUE presentation on 21st Century Social Studies. I think I should finish the SS and Tech paper before I return to this one again.
Interestingly, I wrote most of it on my way to work using my iPod. This technique doesn't seem to work too well because I found that what I said and what I would write are completely different things. Also, it was time consuming to re-type what I wrote. In fact, I currently have 4 pages of the new manuscript, and I'm only half-way through re-typing.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
SS and Tech, 3/15/07
12 minutes of writing
I know... this is a pathetic amount of time after such a long period of not writing. It's Spring Break and I'm trying to relax a bit in preparation for the remainder of the school year. I am also trying to keep up on grading this semester by returning papers to students within a week of their due dates.
My writing today consisted of reviewing the conclusion to the SS and Tech paper based on recommendations from the last writing circle meeting. I believe the only remaining changes in the paper are on the table. The table will need substantial work if I am to align it with the Moersch framework. This will be my next step.
Despite my lack of writing, I have spent time researching. I sent in the AERA paper and spent time in preparation for the NECC paper. I'm needing to learn much more on action research and begin to collect data from the previous SSM courses and student comments (audio and written). I think the paper has a lot of potential, but it is still in its conception stage. I need to really begin focusing on the paper.
I've also considered the possibility of writing up the paper from the CUE conference -- 21st century social studies. That might be a good practitioner piece for the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction's summer social studies issue. And, best of all, it probably wouldn't take too long to write. One major thing I need to do to make that into a possible paper is re-record the presentation. The CUE audio is extremely poor and I've not learned the audio enhancing skills to remove all the white noise. It will probably take less time to re-record it.
I know... this is a pathetic amount of time after such a long period of not writing. It's Spring Break and I'm trying to relax a bit in preparation for the remainder of the school year. I am also trying to keep up on grading this semester by returning papers to students within a week of their due dates.
My writing today consisted of reviewing the conclusion to the SS and Tech paper based on recommendations from the last writing circle meeting. I believe the only remaining changes in the paper are on the table. The table will need substantial work if I am to align it with the Moersch framework. This will be my next step.
Despite my lack of writing, I have spent time researching. I sent in the AERA paper and spent time in preparation for the NECC paper. I'm needing to learn much more on action research and begin to collect data from the previous SSM courses and student comments (audio and written). I think the paper has a lot of potential, but it is still in its conception stage. I need to really begin focusing on the paper.
I've also considered the possibility of writing up the paper from the CUE conference -- 21st century social studies. That might be a good practitioner piece for the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction's summer social studies issue. And, best of all, it probably wouldn't take too long to write. One major thing I need to do to make that into a possible paper is re-record the presentation. The CUE audio is extremely poor and I've not learned the audio enhancing skills to remove all the white noise. It will probably take less time to re-record it.
Monday, March 5, 2007
SS and Tech, 3/05/07
54 minutes of writing
I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper with a focus on aligning statements with Moersch's LoTi framework. Because I hear Moersch speak at CUE this last weekend, I have a better grasp of the LoTi framework and feel more comfortable writing about it. I'm still concerned about aligning his levels with the table at the end of this paper, but I will be able to have others look this section over to check my work.
I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper with a focus on aligning statements with Moersch's LoTi framework. Because I hear Moersch speak at CUE this last weekend, I have a better grasp of the LoTi framework and feel more comfortable writing about it. I'm still concerned about aligning his levels with the table at the end of this paper, but I will be able to have others look this section over to check my work.
Monday, February 26, 2007
TAH Grant, 02/26/07
60 minutes of writing
I edited the TAH grant. I will now be taking it to my writing circle for their review before I make final changes. My sections will be completed and sent to the co-directors and grant writers tonight.
I edited the TAH grant. I will now be taking it to my writing circle for their review before I make final changes. My sections will be completed and sent to the co-directors and grant writers tonight.
TAH Grant, 02/25/07
276 minutes of writing
I worked on the pedagogical modules for the TAH grant. I completed the task, but need to edit my work. I plan to have it to the grant writers and co-directors no later than tomorrow.
I worked on the pedagogical modules for the TAH grant. I completed the task, but need to edit my work. I plan to have it to the grant writers and co-directors no later than tomorrow.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
What Works, 2/24/07
81 minutes of writing
I finished it! I finished the writing and editing of the "What Works" chapter. The only section about which I had serious concern was a paragraph I added today. Lynne was online and I was able to get her approval on the paragraph.
In addition to the final draft, I prepared a second document for the editors (and co-authors) identifying the changes (and justifications for lack of changes) between the reviewers' comments and the final draft. I sent both the final and edited versions to the editors and co-authors. It's now out of my hands and I hope the editors are pleased enough to truly make this the final draft.
I also spent a few minutes looking at the TAH grant. After speaking with Stephanie Hirsch last night, I learned that I need only elaborate of three of the modules in the grant. Though they plan to use all the modules, only three will appear in the grant application. I've promised Stephanie I'll have my modules to her by tomorrow night.
It's been very rewarding to get out this chapter and the WebQuest chapter over the last week. Once I finish the TAH grant, I'll be able to spend the rest of the week focusing on the CUE Conference (21st century social studies).
I finished it! I finished the writing and editing of the "What Works" chapter. The only section about which I had serious concern was a paragraph I added today. Lynne was online and I was able to get her approval on the paragraph.
In addition to the final draft, I prepared a second document for the editors (and co-authors) identifying the changes (and justifications for lack of changes) between the reviewers' comments and the final draft. I sent both the final and edited versions to the editors and co-authors. It's now out of my hands and I hope the editors are pleased enough to truly make this the final draft.
I also spent a few minutes looking at the TAH grant. After speaking with Stephanie Hirsch last night, I learned that I need only elaborate of three of the modules in the grant. Though they plan to use all the modules, only three will appear in the grant application. I've promised Stephanie I'll have my modules to her by tomorrow night.
It's been very rewarding to get out this chapter and the WebQuest chapter over the last week. Once I finish the TAH grant, I'll be able to spend the rest of the week focusing on the CUE Conference (21st century social studies).
What Works, 2/22/07
33 mintues of writing
I contacted Jonathon for information about the CAST screenshots so I could add a section (per Lynne's recommendation) to describe the shots. He sent them immediately and I was able to begin writing.
In addition, I worked on devising a plan of how to best send our edits to the editors. I think I'll send three documents. The final cleanly edited version, a version showing the editorial changes, and the version with all our editorial comments. I'm not yet convinced this is the best plan.
I contacted Jonathon for information about the CAST screenshots so I could add a section (per Lynne's recommendation) to describe the shots. He sent them immediately and I was able to begin writing.
In addition, I worked on devising a plan of how to best send our edits to the editors. I think I'll send three documents. The final cleanly edited version, a version showing the editorial changes, and the version with all our editorial comments. I'm not yet convinced this is the best plan.
What Works, 2/21/07
36 minutes of writing
I received Lynne's edits and began cleaning the final draft for the editors. Lynne added her changes to mine so the product I received includes many editorial remarks which may make it difficult for the editors.
I received Lynne's edits and began cleaning the final draft for the editors. Lynne added her changes to mine so the product I received includes many editorial remarks which may make it difficult for the editors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)