25 minutes of writing
I edited the SpEd Law paper. There's a lot of good writing and information in the paper, but it still lacks a cohesive structure that makes a bold point. I've requested content editing by Dr. McCord and he's said he would do it as soon as he finishes his summer teaching.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sped Law Paper, 5/1/09
360 minutes of writing
I spent the day completely focused on the SpEd Law paper and was able to complete a first full draft. In addition to bringing in the new references (and finding another gem to add to the collection), I was able to identify some related case law. I worked on the section on UDL and the conclusion, but neither make the point I wish to make to my liking. I need a much stronger ending and probably need to change my conclusion to a "Stakeholders" section, expand that section, and write a separate conclusion. I also need to make my UDL section much more relevant to my topic of law. Basically, I currently have a lot of good, but disjointed work.
I've submitted the manuscript to Bob McCord for his review. I hope he will be able to offer a lot of guidance for improvement. I just want to be done with this paper. I would LOVE to finally catch up with my "almost ready to go in the outbox" box.
I spent the day completely focused on the SpEd Law paper and was able to complete a first full draft. In addition to bringing in the new references (and finding another gem to add to the collection), I was able to identify some related case law. I worked on the section on UDL and the conclusion, but neither make the point I wish to make to my liking. I need a much stronger ending and probably need to change my conclusion to a "Stakeholders" section, expand that section, and write a separate conclusion. I also need to make my UDL section much more relevant to my topic of law. Basically, I currently have a lot of good, but disjointed work.
I've submitted the manuscript to Bob McCord for his review. I hope he will be able to offer a lot of guidance for improvement. I just want to be done with this paper. I would LOVE to finally catch up with my "almost ready to go in the outbox" box.
Sped Law Paper, 4/30/09
45 minutes of writing
I began delving back into the research for the SpEd Law paper. In addition to the articles I authored on the topic, I found three other recent gems from JSET. I began editing the paper to include these pieces and to improve the text already in existence.
I began delving back into the research for the SpEd Law paper. In addition to the articles I authored on the topic, I found three other recent gems from JSET. I began editing the paper to include these pieces and to improve the text already in existence.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sped Law Paper, 4/26/09
20 minutes of writing
I am dedicating this week to completing the special education law paper. I began by reviewing the paper and integrating the outline I prepared about a month ago. I see that the paper will require a review of more recent literature - most references are pre-2004. I also need to inquire with Dr. McCord whether he is aware of any case law that may be relevant to my topic.
My next task is to review the major tech and special education journals for recent articles relating to the topic. I also need to revisit the "What Works'" and AJDE papers (which I know I will need to reference in this paper).
I am dedicating this week to completing the special education law paper. I began by reviewing the paper and integrating the outline I prepared about a month ago. I see that the paper will require a review of more recent literature - most references are pre-2004. I also need to inquire with Dr. McCord whether he is aware of any case law that may be relevant to my topic.
My next task is to review the major tech and special education journals for recent articles relating to the topic. I also need to revisit the "What Works'" and AJDE papers (which I know I will need to reference in this paper).
Monday, March 2, 2009
Service Learning Paper, 3/2/09
44 minutes of writing
I worked on the service learning paper by beginning a proposal for CUFA. The paper needs lots of editing (it's over 5,000 words and needs to be under 2,000), but what exists is a decent start to a full paper. I need to complete the final report (phase 4) and begin analyzing across all reports.
I worked on the service learning paper by beginning a proposal for CUFA. The paper needs lots of editing (it's over 5,000 words and needs to be under 2,000), but what exists is a decent start to a full paper. I need to complete the final report (phase 4) and begin analyzing across all reports.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Feature Articles
0 minutes of writing
I was recently featured on two websites, one for the Textbook and Authors Association and one for the National History Education Clearinghouse. Originals of these articles are available here:
I was recently featured on two websites, one for the Textbook and Authors Association and one for the National History Education Clearinghouse. Originals of these articles are available here:
- Feature Article—Busy TAA People: “Blogging Keeps Author on Track to Write Regularly, ” (by K. Seidel) The Academic Author (Textbook Authors Association), 2009 (originally available at http://www.taaonline.net/membersonly/busytaapeople/index.html)
- Feature Article—Project Spotlight: “Civil War and Digital Storytelling: Perspectives on Abraham Lincoln [Nevada],” (by Lee Ann Ghajar) National History Education Clearinghouse, 2009 (originally available at http://teachinghistory.org/tah-grants/project-spotlight/20759)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
IRB Proposals
0 minutes of writing
This is a follow-up to the previous post for today. I've completed the research protocol for the digital storytelling study. Tomorrow, I hope to prepare a chapter proposal for an editor that specifically recommended I submit for his book. Next, I need to get the assessment paper back under review, complete reports for the service learning study, clean the data from the micro-communities study, and begin writing a general article (probably for the Kappan) about micro-communities.
This is a follow-up to the previous post for today. I've completed the research protocol for the digital storytelling study. Tomorrow, I hope to prepare a chapter proposal for an editor that specifically recommended I submit for his book. Next, I need to get the assessment paper back under review, complete reports for the service learning study, clean the data from the micro-communities study, and begin writing a general article (probably for the Kappan) about micro-communities.
IRB Proposals
0 minutes of writing
I have been remiss at writing for publication lately, but have been working on research-related activities. I prepared an IRB protocol form for the service learning study that Steve will submit tomorrow. I will need to create the third and fourth action research reports (which I will need to do for class before the Civil Rights/Service Learning module begins anyway). Hopefully, by the time those reports are complete and the IRB approves the protocol, I will be ready to work on data analysis and full data reporting.
I've also been working with Vicki and Steve on the first-year teacher study. Vicki and I refined the project outline and I prepared the research protocol and all related documents. Vicki prepared a grant application that would support the study, and Steve will submit the protocol to UNLV's IRB tomorrow along with the service learning protocol.
I've been in contact with OPRS personnel to inquire about whether the digital storytelling study will fall under the exempt category and whether there is a need for consent forms for the study. I hope to hear from them today so I may prepare that research protocol later today for Steve to also submit tomorrow.
The assessment paper was rejected by JRTE so I am thinking about another journal for submission. I have not yet made the reviewers recommended changes and need to address these post haste.
Vicki and I are discussing the possibility of becoming accountability partners for our writing projects. I am in desperate need of help in this area. I would like to join Academic Ladder again, but the cost is prohibitive.
I have been remiss at writing for publication lately, but have been working on research-related activities. I prepared an IRB protocol form for the service learning study that Steve will submit tomorrow. I will need to create the third and fourth action research reports (which I will need to do for class before the Civil Rights/Service Learning module begins anyway). Hopefully, by the time those reports are complete and the IRB approves the protocol, I will be ready to work on data analysis and full data reporting.
I've also been working with Vicki and Steve on the first-year teacher study. Vicki and I refined the project outline and I prepared the research protocol and all related documents. Vicki prepared a grant application that would support the study, and Steve will submit the protocol to UNLV's IRB tomorrow along with the service learning protocol.
I've been in contact with OPRS personnel to inquire about whether the digital storytelling study will fall under the exempt category and whether there is a need for consent forms for the study. I hope to hear from them today so I may prepare that research protocol later today for Steve to also submit tomorrow.
The assessment paper was rejected by JRTE so I am thinking about another journal for submission. I have not yet made the reviewers recommended changes and need to address these post haste.
Vicki and I are discussing the possibility of becoming accountability partners for our writing projects. I am in desperate need of help in this area. I would like to join Academic Ladder again, but the cost is prohibitive.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Assessment Paper, 11/3/08
56 minutes of writing
Steve sent me all the remaining required content for the assessment paper so I completed the paper and emailed it to the editor. The editor requested the manuscript in RTF, but it was too big to send so I had to send it in DOC. I added a note about file size restrictions and our willingness to re-send it in RTF (though I don't know how) or PDF if requested.
Steve sent me all the remaining required content for the assessment paper so I completed the paper and emailed it to the editor. The editor requested the manuscript in RTF, but it was too big to send so I had to send it in DOC. I added a note about file size restrictions and our willingness to re-send it in RTF (though I don't know how) or PDF if requested.
Title: Assessment in Online Environments: A Cross-School Description of Secondary Courses
Word Count: 8,071 [147 (Abstract); 4,816 (Article); 1,986 (Table 1); 1,096 (References)]
Submission Location: Journal of Research in Technology Education
Submission Date: November 2, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/27/08
17 minutes of writing
Well... not really writing, just cleaning. I reviewed the manuscript to see what still needs completing. The only items still needing attention are the Brown and Richardson citation and page numbers for the articles Steve referenced. I called him and he promised me I would have the information tonight (except for one detail he's unable to locate which I said I would deal with). Also, per the editor's requirements, I created PICT files of the two graphics in the text. Finally, I reviewed and made minor changes to the submission letter.
Items still to do:
Well... not really writing, just cleaning. I reviewed the manuscript to see what still needs completing. The only items still needing attention are the Brown and Richardson citation and page numbers for the articles Steve referenced. I called him and he promised me I would have the information tonight (except for one detail he's unable to locate which I said I would deal with). Also, per the editor's requirements, I created PICT files of the two graphics in the text. Finally, I reviewed and made minor changes to the submission letter.
Items still to do:
- Add page numbers to citations
- Cite the Brown and Richardson quotation
- Add Steve's biographical information
- List the word counts in the submission letter
- Change "Keeler" to "Author" within the text
- Save the file in RTF
- Send it for review
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/23/08
28 minutes of writing
I completed all the editorial changes on the Assessment paper except for those awaiting Steve's input. I will need to remove the author's names and prepare separate JPG files of the graphics after receiving Steve's items. Then... it's off! :-)
Steve and I spoke yesterday about the SpEd Law paper. I suggested we bring in a third person who knows SpEd (including special education law) really well. He said he would give it some thought.
Once this is out, I will have to decide where to focus my efforts. Given that Francie Summers my have some time now that she's recently retired, I think I should complete the data cleaning from the micro-communities study and get out a Kappan article for review. The other piece needing attention quite quickly is IRB protocols on digital storytelling, service learning, and first year teachers. Unfortunately, the protocols and data cleaning won't count as writing.
I completed all the editorial changes on the Assessment paper except for those awaiting Steve's input. I will need to remove the author's names and prepare separate JPG files of the graphics after receiving Steve's items. Then... it's off! :-)
Steve and I spoke yesterday about the SpEd Law paper. I suggested we bring in a third person who knows SpEd (including special education law) really well. He said he would give it some thought.
Once this is out, I will have to decide where to focus my efforts. Given that Francie Summers my have some time now that she's recently retired, I think I should complete the data cleaning from the micro-communities study and get out a Kappan article for review. The other piece needing attention quite quickly is IRB protocols on digital storytelling, service learning, and first year teachers. Unfortunately, the protocols and data cleaning won't count as writing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Assessment Paper, 10/21/08
~120 minutes of writing
I returned to the Assessment paper, knowing that there is little left to do and I've waited long enough to get it out the door. All that is really left to complete is minor editing (though I am really doing minor wordsmithing at this point) and inserting all the references Steve added (and I few I thought needed to be added). I completed the wordsmithing (though I still need to edit the Word document), but still need to work on the references. I've requested information from Steve, and the letter to the editor is complete except for details awaiting Steve and final word counts. I hope to get this out within the week since I have nothing under review except the WebQuest paper.
I returned to the Assessment paper, knowing that there is little left to do and I've waited long enough to get it out the door. All that is really left to complete is minor editing (though I am really doing minor wordsmithing at this point) and inserting all the references Steve added (and I few I thought needed to be added). I completed the wordsmithing (though I still need to edit the Word document), but still need to work on the references. I've requested information from Steve, and the letter to the editor is complete except for details awaiting Steve and final word counts. I hope to get this out within the week since I have nothing under review except the WebQuest paper.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Tech Integration in Methods, 4/23/08
84 minutes of writing
I continued editing the Tech Integration in Methods paper for JCTE. They've requested my updated manuscript be delivered no later than June 1, 2008.
I was able to focus on the slightly more complicated issues addressed by the reviewers. Some comments required additional clarification and one set of comments (addressed by all reviewers) would require an entire new focus to the paper. I emailed the editor about these changes. First, I requested clarification so am now ready to fix on the the areas of recommended change. Second, I requested the opportunity to retain the present focus of the paper. The reviewers requested an earlier mention of social studies and greater literature review relating to social studies. My desire was to make this paper a general tech integration in methods paper, and I have another paper (the one delivered at NCSS in 2006) that will focus just on social studies. I made the argument that focusing on social studies requires much more detail and that the concepts addressed in the current paper are cross-disciplinary. The editorial team accepted my recommendation to retain the general focus for the paper. Now, I have a lot of work to give the paper a much clearer cross-curricular focus from the beginning. That's my next task: finding examples from science and language arts standards relating to tech integration and finding literature in math, science, and language arts, and social studies that supports integrating technology into methods instruction. That's quite a task I have in front of me!
I continued editing the Tech Integration in Methods paper for JCTE. They've requested my updated manuscript be delivered no later than June 1, 2008.
I was able to focus on the slightly more complicated issues addressed by the reviewers. Some comments required additional clarification and one set of comments (addressed by all reviewers) would require an entire new focus to the paper. I emailed the editor about these changes. First, I requested clarification so am now ready to fix on the the areas of recommended change. Second, I requested the opportunity to retain the present focus of the paper. The reviewers requested an earlier mention of social studies and greater literature review relating to social studies. My desire was to make this paper a general tech integration in methods paper, and I have another paper (the one delivered at NCSS in 2006) that will focus just on social studies. I made the argument that focusing on social studies requires much more detail and that the concepts addressed in the current paper are cross-disciplinary. The editorial team accepted my recommendation to retain the general focus for the paper. Now, I have a lot of work to give the paper a much clearer cross-curricular focus from the beginning. That's my next task: finding examples from science and language arts standards relating to tech integration and finding literature in math, science, and language arts, and social studies that supports integrating technology into methods instruction. That's quite a task I have in front of me!
Tech Integration in Methods, 4/22/08
141 minutes of writing
I received confirmation that this paper was conditionally accepted by JCTE and was provided with a list of items to address. In preparation for starting the process, I re-read the paper today and made my own editorial changes (mostly wordsmithing). Then, I began focusing on the reviewers comments and started editing the paper based on these. Most of the editorial remarks I addressed today were minor, requiring only small word changes.
I received confirmation that this paper was conditionally accepted by JCTE and was provided with a list of items to address. In preparation for starting the process, I re-read the paper today and made my own editorial changes (mostly wordsmithing). Then, I began focusing on the reviewers comments and started editing the paper based on these. Most of the editorial remarks I addressed today were minor, requiring only small word changes.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Assessment Paper, 3/10/08
111 minutes of writing
I received Steve's first draft of the literature review for the assessment paper and spent time this morning re-working it. His citations were excellent and I believe we have enough to substantially support the paper. I made my recommended edits and returned it to Steve for his feedback and additional edits. Hopefully, we will complete the literature review in the next day or two, and we can situate it in the full paper this week. I would like to get this under review next week at the latest.
In Steve's literature review, he included several items I felt were not needed for the current paper, but might work well in a follow-up manuscript. We've discussed some other possibilities, but floored the conversations until this paper is complete. When this paper is under review, I would like to revisit the "extraneous" ideas appearing in his literature review to see how we could work them into a separate article.
I received Steve's first draft of the literature review for the assessment paper and spent time this morning re-working it. His citations were excellent and I believe we have enough to substantially support the paper. I made my recommended edits and returned it to Steve for his feedback and additional edits. Hopefully, we will complete the literature review in the next day or two, and we can situate it in the full paper this week. I would like to get this under review next week at the latest.
In Steve's literature review, he included several items I felt were not needed for the current paper, but might work well in a follow-up manuscript. We've discussed some other possibilities, but floored the conversations until this paper is complete. When this paper is under review, I would like to revisit the "extraneous" ideas appearing in his literature review to see how we could work them into a separate article.
Friday, February 29, 2008
SITE Lit Review, 2/25/08
54 minutes of writing
I worked on defining "strategy" and the theme terms for the SITE Literature Review today. I've been meeting regularly with Scott and Amy (co-authors) regarding the inter-rater reliability process and developing the database. I've also made significant progress on ensuring the empiricism of the study by reviewing the data with an excruciatingly detailed eye. I feel we finally can confidently state our numbers of the available articles and we are ready to move to the review stage. We found 60 articles, but I anticipate we will find between 1 and 30 strategies per article. That's going to be a lot of data! Unfortunately, to date I've not been successful with getting the database online. This process would be much simpler if we could more easily share our data (instead of having to cut/paste/convert to Excel), but at least this method allows me to control the data and ensure it is accurate before it appears in the database.
If there are any readers out there would can help me get a FileMaker Pro 5.0 database online (I've done it before and I'm not stuck at the TCP/IP stage), I'd appreciate any help... :-)
I also received confirmation today (I'm writing this on 2/29/08) that my NECC article from last year was conditionally accepted at JCTE. Woo-hoo! Time to get to work!
I worked on defining "strategy" and the theme terms for the SITE Literature Review today. I've been meeting regularly with Scott and Amy (co-authors) regarding the inter-rater reliability process and developing the database. I've also made significant progress on ensuring the empiricism of the study by reviewing the data with an excruciatingly detailed eye. I feel we finally can confidently state our numbers of the available articles and we are ready to move to the review stage. We found 60 articles, but I anticipate we will find between 1 and 30 strategies per article. That's going to be a lot of data! Unfortunately, to date I've not been successful with getting the database online. This process would be much simpler if we could more easily share our data (instead of having to cut/paste/convert to Excel), but at least this method allows me to control the data and ensure it is accurate before it appears in the database.
If there are any readers out there would can help me get a FileMaker Pro 5.0 database online (I've done it before and I'm not stuck at the TCP/IP stage), I'd appreciate any help... :-)
I also received confirmation today (I'm writing this on 2/29/08) that my NECC article from last year was conditionally accepted at JCTE. Woo-hoo! Time to get to work!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
SS and Tech, 2/10/08
126 minutes of writing
I had not planned on working today (I spent most of the day with family or packing for our move next weekend), but received feedback from the SSRP editor who is requesting the changes by tomorrow. The journal editors were very kind to give me until 2/8/08 to complete my first round of edits (they had requested a 2/1/08 deadline) so I want to provide the with the quickest turn-arounds of the highest quality I can possibly provide.
I was pleased to read that the editor felt my changes had strengthened the paper, and he accepted all that I recommended. I did, however, note that all the areas he was requesting additional changes were those that he had commented on during the previous editing round. I had clearly not yet met his expectations for some sections. I feel badly that I was not able to make completely acceptable changes during the first round. I attribute this failure to one of two things:
Here was my email response to the editor:
"I have addressed all your comments to the best of my ability. If I have failed to meet your expectations, please provide me with more guidance. I am learning a lot through this process, and even though my eyes are blurring and everything in the manuscript now is so familiar I feel that I am continually repeating myself, I do want to ensure that Eric and I provide the best possible manuscript we can to the journal..."
I hope this is one of many, many positive experiences I have with academic journal editors. To date, I have found academic writing and editing to be a very rewarding experience and the people with whom I've worked on journal articles and books in chapters have proven themselves to be wonderful at helping me to provide them with my best quality of work.
I had not planned on working today (I spent most of the day with family or packing for our move next weekend), but received feedback from the SSRP editor who is requesting the changes by tomorrow. The journal editors were very kind to give me until 2/8/08 to complete my first round of edits (they had requested a 2/1/08 deadline) so I want to provide the with the quickest turn-arounds of the highest quality I can possibly provide.
I was pleased to read that the editor felt my changes had strengthened the paper, and he accepted all that I recommended. I did, however, note that all the areas he was requesting additional changes were those that he had commented on during the previous editing round. I had clearly not yet met his expectations for some sections. I feel badly that I was not able to make completely acceptable changes during the first round. I attribute this failure to one of two things:
- I am so close to the manuscript at this point that I can't see the errors like and outside reader can see them; or,
- I am so new to the academic writing and editing process that I am not yet able to see issues that would concern a journal editor or reviewer.
Here was my email response to the editor:
"I have addressed all your comments to the best of my ability. If I have failed to meet your expectations, please provide me with more guidance. I am learning a lot through this process, and even though my eyes are blurring and everything in the manuscript now is so familiar I feel that I am continually repeating myself, I do want to ensure that Eric and I provide the best possible manuscript we can to the journal..."
I hope this is one of many, many positive experiences I have with academic journal editors. To date, I have found academic writing and editing to be a very rewarding experience and the people with whom I've worked on journal articles and books in chapters have proven themselves to be wonderful at helping me to provide them with my best quality of work.
Friday, February 8, 2008
SS and Tech, 2/08/08
201 minutes of writing
I made changes to all the editorial remarks provided by Mark Hofer for the SS and Tech article. When I began working on the article, I ended up doing a great deal more editing than I had planned (and he had requested). I'm quite eager to hear his reactions to the updated manuscript. In fact, I'm a bit nervous that he will feel I have done more damage than good to the piece. I guess that's a worry of all authors. I know the paper will never be good enough for me.
He informed me that he will review my changes over the weekend and hopes to have the manuscript to the final editing team by Monday for a March publication date.
I made changes to all the editorial remarks provided by Mark Hofer for the SS and Tech article. When I began working on the article, I ended up doing a great deal more editing than I had planned (and he had requested). I'm quite eager to hear his reactions to the updated manuscript. In fact, I'm a bit nervous that he will feel I have done more damage than good to the piece. I guess that's a worry of all authors. I know the paper will never be good enough for me.
He informed me that he will review my changes over the weekend and hopes to have the manuscript to the final editing team by Monday for a March publication date.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
SS and Tech, 2/07/08
21 minutes of interrupted writing
I worked on editing the Social Studies and Tech paper, but was interrupted a lot during the process. It is due tomorrow so it will become my first priority tomorrow morning. I have nothing else on my schedule until this paper is completed and sent to the editor.
I worked on editing the Social Studies and Tech paper, but was interrupted a lot during the process. It is due tomorrow so it will become my first priority tomorrow morning. I have nothing else on my schedule until this paper is completed and sent to the editor.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
SS and Tech, 2/06/08
42 minutes of writing
I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. Though I had hoped to complete it before the deadline on the 8th, it looks like it will take me to the 8th to complete it.
I worked on editing the SS and Tech paper. Though I had hoped to complete it before the deadline on the 8th, it looks like it will take me to the 8th to complete it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)