Poster Presentation & Further Work

I have finalized a draft of the poster presentation and will be printing a copy to have it ready for class when the new quarter begins at the end of September.  During the "break" between quarters, I plan on ensuring the feedback I received regarding the merged chapters is applied to my current work.  I want to be sure I go into this quarter with a fully updated (to this point) manuscript.  I also will be modifying my Chapter 3 to better describe and articulate my methodological approach.

Culminating Writing Efforts

I have worked through the process of merging Chapters 1-3, continuing my poster presentation work, and preparing a presentation for the proposal defense simulation for our last class.  I have found that the proofing and editing is a vital aspect of this process and that even after several reads, there are always adjustments that need to be made.  I have posted my final version (at this time) of the literature review and will be posting the merged Chapters 1 through 3 prior to tomorrow morning. 

Literature Review Revised

As I have progressed through the process of finalizing my literature review, I realized how much my initial submission was lacking.  The feedback that I received from Dr. Pittman regarding the first draft was very helpful in transforming the document into its current form.  The revisions necessitated revisiting some of the literature and providing more details related to the studies.  I found the Literature Review text very helpful throughout this course as a reference and guide for appropriate development of this piece of the research proposal. 
I have also been working on my poster presentation and have it nearly completed.  The YouTube tutorial was helpful in alleviating any concern about the utilization of graphics to enhance the poster.  Much of the poster is pulled from documents that have already been created, so overall it has not been that cumbersome a process to work on.  I am looking to finalize this within the week along with a handout to go with it.  I look forward to continuing the writing process as we approach the next quarter. 

Spencer Grant

I completed the Spencer Grant application last evening and am going to give it a final read today before submitting it.  I did experience a bit of confusion between the templates provided, the EH Research Blog submission, and what was asked of us on the Spencer Grant site itself.  Given this concern, I simply followed the criteria that was provided to us on July 19th and worked from that document.  I found this very helpful in making my points more concise to meet the page number counts.  I have completed grants before at the local education agency level for both Dual Enrollment and Safe and Drug Free Schools so I am familiar with a specific protocol for writing regarding these.  I believe we have missed the deadline submission for these given that we need to submit for the grant at least four months in advance of starting the research (according to the site).  With the next deadline in October, I don't believe I would qualify given that my research efforts will probably start no later than December.  Overall, I continue to find the feedback and process of rewriting and fine-tuning to be a positive and productive experience.

Literature Review Development

In progressing through the writing of the literature review, I have struggled a bit with determining how expansive to be on a given theme.  Currently, I have three themes that are pervasive in the literature review:

• Contemporary Perspectives on Social Capital
• School Work Perspectives on Technology
• Community & Connectedness

I have interwoven sources from my annotated bibliography in each of these sections but primarily wanted to demonstrate a connection between technology and social capital within a variety of contexts including education.  I desire to be concise and poignant in the discussion but also am aware of expectations for number of pages.  In the end, I believe the quality of writing should supersede page length expectations.  I submitted my draft literature review this morning to Dr. Gould and Dr. Pittman and will be anxious to hear their feedback so I can improve upon this particular product. 

Forging Ahead

As I continue with the writing process, I am continually revisiting my writing plan and making adjustments.  I have finalized the resubmission of the Annotated Bibliography and will post it to the journal writing page and send it via email to Dr. Pittman and Dr. Gould.  It was helpful to revisit this document and the sources included in it.  By doing so, I feel I have a much better perspective on the fourteen additional sources that will be added to the literature review.  In addition to working on the AB, I also began the Spencer grant and will be continuing to work on that throughout this week.  I did come across an interesting video related to a previous class discussion on identifying scholarly writing and I have posted it below as a reference.

Peer Review Process

Prior to submission of the first draft of the Annotated Bibliography, we were required to have a peer review the document utilizing the rubric below.  We were also required to conduct a review of another cohort member's Annotated Bibliography.  This process was very productive in encouraging conversations between writers regarding formatting and technical aspects of the document.  It was good to get constructive criticism but also gain some affirmation regarding what we are doing. 

Annotated Bibliography Rubric

I have also included the emails exchanged between colleagues regarding the review process:

From: Fusco, David (FUSCO) [fuscod@juniata.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:01 PM
To: Edward Frick; dwinner@ldsd.org; jcarr@kcsd.org
Subject: Re: Annotated Bibliography - Frick

Ed,

Attached are my comments regarding your AB.  Some of them include the expansion of any acronyms.  I realize that some of us know what they mean, but it's good to explain them.  You did that for most, but some of them need to be expanded upon.

Overall, very well done.  APA looks to be great and followed well.  I used your template for the rubric grading below.

Thanks for the opportunity to share and learn from each other.
Dave.

APA Formatting:  Proficient (14 points) – I wasn't sure if you needed to add the instructor's names and date to the header page.  I thought I would mention it regardless.

Critical Summary:  Distinguished (15 points) – All required elements were present.

Critical Assessment:  Distinguished (15 points) – The presentation was done is such a way that all readers could understand the study presented.  I learned that I did not take the reader into consideration as well as you did.

Critical Reflection:  Distinguished (15 points) – The flow was done very well with thoughts presented with each one, while weaving the common theme into all reviews.

Technical:  Proficient (13 points) – The use of 'we…' was used in the Intro (may be acceptable, but I thought the sentence could be re-worded).  Acronyms can be expanded in some instances.

---

To: Edward Frick
Subject: Annotated Bibliography – Frick
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:18 AM

Ed,

I think your paper looks good.  The one thing I would point out is that under each of your references where you give your summary of the article, you have the summary hanging or indented.  When Pittman talked about this in the Wimba, Lausch and I were both under the impression that you should not do this.  I am not sure if we took the correct meaning on this but it might be something to check out. 

Douglas G. Winner

Principal

Nye Elementary School

---

From: Edward Frick [mailto:edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 12:46 AM
To: Winner, Douglas; fusco@juniata.edu; jcarr@kcsd.org
Subject: Annotated Bibliography - Frick

Doug, Dave, or John,

I would appreciate it if one of you would review my AB and provide me with feedback prior to mid-week.  I have attached it.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  Thank you for your help with this. 

J. Edward Frick

Assistant Principal

Donegal Middle School and Riverview Elementary

1175 River Road

Marietta, PA 17547

717-426-4915

edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us

Skype:  donegalindians

---

From: Edward Frick [mailto:edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:25 AM
To: Winner, Douglas
Subject: RE: AB Peer Review

Doug,

I would agree with you are going to do - see if Dr. Pittman or Dr. Gould correct it or not and then go from there.  Sorry about the confusion. 

J. Edward Frick

Assistant Principal

Donegal Middle School and Riverview Elementary

1175 River Road

Marietta, PA 17547

717-426-4915

edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us

Skype:  donegalindians

---

From: Winner, Douglas [dwinner@ldsd.org]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:20 AM
To: Edward Frick
Cc: 'jcarr@kcsd.org'; 'fusco@juniata.edu'
Subject: RE: AB Peer Review

Ed,

Thank you for the comments about the hyperlinks, I was not aware of that and did not pick up on it in the APA.  I was talking to Fusco and he shared with me about not bolding the headings.  But, here is what confused me on that:

Headings

APA Style uses a unique headings system to separate and classify paper sections. There are 5 heading levels in APA. The 6th edition of the APA manual revises and simplifies previous heading guidelines. Regardless of the number of levels, always use the headings in order, beginning with level 1. The format of each level is illustrated below:

APA Headings
Level	Format
1	Centered, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Headings
2	Left-aligned, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Heading
3	Indented, boldface, lowercase heading with a period.
4	Indented, boldface, italicized, lowercase heading with a period.
5	Indented, italicized, lowercase heading with a period.

Thus, if the article has four sections, some of which have subsection and some of which don’t, use headings depending on the level of subordination. Section headings receive level one format. Subsections receive level two format. Subsections of subsections receive level three format. For example:

                    Methods (Level 1)

Site of Study (Level 2)

Participant Population (Level 2)

          Teachers. (Level 3)

          Students. (Level 3)

                    Results (Level 1)

Spatial Ability (Level 2)

          Test one. (level 3)

               Teachers with experience. (Level 4)

               Teachers in training. (Level 4)

          Test two. (Level 3)

Kinesthetic Ability (Level 2)

In APA Style, the Introduction section never gets a heading and headings are not indicated by letters or numbers. Levels of headings will depend upon the length and organization of your paper. Regardless, always begin with level one headings and proceed to level two, etc.

As you see it says to bold the headings.  I had this argument with Lausch and I decided to leave them in and if I get corrected on it I will take them out.  But, I am really not sure about it.

Douglas G. Winner

Principal

Nye Elementary School

---

From: Edward Frick [mailto:edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 12:14 AM
To: Winner, Douglas
Cc: jcarr@kcsd.org; fusco@juniata.edu
Subject: AB Peer Review
Importance: High

Doug,

My apologies for not getting this to you earlier in the day.  I have attached you AB with comments embedded into the document.  I have also recreated the rubric provided to us by Dr. Pittman below:

APA Formatting:  Proficient (13 points) – Score earned was a result of the bold headings, spacing between citations, and use of hyperlinks.

Critical Summary:  Distinguished (15 points) – All required elements of the summary were provided and writing was both clear and concise.

Critical Assessment:  Distinguished (15 points) – Presentation of ideas was done in a clear and understandable manner.

Critical Reflection:  Distinguished (15 points) – A refection was provided on each source and an overall introduction was articulated in an effective manner.

Technical:  Proficient (13 points) – Citations were not completely accurate given the use of hyperlinks.

Overall, your AB is well written and will certainly serve to broaden the foundation of literature you have already procured on your topic.  Well done!

J. Edward Frick

Assistant Principal

Donegal Middle School and Riverview Elementary

1175 River Road

Marietta, PA 17547

717-426-4915

edward.frick@donegal.k12.pa.us

Skype:  donegalindians

From: Winner, Douglas [dwinner@ldsd.org]

Key Journals in Education (Research and Administration)

The following lists of journals are key journals in the field of education:

Review of Educational Research
About:
The Review of Educational Research (RER, quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp. /volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

Editor(s):
Gaea Leinhardt - University of Pittsburgh
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
RER Editorial Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:
All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer. For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email editor Gaea Leinhardt at gaea@pitt.edu. Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail. Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Reporting on Research in AERA Publications, adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting the Guidelines for Reviewers, which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA. The style guide for all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Manuscripts should not exceed 50 pages total, including all tables, appendices, notes, but excluding all necessary references and figures.

American Educational Research Journal
About:
The American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), quarterly; approximately 960 pp. /volume year) publishes original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education. The editors seek to publish articles from a wide variety of academic disciplines and substantive fields; they are looking for clear and significant contributions to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes. The journal consists of two sections – one on Teaching, Learning and Human Development and the other on Social and Institutional Analysis.

Editor(s):
SIA Editor:
Lois Weis - State University of New York at Buffalo
TLHD Editors:
Arlette Ingram Willis - University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Violet J. Harris - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
AERJ Editorial Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:
All manuscripts for AERJ-SIA should be submitted electronically at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aerj-sia and all manuscripts for AERJ-TLHD at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aerj-tlhd. Authors may wish to read the latest AERJ-SIA editorial and/or the latest AERJ-TLHD editorial. As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission’s compliance with all the items on the Submission Preparation Checklist.

Sociology of Education
About:
Sociology of Education (SOE) provides a forum for studies in the sociology of education and human social development. SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals’ experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development. Such research may span various levels of analysis, ranging from the individual to the structure of relations among social and educational institutions. In an increasingly complex society, important educational issues arise throughout the life cycle.

Editor(s):
David B. Bills - University of Iowa
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
Sociology of Education Editorial Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/soe. Submitting authors are required to set up an online account on the SAGE Track system, powered by Scholar One. A processing fee of $25.00 is required for each paper submitted, except reviews. (Fees are waived for student members of the ASA.) Sociology of Education uses the current ASA style for all articles, notes, conversations, and application pieces.

Harvard Educational Review
About:
The Harvard Educational Review (print ISSN 0017-8055, online ISSN 1943-5045) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. It provides an interdisciplinary forum for discussion and debate about the field's most vital issues.

Editor(s):
Kolajo Paul Afolabi – Harvard University
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
HER Editoiral Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:
Manuscripts must be well written in clear, concise language and be free of technical jargon. As a generalist journal, HER strives for all articles to be widely accessible to non-experts. Previously published HER articles can serve as examples of the style of writing appropriate for our audience. We understand that the specific organization of a manuscript may differ according to discipline and the author’s aesthetic. Authors should indicate whether they are submitting their manuscript as a research article, an essay, a feature, a Voices Inside Schools article, an essay review, or a book review. HER accepts manuscripts of up to 9,000 words, including abstract, appendices, footnotes and references, and reserves the right to return any manuscript that exceeds that length. For all non-legal manuscripts, authors should use the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for reference and citation formats.

Education Administration Quarterly
About:
Educational Administration Quarterly has presents prominent empirical and conceptual articles focused on timely and critical leadership and policy issues of educational organizations. The journal embraces traditional and emergent research paradigms, methods, and issues. The journal specifically promotes the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarly work that enhances linkages among and utility for educational policy, practice, and research arenas.

Editor(s):
Linda Skrla – Texas A&M University
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
EAQ Editorial Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:
Manuscripts should be submitted at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/eaq, where authors will be required to set up an online account in the SAGETRACK system powered by Scholar One.
Ordinarily, manuscripts should be 25 to 40 pages in length. All tables should be included in the electronic file. Figures may be submitted in separate electronic files, preferably as TIFF or JPEG images, although we can accept most other formats. Figures must be of sufficient resolution for high-end printing: 1200 dpi for line art, 300 dpi for grayscale, and 600 dpi for color. Manuscripts should follow the style of the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA). All copy should be typed, double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-point font with notes, references, tables, and figures appearing at the end of the manuscript per APA style.

Journal of Educational Administration
About:
The Journal of Educational Administration seeks to meet the needs of principals, superintendents and directors of education interested in the practice and theory of educational administration. To ensure academic integrity, each paper submitted is subject to a triple-blind review process. In some circumstances this process may vary.

Editor(s):
A. Ross Thomas - University of Wollongong, Australia
The entire editorial board can be viewed at:
JEA Editorial Board

Manuscript Requirements and Format:
Each paper submitted to the Journal of Educational Administration is subject to the following review procedures:
It is reviewed by the Editor for general suitability for this publication.
If it is judged suitable at least three reviewers are selected, each from a different country, to carry out a blind review of the manuscript.
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the Editor then decides whether the particular article should be accepted as it is, revised or rejected.
The process described above is the normal procedure followed. The Editor may however, in some circumstances, vary this process.
As at December 31, 2009 - Acceptance rate: 11.3% - Average time for decision on submitted manuscript: 10 weeks - Average time from acceptance of final manuscript to publication: 14 months
The Harvard Citation Style must be used within the manuscript.


The following links also provide a listing of top journals within the field of education (educational research and educational administration):
Top Journals - Science Watch
Top Journals - Research Publication

Video Reflections

In viewing the video (http://youtu.be/LIEeTsHBj98) regarding scholarly writing, specifically dissertations, I found the advice being offered very practical and sound. It really provided the framework to set you up for a positive writing experience. As with each of us, I'm sure some of the suggestions are more applicable than others. For me, I need an extensive block of time in which to engage in the writing process but once I get started, it is analogous to an athlete being in "the zone" or as the author put it "religious ecstasy".

The author did highlight some of the challenges many of us face. A particular one that came up was the importance of eliminating distractions (phone, work, family, social networking, etc.). Distractions take various forms and some of them are responsibilities rather than distractions.

One aspect that really resonated with me was the importance of collegiality in the writing process through peer review and in working with others in these endeavors. Whether it is sharing ideas about each other’s work or actually engaging in critical analysis of it, the collaboration carries a great deal of meaning. Having authored and co-authored articles in the past, I can speak to the fact that it is more enjoyable when the process is shared.

Searching for Sources

As I continue to hunt for additional sources, I have discovered a wide range of articles and dissertations related to technology, social capital, and community. My initial effort at Chapters 1, 2 and 3 yielded approximately 85 references (as outlined on the reference pages of that document). I have looked at and reviewed an additional 13 resources and probably could look at a great deal more (especially in the area of social capital). I really want to focus on contemporary viewpoints of social capital as I have outlined in my original literature review. The search overall has yielded some interesting information.

In doing this part of the writing process, I came across a very interesting article from Teachers College Record, Columbia University - Analyzing Teachers' Professional Interactions in a School as Social Capital: A Social Network Approach. This article will be helpful as a reference in looking at how secondary school worker perceptions of technology impact the development of social capital in that context. Since the article focuses on professional interactions, this can be tied into technological venues for such interactions. TCR also provides a two-minute video to accompany the article and I have provided it here as a reference:

Five Reflective Questions

Where are you with the dissertation process?

Currently, I have completed a rudimentary draft of Chapters 1, 2, and 3 and will be looking at expanding upon these in my current course this quarter (Summer 2011).

How did you come up with your topic?

My specific topic has emerged from my interest in school community (connectedness) and technology. I am also interested in tools that help perpetuate educators conversations regarding student learning and outcomes (whether in a particular context or in a broader sense).

What is your favorite thing about writing a literature review? Least favorite?

I really enjoy looking at a topic from a comprehensive perspective. It allows the researcher to see how the topic was approached by others and provides an opportunity to see connections that can be made with the current research endeavor. My least favorite part is creating the APA reference list. Even with assistive software, it is a tedious task to complete.

What do you find most challenging about the academic writing process?

I find the most pressing issue is one of time. Given I have four children and a very supportive wife, I need to take time to nurture those relationships and be an active parent. The writing process (or at least how I need to write) takes a great deal of time. When you consider drafts and revisions to a project, it can take vast chunks of your personal time (outside of your work) in order to complete the task. This is an ongoing challenge for me.

If you could describe the process of disseration and/or academic writing in one word, what would it be?

Fulfillment

Field Experts and Publishing Practices

Technology:
Zhao, Yong - Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education, College of Education at the University of Oregon

Marzano, Robert - Cofounder and CEO of Marzano Research Laboratory in Englewood, Colorado and he received a bachelor’s degree from Iona College in New York, a master’s degree from Seattle University, and a doctorate from the University of Washington.

Bonk, Curtis - Professor of Education, Indiana University School of Education

Richardson, Wil - He is an independent presenter and owner of Connective Learning, LLC. He promotes the implementation of Read/Write technologies in K-12 classrooms and is an advocate for school reform which encourages the integration of technology in learning. He was also named to the National Advisory Board for the George Lucas Education Foundation. His experience includes co-ownership of Powerful Learning Practice, a company that delivers job-embedded, year-long professional development to schools worldwide around the pedagogies of Web 2.0 tools.

Social Capital:
Bordieu, Pieere - He was a French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher. Starting from the role of economic capital for social positioning, he pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital.

Coleman, James - A renowned American sociological theorist and former president of the American Sociological Association. Coleman studied the sociology of education, public policy, and was one of the earliest users of the term "social capital". His Foundations of Social Theory stands as one of the most important sociological contributions of the late-20th century.

Putnam, Robert - Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also visiting professor and director of the Manchester Graduate Summer Programme in Social Change, University of Manchester (UK).

Connectedness/Community:
Elmore, Richard - Gregory R. Anrig Professor of Educational Leadership at Harvard Graduate School of Education and Co-Director, Doctor of Education Leadership Program

Resnick, Lauren - Director, Institute for Learning, Distinguished University Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Professor, Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Pittsburgh Department of Psychology, Adjunct Faculty, University of Pittsburgh School of Education, Senior Scientist, Learning Research and Development Center

Blum, Robert - William H. Gates, Sr. Professor and Chair of the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Furman, Gail - Professor of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Washington State University

Noddings, Nel - Professor of Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and the Lee L. Jacks Professor of Child Education Emeritus at Stanford University.

All the above authors/researchers have pursued publications in scholarly and academic journals, authored or co-authored books, and conducted specific research in their area of expertise (whether that be technology, social capital, or community). Most of the above individuals are considered experts (or pioneers) in their field of study.

Plan of Action Completed

I submitted my plan of action yesterday and posted it as an attachment to my discussion board posting for Week 1 on Blackboard. I already got some feedback on it from another cohort member. I anticipate that this will be a constant reference point for me in moving through this course and will serve as an example to implement as I move into the dissertation effort.

Reflections - Orientation to Content

Definitions - Prior to Learning

A writing journal will allow me to focus on key aspects of my writing and how to create academically oriented writing.

Research is the process of developing the skill of acquiring knowledge and content. It also provides a way to apply and synthesize the learning that has taken place.