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]