publishing your work for research and practitioner audiences
DESCRIPTION
Publishing Your Work for Research and Practitioner Audiences. Rose Zbiek & Glen Blume Penn State University 16 May 2008 PAMTE. Writing a Great Paper. Do I have something worth writing about?. Write about what you know. Find out what’s out there. Identify an audience. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Publishing Your Work for Research and Practitioner
Audiences
Rose Zbiek & Glen Blume
Penn State University
16 May 2008
PAMTE
Writing a Great Paper
Do I have something worth writing about?
• Write about what you know.• Find out what’s out there.• Identify an audience.
• Be clear about “what is new” here for this audience.
What makes a paper good enough to publish?
• Make a point.• Make a point rather than tell what you're
doing/did.• Strong and concise examples illustrate
your point and provide the necessary background (e.g., what GSP can do).
• Make sure the figures/tables/graphics are needed and clear.
I’m not a really good writer. What can I do?
• Proofread and spell check.
• Check flow of paper and tone.
• Have others read it before submission.
• Perhaps try a presentation first to float the ideas and refine the message.
How might we organize to jointly write an article?
• Discuss the idea first--brainstorm the message.
• Divide and conquer--use the talents.
• Keep on task and topic.
• Check for “written by committee” feel.
• Decide authorship (who and order).
Identifying a Venue
How do I decide where to submit it?
• One project/idea could go many ways.
• Find out what fits the publication before you start.
• Read the publication before you submit (or start write).
• Watch for focus issues/themes.
How do I make a case for where I publish?
• Review process (e.g., double blind)• Authors of pieces (e.g.,national)• Acceptance rate (e.g., ≈60%)• Audience (e.g., resource for teachers, peers)• Circulation (e.g., 1400-2300)• Reviews (e.g., PCTM yearbook in MT)• External reviewers• Personal statement
Acceptance
Local
State
National
International
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1 2 3 4 5
Practitioner Venues
I know about PCTM but are there other places?
• “Local” review: PCTM magazine, MAA section newsletter
• State+: PCTM yearbook and other state pubs (e.g., PASCD, The New York State Mathematics Teachers Journal)
• National: NCTM journals, NCTM yearbook, AMTE monograph, CITE
We do this great activity. How can we publish it?
• Be sure it’s not “commonplace.”
• Know it can be “done” in other places in a reasonable way.
• Double check for good mathematics and pedagogy.
• Be clear about goal of activity – articulate learning goal beyond fun.
Do I need student work or handouts?
Maybe not but …• Absence of student work in appropriate
places might imply no one ever tried it in the classroom.
• Convey that it is applicable for classroom.
• Avoid seeming clueless about the “real” classroom world.
What are pitfalls of a paper about our classes?
• Doesn’t share the insights and decisions, rationale and reflection – how are we doing this and why are we doing it this way
• Not enough detail (e.g., “we followed this up with a worksheet”)
• Worksheet/tasks given but no sense of whole-class discussion or how the work was “pulled together”
• Details of a classroom that are not related to the lesson
What do we probably not need to say?
• Assumes reader needs remediation
• Talking at or down to teachers
Researcher Venues
What do I need in a research ms?
• Make sure all the parts are there and they fit together– Question– Framework– Participants– Data: sources, collection, analysis– Results, discussion
• Various journals (e.g., JMTE, MTL, ESJ)
What’s a theoretical framework?
• Not simply a literature review
• Influences all parts of study (e.g., data analysis)
• Explains a phenomenon
• Positions the study in the broader field
I have data from my class. Do I write about it?
• Research questions are field matters and not only local matters (e.g., how well does our tutoring by prospective teachers work)
• Study isn’t done because we can collect data
What’s a research question?
• Research questions are researchable questions (e.g., What’s the better way to teach ELL students mathematics?)
• “So what” is not answered (e.g., we know that students do this but how is that important)
• “Nobody did this before” or “fill a gap in the literature” doesn’t cut it.
What kind of papers don’t fly?
• Comparing vague alternatives (e.g., technology versus no technology, reform curricula versus traditional)
• Deficit studies (e.g., evidence that teachers don’t know, can’t do anything well enough)
What goes into a good literature review?
• Not a single focus or lack of grounding in the literature and no awareness of other work
• Lit review is more than a laundry list• Lit review doesn’t need everything ever read• Connections to all parts (e.g., instruments,
conclusions) to the literature
How much detail do we include about the data?
• Psychometric properties are needed• Justify why the data are good
Note: Can’t make a case for instruments that do not match research question constructs (e.g., Teacher knowledge of function measured by PRAXIS II content exam)
What do we say about our data analysis?
• Thoughtful data analysis without a “trust me” attitude
• Evidence of looking for disconfirming evidence in qualitative studies
• Analysis of data rather than description of data
What’s a pitfall for a quantitative study?
• No attention to the unit of analysis
• Writing about statistical tests as if writing/copying a textbook
• Calling things “significant” or “different” when the stats don’t support the claim
What goes in a discussion/conclusion?
• Claims given as findings are supported by the data.
• Conclusions/implications that are not a leap of faith from the empirical work.
How can I tick off a reviewer or editor?
• Annoying the reviewer with sloppiness, poor writing (have someone else read it)
• Submit a math proof or lesson plan for research
• Miss purpose of abstract or key words• Have a good idea or good paper and
not submit it