Week 7
July 30 – August 5
 |
Important Dates:
Also, by now we hope that you can turn things in via your portfolio. If not, you can still use the dropbox. IMPORTANT: Make sure you check out Week 8 for what will be due by the end of the course! |
 |
Check-in Question: What obstacle have you overcome that you are especially proud of?[formidable id=6] |
 |
OVERVIEW:It’s time to begin wrapping up the course, and we’ll do that by first showing off online portfolios. We could do something like have “presentations”, but you’re all tired (and so are we!). So, we’ll let the portfolios speak for themselves. You’ve built the exhibit, now people will come and comment! STEP 1: MAKE A POST IN FLIPGRID RIGHT NOW (YES NOW!): At the start of the week, every one should go into a flipgrid and make a “POST”, called something informative like “MATTHEW KOEHLER – Portfolio Feedback”. Of course, you use your name, and not “Matthew Koehler”. In the body of the post, put in the URL of your portfolio, and explain anything needed to access your portfolio. Also ask for any advice you’d like regarding design decisions, or pages you want particular feedback about. STEP 2: By Sunday 11:59 PM, GIVE FEEDBACK ON THE ONLINE PORTFOLIOS OF OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR BASE GROUP: Go to each members post in flipgrid and comment on the look and feel of the site, whether or not things are easy or difficult to find. Point out things that may need improvement. Point out things that are doing particularly well, or the elements of the portfolio that you liked best! STEP 3: CONSIDER LEAVING A COMMENT – Finally, if the author is allowing comments on their website, leave a nice comment on their website about their website, the RDP, or a particular post. Getting that first comment can be a nice feeling! |
|
|
 |
Writing & Presenting Research Fine, G.A. (1988) The ten commandments of writing. American Sociologist, 19(3), 152-157 [discussion: Q1, Q2, Q3 ] Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172-177. [discussion: Q1, Q2, Q3 ] [**OPTIONAL**] Kaestle (1993). The awful reputation of education research. Educational Researcher, 22, (1), 23-31. [OPTIONAL] [ discussion: ] [**OPTIONAL**] Moss et al. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501–517. [OPTIONAL] [ discussion: ] [**OPTIONAL**] Sword, H. (2012, July 23). Zombie nouns.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/zombie-nouns/ [OPTIONAL] Continue reading →[**OPTIONAL**] Derry, G. (1999). Epilogue: So, what is science? In What science is and how it works (pp. 303-304). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ discussion: ] Continue reading →Ed Tech Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg, & D. D. Preiss (Eds). Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [discussion: Q1, Q2] Continue reading → |
|
LOOKING AHEAD: Remember that Step # 6 (Revise, Respond, and Resubmit) of your RDP is due next week. This represents a lot of work and, accordingly, this week you should start working on how to address reviewers’ feedback in your revision. For more detail, see the last step of the RDP. |
 |