WW_Martin,+Oglesby,+Powell-Schager_Research+Plan_LitReview_Timeline

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dDUzaXp1Vm1jN3NRSmZLUW1DVlByaVE6MA#gid=0

Martin--http://martin8484.wikispaces.com/--submitted
CRITERIA 1: Quality of Wiki Works (TOPIC) posted. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * The wiki works is a solid draft. I am reading through the various pages as I write here, and the first thing I would recommend to the author is that she try to remove bias in the sentence "I hope to increase teacher-interest in digital storytelling as an instructional tool in teaching writing to third-grade students. " You probably don't want to have a bias in favor of particular outcomes, or at least, you don't want to reveal that in your intro. Certainly, we know that by studying this topic, you are interested in it and you may suspect that digital storytelling has promise for improving writing, but I think you want to tone down your feelings about it. As I progress through your submission, I see that yours, like mine, is under construction. Some areas need expansion, and thank goodness Prof. Baylen is extending the deadline for this somewhat! I would recommend that you narrow your research questions down to just this one: Which of the six traits of writing is most improved...?" You might be able to measure that one with a simple data collection. But attempting to measure "impact of student's understanding of the writing process" sounds very difficult to measure.

CRITERIA 2: Similarities of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * Both of our plans are very much under construction. Writing takes a long time, and it happens on its own schedule in a sense. Academic writing, which depends on a thorough familiarity with the literature, is tedious and difficult for novices. It can take hours of work to compose a single solid paragraph.

CRITERIA 3: Differences of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * You created a draft of your entire proposal, despite its not being completely ready. That is what was expected of us.

CRITERIA 4: Elements you would like to borrow from the Wiki Works submission you are reviewing or have not thought to add or include in your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I shall strive to compile an initial draft of my paper once I feel it has reached the point where that is appropriate.

CRITERIA 5: Things you would like to change in your own work after seeing this Wiki Works submission. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I want to work on my lit review! I had a 5-day respite from that while being sick, and it's time to get that section finished so that I can move on.

D. What other comments related to this Wiki Works submission review that you want to share with your professor? * I love the way you (Dr. Baylen) have inserted such detailed feedback on the draft version in your green text. That really helps us to see where our writing should and should not go.

Oglesby--http://oglesbyresearch8484.wikispaces.com/--submitted
CRITERIA 1: Quality of Wiki Works (TOPIC) posted. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * Your research question is "What is Differentiated Instruction and how can it be integrated into the classroom?" It almost sounds as if you are going to conduct a literature review for your study when you ask "what is." "What is" suggests that the term is so widely and variably used that there is a need to review all definitions to attempt to derive a new definition that takes the many facets into consideration. In the second half of your research question, you ask "how can [differentiation] be integrated into the classroom"? My feeling about this is that it's too broad a question. I would say that you should narrow in a way like this (just an example): "What do teachers perceive as best practices for differentiating instruction in the elementary school classroom?" This would allow you to set up a study you can measure. You would define what you mean by "differentiation," explain this definition to teachers, and then you could poll them through surveys and focus groups to learn about what they do and what they think they should do. Perhaps you could triangulate findings by also conducting observations of these teachers' classes to verify whether or not they actually practice what they have said. I don't know if my input helps, but I do know that the question you pose is challenging to measure with data collection, unless your study is going to be a review of the literature and snapshots of teacher practice (which could be found in trade literature).

CRITERIA 2: Similarities of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * The most outstanding similarity between our submissions is the fact that we are in the midst of our research proposal creation. You and I both have loose ends to tie up in nearly every area of the plan. We have work to do!

CRITERIA 3: Differences of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * A big difference in our plans is that I don't get the sense that you really want to study what you've set out to study. It feels like you have created a research plan to fulfill the assignment, but I don't get the sense that you really have found something you want to pursue, if that makes sense.

CRITERIA 4: Elements you would like to borrow from the Wiki Works submission you are reviewing or have not thought to add or include in your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I may not be borrowing from this submission just yet. :)

CRITERIA 5: Things you would like to change in your own work after seeing this Wiki Works submission. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * This submission heartens me in the sense that other of my peers are also struggling to get words on paper, so to speak. It encourages me to revisit and revise what I have done so far.

D. What other comments related to this Wiki Works submission review that you want to share with your professor? * Oglesby seems to need help moving forward.

Powell-Schager--http://bpowell1-8484-research.wikispaces.com/
CRITERIA 1: Quality of Wiki Works (TOPIC) posted. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * Barbara, you have done a noble job of rising to the assignment expectations. You have pushed yourself to finish the draft as outlined by Professor Baylen. I would go so far to say that of the 6 proposals I have reviewed during this exercise and our D7 posting in CourseDen, yours is by far the most complete. This speaks to a discipline that is admirable and enviable! :) You obviously don't need my external "attaboys," but I do have to acknowledge that I am quite impressed by your output! Next, to comment on your research questions (RQs). I think you are asking too much in your RQ. In RQ1 (How effective is the use WebQuests in motivating students to stay on task and learn content), why not just choose either "stay on task" or "learn content," but don't include both in the RQ. You could break this RQ into 2 separate ones (one that deals with "staying on task" and other that deals with "learning content"). In your 2nd RQ (How well do screencasts provide differentiated instruction for elementary level students so they can focus and learn factual content.), you could do a whole new study, I think, and you could also break it down into 2 RQs. Your third R Q (H ow well does differentiated instruction via screencasts affect students' ability to create digital stories that are both informative, accurate, and aesthetically pleasing (well written and technically executed)?) is full of things to define and measure, and could be a third study. So, my advice is to trim it down. Look at where you are as a researcher (and, by the way, you know where that is, not I!...you may be fully capable of conducting the study(ies) these RQs demand...I know I am not!), and ask yourself what you could do. As beginning researchers, we don't have to hang the moon, and we sure don't have the resources to do so. So, I would recommend trimming these RQs down and focusing more tightly on fewer topics. Great job on your draft plan based on the RQs you have. I love the way you define your terms, include sampling details, and go into such detail on everything. This is an excellent draft.

CRITERIA 2: Similarities of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I wish I could claim similarities among our drafts! Barbara possesses the gift of "attention to detail," which I too possess. However, I think she is more disciplined than I am when it comes to channeling this gift appropriately (as in, producing X by the deadline!).

CRITERIA 3: Differences of elements used in the Wiki Works submission to your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * Barbara has worked through the entire proposal process, and I am still puttering through the literature review. Every writer has different processes and routines, and for the sake of being in a course, we are pressured to conform to preferred processes, I am working on dropping my need to seem perfect and I am trying to do what is appropriate at my current stage in the process. I am holding myself accountable to the Proposal deadline coming up.

CRITERIA 4: Elements you would like to borrow from the Wiki Works submission you are reviewing or have not thought to add or include in your own work. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I would like to get my plan done as Barbara has. She has modeled a stickwithitness that is admirable, and that I find motivational.

CRITERIA 5: Things you would like to change in your own work after seeing this Wiki Works submission. (Please provide a thorough explanation to support your review) * I want to get to work on my plan. I just have to shut the door, unplug the phone, and cozy back up to the literature.

D. What other comments related to this Wiki Works submission review that you want to share with your professor? * I think this research proposal was amazingly good. I think her research questions are all over the place, and that has an effect on the quality of the study. However, the fact that she finished the draft to this extent is exemplary and motivational. Perhaps you could laud her (and others who did such a fantastic job) publicly in class. :)