Home+-+Main+Project

=Home - Project Proposal= > thanks for the good catches and edits Peggy > Just going over Version 3b & 4. I think I can list my final comments here rather than return another draft. You guys have found many excellent resources & weaved them very well into our plan! I'm utterly impressed as to how we brought all of this together so quickly!! Great work guys! I plan to clean up this wiki (maybe delete or hide pages we no longer need) so we can start planning the actual project - do you this this wiki is a useful way to start this planning, or other ideas? Sounds good, let's continue with it and see what happens. I think it works. Maybe just have everything on one thing. I do like the connect meeting for discussions. Easier to talk out our thoughts. Oh - my apologies for missing the last meeting!! How did it go? > > > > ===Sunday Jun 12, too late Rev 4=== > I believe this is done. Dy, I put in your edits except for the paragraph. While I agree with what you wrote, I don't think it fit in the key concepts. I think it was like a bit of summary of the online learning and intentions. If you have your heart set on it, let me know. But I don't have the energy right now to get it to fit properly. BTW, I came across a really good article earlier today, the Guthrie article. You guys might find it interesting or useful at some point. Not only that, but one of the authors is McCracken. That's pretty special. Anyways, unless I hear differently I am going to submit Rev4 tomorrow at 4:30pm PST. Ok > > > > > Sunday June 12 9:00pm PST Rev 3b > ** The whole thing looks well put together! Great job everyone! I didn't really see many things to edit on. Just provided minor typo correction, and added an optional paragraph. We are right around the max word count, which I am happy about. (Generally I have problems with being too wordy :-) ) ** > ** So If you guys are good with the draft, let's firm up the final changes. Who will be willing to submit the final version? ** > > Sunday June 12 6:30pm PST Rev 3 > > > Here is my Rev3. It is almost entirely grammar corrections. I did reposition some text in the "Intentions and Positions" and "Online Learning" sections. I tried to make it clear as to what our intention is. re: there are curriculum issues, people want distance ed, therefore we are doing a constructivist online module. **//Please review this, thanks!.//** >
 * ===Monday Morning===
 * Title page -
 * Can you split the title so it is better balanced between the 2 lines? A pet peeve of mine. Maybe "Onlie High School Biology Class" together on the 2nd line - Done
 * probably add our student numbers for all of us I don't even know my student number (I guess I can get it from ssa)! I can keep Peggy's but it will be the odd one out unless Dy knows hers. I'll wait to see if Dy responds. Feel free to delete mine; 1 class wanted it, others didn't seem to care either way. I don't mind either way, put it there or omit. agree that it may stand out if not all 3 of us have it i. I thought I put mine in version 3b (it's 37264009). Funny they kept mine from undergrad. I still remember it by heart. =)
 * 1 of my MET classes really wanted the word count on the title page. Word count not to include title page, references, any appendices Done
 * Comments about References, APA style
 * In the References section itself:
 * remove the doi numbers included for some items. That is sometimes listed in a lit review summary, but not in the references itself. There are several instances DOI should be included in APA citations for online publications, and print if available - I checked apa.org and owl
 * Guthrie & McCraken - missing the page numbers. 7(2):1-21 this is a weird one: because it is an online journal, all of the articles start with page1. In their citation, EBSCO does not list the pages. Given the ambiguity, I suggest we leave out the page #. Sure - I'm ok with that, & the doi
 * Logan & Skamp - I had to locate that article since it looked so good! The References section gives an incorrect volume number - should be 38:501-527. [not volume 25(9)]. It might be issue 4? - 38(4) Good catch, that is what it should be - Done
 * With the body of the paper there are some specific items; page numbers refer to Draft 4:
 * Page 2 - no quote is given so remove page number for the Dearing reference Done
 * Page 6 - 1st full paragraph on that page. Change the Watson reference back to Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, and Rapp, 2010 Wow, this was confusing. It turns out there are two documents with the same title and same general content. Done - Sorry about that
 * Page 11 - remove page number and the words "as cited in" for the Sanson et al. reference Done
 * Others items
 * Page 2 - We all missed it before, but on page 2 - 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - "In response to these . . . " is part of that sentence missing? No, I think I just wrote it really, really badly. This is the corrected sentence: "In response to these challenges seen in science education, the constructivist principles guiding our module design are based on meaningful learning in a social and cultural setting." lol! Happens to me all the time!
 * Page 8 - Paragraph just before bullets, just before reference to (Sask. Ministry of Ed, 2011). Delete the words "upon course" Done
 * Page 12 - 1st paragraph. Missing an "s" at the end of "suggestion". Oh, & the 20 hours was just a guess; figured we should have some rough time lin Done
 * Minor suggestions - good revisions, Doug! Just a few little items - [[file:design+project+proposal+Rev3a.docx]]
 * I have track changes enabled so it is clear what I did (on the Word ribbon, "Review" tab, then you will see "Final: Show Markup"). You can get rid of the tracking by changing the "Final: Show Markup" to "Final".
 * I tried to put in some "opposing view' or alternative bias in the Online learning section (bottom page 9, after the Anderson and Dron reference). **//Please review this.//** I think something like this should be said, but I sort of just stuck it in there. Maybe it doesn't fit well.
 * I will just add - a teacher has no say in curriculum changes, and is required to follow established curriculum. I didn't add that to my revisions, but I think that is important
 * I can take care of the final submission tomorrow after everyone's final edits. I'm comfortable with re-arranging the fields and accept review changes (just in case you haven't used this functionality much).
 * That would be great Doug - thanks!
 * I didn't put the SECTIONS back in. I can if people want me to.
 * My preference is to leave it out, since we are really not using that to decide our LMS, although if you would like to you could include that as an option one would consider. A question as to how much this proposal reflects our process, or whether we are recommending our process to others. My thoughts tend to the former.

> > Sunday June 12 Comments - Draft Version > > > Sunday June 12 Comments/Notes > > ==== > Saturday Jne 11 Comments/Notes > > > > > ==Topic & Basic information==
 * What are your thoughts on this draft? I think it came together very well. I hope nobody takes offense to any edits! Please suggest other titles, running head, page header, or any other changes of course! It would also be nice to come up with a nice, consise summary paragraph. [[file:design+project+proposal+Rev2.docx]]
 * I'm going to start going through it Peggy, thanks. I will leave my thoughts here and possibly do some edits. Do you want to review my edits this evening? If so, what time would you like me to be done? In general I think we should aim for the old due date of midnight tonight. However, Dy doesn't return home tonight until 11pm and she wants a last look at it. As such, I suggest that we submit the proposal tomorrow after Dy has had a reasonable chance to go through it.
 * I'm glad to have the extension until Tuesday, but it would be good if we could submit tomorrow, Monday. That will give you & Dy a chance to go over this current draft. I will plan to review comments early Monday morning if that's ok with you two, but may still get to some posted early this evening. We're using this wiki more than Vista discussion - I like it because it's easier to see all comments on 1 page - does this work for you guys? Although I still post things in Vista, too, just to add confusion :-)
 * Once we have our proposal ready to go I will likely clean up this wiki, delete old pages (not references). Then we can discuss plans for our next steps. We got a late start (sorry - this was a hectic work month for me!) but should be on the right path now.
 * Don't forget to submit your peer evaluations (or whatever they are - it is on the assignment page in Vista).
 * Just reading over Doug's doc - looking good! I will edit directly in that document and upload a revised version shortly. I'll be sure to add all of my references - I know I didn't get them all included yesterday.
 * Some questions / comments after reading as I work on the next edit:
 * Are we going to try to cover the entire unit on Genetics (laws of heredity, DNA/chromosomes/mitosis & meiosis/impact of biotechnology/population genetics - a lot to cover!!) or are we going to just focus on the laws of heredity? I'd suggest we focus on just the laws of heredity section - it would be tough I think to do the entire unit well in our timeframe, although I'm sure we can expand the project if the one module goes together well. Thoughts on this? I think the smaller, the better. Quality over quantity. I see no reason why we can't change things later - obviously we don't know everything now after only a couple of weeks into the project.
 * Great job of assembling the pieces guys! I do notice a lot of repetition, which I may try to clean up, but you guys have done some great lit reviews.
 * I will be switching to Word for my revisions & moving away for now from the wiki & google doc - hope that doesn't cause confusions?
 * I may simplify or cut out the odd bits & pieces of your work. For example, I think we are just picking Moodle, not using SECTIONS to select on so I may skip that, and I may simplify a little bit in Interactivities. But feel free to overrule me on any editing point. I think we should stick with SECTIONS, I have a rubric that I can easily fill out. Of course the outcome is pre-ordained but the ISO/engineer in me says to follow a process.
 * Looks like we have a deadline extension until Tuesday if needed, but would be good to get this out of the way today if possible. I will, however, have a little bit of time on Monday if we need any final clean-up, etc. Might not hurt to sleep on our end-of-today revisions and submit on Monday.
 * Suggestions for a title for our paper? Something like: Designing a Constructist Module for an Online High School Biology Class
 * // Definitely // make other suggestions! I suggest Constructivist instead of Constructist. I think your name is fine, it's very scholarly.
 * 2 pm - Peggy. I've updated my page. Thoughts?//Last updated Saturday afternoon at 1:30. . Current word count is 2313. I will take a break & have a look at what everyone else has posted, too, when I come back. THoughts on using something like this - can your pieces fit into something like this? What are key things we might be missing?//
 * //Just a reminder that we are getting very short on time now for tomorrow's deadline so if we can agree on some of this actually writing rather than just rough notes and more reading at this time that might be helpful.//
 * **Hey Peggy! Great job on the proposal. Doug and I had a chance to read through and we are happy with the framework that you created. We are wondering if we can cut down on a little of what you have, because if we put in the framework and interactivities section, it may be over the word limit. Doug is going to work on the key frameworks and some of the key concepts and contexts section (5:00pm PST). Definitely cut out any excess. Easier to cut than add .**
 * ** I will work on the interactivity piece. I will most likely be posting it tonight just so everyone can take a look at it. Feel free to edit whatever. **
 * ** I think I mentioned I will not be available until 8 or 9 PM PST time. I know our project is due at midnight and it will be cutting it close, but maybe we can meet around that time just to see the final product. **
 * ** Also, I like working on word, so just typing in word, and then moving bits and pieces on the wiki to share. ** (I do that too, Dy. Work in word then copy & paste. I will post my draft that I put on the wiki if you want to edit directly into that)
 * ** Thank you for the feedback Peggy! Was wondering how to edit like you did without deleting the original source? Go into the text tool just like you do to change colour. In the background box is where I pick yellow for highlighting, and there is also a strikeout option. **
 * **(7:30PM PST) Just added the interactivity section with reference. Feel free to make any changes or additions.**
 * **Added a short paragraph of information that may be useful in the key concept section Doug. Not sure if it is useful to you. I will try to get more information on that maybe tomorrow morning, or when I return tomorrow night. It's off to bed for me (I know...it's early, but it's almost 11:00pm here). Goodnight everyone! Goodnight! I will likely leave things sit now for the night & get back to editing in the morning. We've made some good progress! I think we are close now! **
 * ** I've written up the 4 sections and added each one as a new page on the wiki. Unfortunately I couldn't re-order pages in the nagivation bar, but nonetheless the pages are there. In total we have a word count of 3200 without the references. I also have a Word document that is formatted with all of the references (except a few that are missing). I think I will copy/paste the contents into the google doc, in case you would like to read the whole thing in its current entirety. **
 * ** I think we probably need to go through all of the sections to ensure they use a common voice (past, present, future). I'm not sure if we should be saying "the project", or "our project", etc. **
 * ** I think the Intentions and Positions definitely has a different tone to it. I'm not sure if this matters **
 * ** I will upload a file called 510.rdf. This is a Zotero file. Zotero is a citation management add-in for Firefox and Word. If you use Firefox, you can install it for free and then import the file. This should give you all of mine and yours citations (except for a few that are missing). I also entered in the SBER citations as a report where there is no author but an institution, so these citations show up a bit differently from how Peggy formatted them. I could be wrong on this though! **
 * General - a science module for high school. We maybe don't need an entire unit of study?
 * An online module that could be used for either online or blended instruction, or for F2F?
 * Link to our google doc - []#