Writing is an very important skill as speaking. It aims to send message, from people to people, from generation to generation, from country to country. One of the most efficient way to do this is publishing in good journals. Nowadays, publication has become a crucial part of resume or CV, and people write papers not just for sending messages but also seeking for promotions. So good universities ask faculties for good papers; good researchers look for good journals to publish. Good journals want good impactors or indexes. Good researchers tend to cite more good papers from good journals. But can this system help sending necessary message to those in-need audiences? It may not necessarily be the case. It is just a game of numbers dominated by the for-profit companies and ambitious universities who care little what the content really mean.
Complain is enough. We still have to write anyway. But I believe we are writing for our audiences not for universities or journal companies. We write because we have the impulse to share. As a beginning researcher, I’d like to co-write with partners at first. I can learn easier and faster by observing the writing process and talking to them about it. So I would also recommend you co-write with somebody at first.
Although you may not like the game, it is still good to know the rules and the tools. Here are some useful resources for writhing educational journals:
I found writhing is both hard and complicated. It is like a hedgehog rolls itself as a ball; you can hardly approach anyhow. First it is hard because it is hard. Especially if you don’t write often, it takes time to develop your own writing skills. Second, it is complex and complicated. Writhing a paper may include many small jobs: reading, citing, linking, analyzing, reasoning, revising, formatting, managing. It will remain hard unless you cut the job into small pieces that you can play with; Cutting tasks is a crucial managing skill.
Writing tips:
* Write down your thoughts while you read.
* Write it down when it come up to you.
* Write timely before the deadline.
* Write summary periodically.
* Write, and then shut down disturbs.
* Write with your ear, your mouth, and anything that helps.
* Write briefly and clear; Every word tell.
* Write as yourself and to be yourself.
* Write as you are talking to a friend about your new discovery(emotion)
Writing steps:
1 abstract, title, journal
2 results, logic, 5pages
3 enrich each paragraph and link together
4 revise and formatting
What make a paragraph good
Focus on one idea
Format paragraph
-Topic sentence
-explanation evidence logic
-not too long: 3 sentences
-Concluding/Beginning sentence
-Paragraph work together
-unity(pronoun, sense, tongue)
What make good sentence
-no cluster, brief, clear, concise every word tell
-use strong verb
-make it colorful
The hard thing:
When you are wrting,it is hard to make the right decisions:
when to quit (something you don’t want to do now);
when to search for help (something necessary but you can’t do yourself);
when to just do the job no matter you like it or not.
Google Drive can help you co-write online.
Mendeley can help you manage your references.
HisCite can make graph to let you know how paper cited each other.
SPSS can help you analyze the data.
LaTeX is a good document preparation system especially useful when you have lots of equations and graphs(generated with R).
There are lots of other text editors such as Miscro-soft Word, EditPlus for consider.
Useful books:
Publication Manual by APA
APA Style website
On Writing Well by Zinsser
Journal Rankings Search:
Journal Rankings on Education
Web of Science JCR-WebSearch Engine
Journals and their impactors(2012 JCR Social Science Edition):
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 4.2
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION 3.3
Journal of the Learning Sciences 3.0
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION 2.7
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING 2.5
SCIENCE EDUCATION 2.4
for-authors
Journal of Teacher Education 1.6
for-authors
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING 1.6
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1.3
for-authors
British Journal of Educational Technology 1.3
TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION 1.2
For Authors
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION 1.1
NARST Proposal Review Rubric
(from NARST website)
For each category, three criteria are required. Given the constraints of the 5-page limit
for proposals, please assign a numerical rating using the following descriptors as a guide:
5 Highly evident: Proposal provides clear, substantive, and coherent evidence of all criteria
4 Evident: Proposal adequately describes all criteria in the category.
3 Mostly evident: Proposal adequately describes 2 out of 3 criteria in the category
2 Somewhat evident: Proposal adequately describes 1 out of 3 criteria in the category
1 Not evident Proposal does not adequately describe any of the criteria in the category
Subject/Problem
1. Is there a clear focus for the study?
2. Does the proposal include a clear rationale for the study?
3. Does the proposal describe the model, theoretical framework, or philosophy of the study?
Design or Procedure
Empirical Studies
1. Does the proposal clearly describe the methodology (theory of method)?
2. Does the proposal clearly describe the research methods, design, and study context?
3. Are the methodology, procedure, and design appropriate for the study?
Non-Empirical Studies (e.g., conceptual or position papers, reviews of literature)
1. Does the proposal clearly describe the approach used to develop the argument or conduct the review?
2. Are the ideological/philosophical positions of the author and sources made clear?
3. Does the proposal include an appropriate range of literature?
Analyses and Findings
Empirical Studies
1. Do the data analyses appear to be appropriate, coherent, and complete?
2. Are the arguments or interpretations supported by the data?
3. Does the proposal discuss alternative interpretations, bias, reliability, or validity as appropriate?
Non-Empirical Studies (e.g., conceptual or position papers, reviews of literature)
1. Do the syntheses of ideas appear to be appropriate, coherent, and complete?
2. Are the arguments or interpretations supported by evidence?
3. Does the proposal discuss alternative interpretations, counter-arguments, or bias, as appropriate?
Contribution
1. Do the conclusions add to, refine, or refute the oretical constructs?
2. Do conclusions contribute valuable insights into teaching/learning/researching science education?
3. Does the proposal clearly describe implications for teaching/learning/researching science education?
Cohesiveness*(Related Paper-Sets ONLY)
1. Are all of the papers in the set focused on a similar concept/theme?
2. Do all papers contribute new information to the set, making a meaningful strongly-related whole?
3. Are all papers of high enough quality to be accepted individually?
General Interest
1. Does the content of the presentation promise to be of general interest to NARST members?
2. Is the content presented in a way that will be meaningful to NARST members?
3. Does the paper promise to be of interest to the education community at large?
Overall Rating
(1-not recommended; 5 highly recommended)
Basic Paper Structure(ITDFD)
Title
Author
Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Background
Literature
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical foundation
Research questions
Design/Procedure
Participants
Instrument & Procedure
Reliability & Validity
Findings
Tables & Figures
Discussion
Findings review
Conclusions
Implications
Acknowledgements
References
Journal
Luft, J.A., & Zhang, C. (2014).The pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs of newly hired secondary science teachers: The first three years.Educacion Quimica, 25(3), 325-331.
Conference
Zhang, C., & Liu, E.(Marth 2014).Teachers' Perceptions of Working Conditions and Workplace Learning in the Context of China's Educational Reform. National Association for Research in Science Teaching,Pittsburgh, PA
Book & chapter
Shotton, M. A (1989). Computer addiction? A study of computer dependency. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Editor, A A (Ed.). (1986). Title of work. Location: Publisher.
Author, A A, & Author, B. B. (1995). litle of chapter or entry. In A Editor, B.
Editor, & C. Editor (Eds.), Title of book (pp. xxx-xxx). Location: Publisher.
Author, A. A. (1978). Title of doctoral dissertation or masters thesis (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation or master's thesis). Name of Institution, Location.
Report:
Kessy, S. S. A.. & Urio, F. M. (2006). The contribution of microfinance institutions
to poverty reduction in Tanzania (Research Report No. 06.3). Retrieved
from Research on Poverty Alleviation website: http://www.repoa.or.tz
/documents_storage/Publications/Reports/06.3_Kessy_and_Urio.pdf
