Publishing Your Work for Research and Practitioner Audiences

1. Publishing Your Work for Research and Practitioner Audiences Rose Zbiek & Glen Blume Penn State University 16 May 2008 PAMTE

2. Writing a Great Paper

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. Identifying a Venue

8. 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.

9. 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

11. Practitioner Venues

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. What do we probably not need to say? • Assumes reader needs remediation • Talking at or down to teachers

17. Researcher Venues

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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