Précis of Feedback

​

Second Dossier Review

On 23 September 2016, I defended my second dossier to graduate students,  my doctoral peers, and IST faculty. My external reviewers were Drs. Anne Leftwich and Yonjoo Cho. Also available is a complete copy of my review feedback, this feedback process provides suggestions for improvement as I progress towards my third dossier review. Based on my performance I was assigned minor conditions, below is a list of my conditions and a description of how I completed each task.

​

Overall:

 

• Check APA. There are a lot of APA errors (e.g., make the manuscript double-spaced, alphabetize your in-text citations, formatting, etc.)

• The length of the manuscript is too long. Clarify your overall writing to be concise, clear, and emphasize the important parts.

 

Action taken: 

    I revised the APA errors and fixed them as well as I revised my manuscript grammatically with the writing center at Indiana University. Then I asked           two native speakers for proofreading.  I shorten my manuscript to meet the requirements of the external reviewers. I submitted the manuscript to the         Journal of Research on Technology in Education (The revised Manuscript here). During my editing and working on my conditions, each section I revised     and finished I met my primary adviser Prof. Boling to get her feedback and comments. 

​

Introduction:

​

• Build a strong rationale for your study. Build this up in your introduction.

• The context section on impact needs to be added. This can be extremely interesting if you provide more information on this.

​

Action taken: 

     I edited the introduction section and included in it the rational of my research, the purpose of it, and the contribution of the study. 

​

Literature Review:

​

• Needs to be focused.

• We advise starting from scratch, build a key sentence outline.

• Find a strong argument.

​

Action taken: 

     I re-wrote my literature review by using outline revise strategy and made it easy to understand and follow the consequence of the main          ideas related to the topic under investigation. 

​

Method:

​

• Clarify the method section.

• Switch to a multiple case study or provide an overview of the differences

• Try not to use so many different terms to make it easier for your reader to comprehend. For example, moderators, themes, sub-themes, etc. Outline these terms or topics.

• Add significant quotes in the text so that you can make your study a truly qualitative case study. Do not put quotes in tables.

​

Action taken: 

     I re-wrote this section to meet the requirements of the external reviewers and clarified this section to make it easy to understand by the                readers (please see the method section in my revised manuscript  on this page)

​

Discussion/Conclusion:

 

• Connect the teachers’ voices to the “so what” of the study

​

 Action taken: 

​

    I re-wrote the section including connection with previous studies and connected to the teachers' voices

​

Writing:

​

• Follow the APA format (6th ed.).

• To improve the quality of the writing, ask for editing help

​

Action taken: 

     I fixed APA and the grammar errors, please see the final version in the overall section on this page

​

​

First Dossier Review

​

I met with Prof. Elizabeth Boling and Dr. Thomas Brush, my primary and secondary advisers respectively, on April 1, 2016. This summary represents their commentary on several aspects of my dossier and my development as a scholar at the time.

 

Redesign the Website Interface

• The profile picture should be smaller: change the size of the photo

 

              Action Taken: I modified my personal photo and changed its size. 

​

• Reorder the tabs: Home, Candidate statement, Evidence of Competencies, Precis of Feedback, Dissertation Proposal, Vita, Contact

• Change the Resume tab to Curriculum Vita

• Change my Vita from web page text into PDF

 

               Action Taken: I reordered the tabs and added Pdf file for my Curriculum Vita. 

 

Candidate Statement: Prof. Boling and Dr. Brush suggested to reorganize my candidate statement by adding the goals in the beginning and write more about teaching philosophy. 

 

                Action Taken: I modified my candidate statement to address the significant role of  integrating technology in  teaching.                                  Furthermore, I elaborated how my personal experiences have lead to focus on integration technology  area of study. also, I have                      worked towards providing additional information about my research focus. In addition, I added my goal in the beginning of the                        statement. 

 

Services:

• State the service statement clearly before description of the services

• Decide what is the best service that I want to show in my dossier II

• Decide the best artifacts that represent my services. 

 

                 Action Taken: In the beginning of the service section, I added  a statement about the role of services in my                               research interest and I organized the services from the newest one to the oldest services. I added artifacts for                         most of my services.

 

Teaching

• Talk about my teaching philosophy and think about students

• Talk about my teaching goal and about integration technology in teaching

• Provide artifacts about teaching in USA

 

                 Action Taken: I elaborated my teaching goals and why technology integration is important for teaching. I added artifacts for                         teaching in USA. 

​

Research Competencies

• Clarify the goals of research

• Integrate the research groups with my interest

• Provide evidence from Vita into candidate statement and research competencies

 

                Action Taken: I clarified the primary research interest based on my experience and services my research. Moreover, I added                          the benefits of the research groups on m research competencies. I provided evidence to the research competencies section.