DSICG Newsletter

DSICG Newsletter Issue 2, Summer 2011

DSICG NEWSLETTER Welcome to the DSICG

Newsletter!

Doctoral Student Innovative Community Group

Welcome to the Literacy Research Association’s Doctoral Student Innovative Community Group. We are a group organized by doctoral students

to support doctoral students.

The mission of the Literacy Research Association Doctoral Student Innovative Community Group is to facilitate doctoral students’ development as exceptional researchers, scholars, and teacher educators in the field of literacy. This task includes purposeful efforts to (a) encourage doctoral students’ participation in the LRA, including annual meetings and publications, (b) meet the unique needs of doctoral students, (c) support doctoral students’ professional growth, and (d) create a collaborative community of scholars.

Our Mission Statement

ONE (2), Summer 2011

Contents:

Celebrate our members’ successes

2

Ten Things I Learned on the Job Search Kristin Conradi

Keeping My Eye on the Prize: The Purpose of Publishing Elizabeth M. Hughes

What makes and Outstanding Dissertation Advice from Rick Reis

Contacting your Board, Reviewing for the LRA Yearbook, and Getting ready for the LRA Conference in Jacksonville, FL 5

4

6

LRA DSICG Proposal Mentoring Project

10

7


2

10 Things I Learned on the Job Search By Kristin Conradi

A little over a year ago, a few doctoral students and I were at a bar talking about our futures. We were all a year out from being finished --or PhinisheD, as my friend Charlie likes to call it--and we were entertaining all the possibilities the next year might bring. To some degree, there's something utterly romantic about uncertainty. We had no idea where we'd wind up, but it could be anything. It could be the dream job in the awesome location with the great office and fabulous parking with limitless research support. In that bar – in that moment – the world was ours. Of course, possibilities are always tethered by some limitations and preferences. One friend's husband had to be near a city on the East Coast. Another friend planned on staying within driving distance of Charlottesville. Those of us who did not have limitations had to admit we held some strong preferences. One friend only wanted jobs in rural or smaller cosmopolitan areas, while I dreaded the idea of living in a landlocked state. After discussing these minor hurdles, my friends and I, two beers in and wide-eyed with optimism, scribbled maps on our bar napkins and started highlighting where we hoped we’d see job openings in the year to come. And then we waited until September when we became religious checkers of higheredjobs.com and chronicle.com. What follows is a top ten list of things I learned in the process.

1. Make sure you have established good relationships with faculty at your school. You’ll need probably three to serve as references. (About half of the schools I applied to asked for reference letters up front; the other half just asked for names and contact information.) You want people who know your

But faculty relations extend beyond the three who write your references. I was surprised by the connections between faculty members at my school and faculty at the schools where I applied. It mattered that I had done good work in a meta-‐analysis seminar. It mattered that I had served on a committee with a faculty member in teacher education. You never know whether a member of your school’s faculty was in the same fraternity with a member of the search committee. They’ll definitely talk.

2. Only apply for jobs where you can actually see yourself going. This is not a time to see America or to network. Consider the job description, but also consider the school’s size, location, focus, and faculty members. Be realistic about what would be a deal-‐breaker for you, but don’t limit yourself too much. I found seven jobs that fit my criteria and applied to all of them.

3. Be prepared for a frenzied pace: applying for jobs takes time. Depending on the job, you have to research the school, write a cover letter, tweak your CV, and procure transcripts, references, course evaluations, a course syllabus, etc. This takes a lot of time. All the while, you will likely be working on your dissertation. (While on the job-‐search, I defended my proposal in November, collected data in December and January, and defended my dissertation in late March.)

4. Be patient and don’t take things personally. After submitting my application packet, four search committees contacted me within three to five weeks and asked me for either a phone interview or to come for a campus visit. But in three cases, I never heard back from the committees. I really liked one of those jobs in particular, but they obviously didn’t want to interview me. I can’t take it personally; there’s no formula for this. In my head, I thought certain schools would definitely want to interview me, while others were long shots. (Kind of like when we apply to college and have safety schools and dream schools.) It doesn’t work this way now. It’s all about the fit.


3

10. Be patient. Following your campus visit, you

just have to wait … again. You may have realized it wasn’t a good fit; they may have realized it wasn’t a good fit. You just wait. Obviously we all hope for an offer, so prepare your response. I had one friend who squealed when she got the phone call and thinks it lessened her opportunities for negotiating later. One of my friends recommended to me that I say something like, “I’m so happy to receive the offer. Will you send me an e-‐mail with the details? I’d like some time to think about it.” Give the offer careful consideration. Consult your mentors, family, and friends. Then make a leap. Whether you accept or reject, you’re taking a chance. I like to believe that it all works out as it’s supposed to be.

For the most part, things have worked out for my friends and me. Most of my friends got jobs they are excited to hold. One friend continues to apply for jobs, but is happily working on research while she waits. And I am thrilled to be starting at NC State this fall. For those of you beginning the process, I wish you the best of luck as you start your job hunt!

10 Things I Learned on the Job Search -continued from Page 2

5. Prior to phone interviews or on campus visits, do your homework. Ask for a detailed agenda and read up on the people with whom you will be meeting. I made a graphic organizer of each place I went with pictures, notes, and publications of each person. I don’t think I was very good at remembering details when I actually met them – I was so nervous! – but it certainly helped me get a feel for the place, and it helped me have questions for them in the interviews.

6. Practice giving your presentation (and talking about your research) prior to going. It’s a crazy time, but I wish I had practiced more prior to going. I particularly wish I’d practiced talking about my research with people in education, but not necessarily people within my specific discipline. You will interact with people from other areas of education and many will hold different perspectives and approaches to reading and to research than you.

7. Don’t be surprised if you have to front travel money. Universities vary regarding this, and of course they all reimburse, but I was wholly unprepared for the occasional need to put flights, hotels, and in some cases meals on my credit card. Reimbursement time ranged from two to five weeks.

8. Do not bring work to do. Do not fool yourself into thinking you’ll have time in the hotel to work or read. Your days are packed—I ended each day exhausted. Just take a bath or watch TV (or go to bed). Along similar lines, don’t plan to do much work the day you come back. These things are taxing!

9. Try to relax and have fun. On my very first job

interview, I was struck by the immense privilege it is to be invited to a campus. You get the opportunity to interact with dozens of interesting, brilliant, and downright fun people. It’s an immense honor and I am so grateful for all of the conversations, feedback, ideas, and advice I received. It’s a bonus that you’re often taken to the best restaurants in town!


4

Member Accolades

Jen Scott Curwood recently completed her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Her major area of emphasis was Literacy Studies, with minors in Composition and Rhetoric and Educational Psychology. Her dissertation was entitled, "The Nexus of Continuity and Change: Digital Tools, Social Identities, and Cultural Models in Teacher Professional Development." In July she will begin an appointment as a lecturer of secondary English and media studies at the University of Sydney.

Elizabeth M. Hughes successfully completed her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction at Clemson University and has accepted a faculty position in Special Education at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. Her recent research will be published in upcoming issues of The Elementary School Journal and Journal for Special Education Technology. Sarah Hunt-Barron was also honored with Clemson University’s Continuing Distinguished Graduate Student Award. She recently presented two roundtables at AERA on using internet reciprocal teaching and shifts in practice as a result of professional development in writing. Rohany Nayan was awarded the Tashia Morgridge Wisconsin Distinguished Graduate Fellowship for 2010-2011. This year she presented papers at the AERA & LRA conferences, submitted a paper co-written with an assistant professor for journal review, presented educational talks and conducted training sessions on different topics at twelve different locations in the Madison area, collected data from three case studies, and completed two projects through her job as the Graduate Fellow at the Lubar Institute for the Study of Abrahamic Religions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Jennifer Y. Wagner was recently awarded Clemson University’s Continuing Distinguished Graduate Student Award and an Outstanding Graduate Student Award in Teacher Education. Her manuscript about principals’ roles in supporting induction of special education teachers is published in the Journal of Special Education Leadership. Angie Zapata at the University of Texas at Austin had two publications accepted: Maloch, B. & Zapata, A. (accepted for 2011 Yearbook). “Dude, It’s the Milky Way”: Understanding the ways readers approach informational texts. In Dunston, P. & Gambrell, L. (Eds). Sixtieth Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Chicago, IL: LRA; and Gainer, J., Zapata, A.,& Gainer, N. (in press) Re-storying Nuestro Barrio: Mentoring children’s picture book writing with Latino/a children’s literature. To appear in J. Nadioo & S. Park (EDs), Sliding Doors in a Pluralistic Society: Critical Approaches to and Intercultural Perspectives on Diversity in Contemporary Literature for Children and Young Adults. Chicago, IL: ALA editions. As part of our mission, we want to support doctoral students in a literacy and research community. We believe one way to do this is share and celebrate the achievements within our DSICG community. If you had an article published, grant funded, job accepted, or anything else you want to celebrate, please email Laurie at [email protected].


5

LRA Conference Plan now to attend the LRA 2011 Conference, November 30 to December 3, 2011 in Jacksonville, Florida. We hope to see many of you there and look forward to attending your presentations, or attending presentations with you. If you didn’t submit a proposal for this year, plan now to submit for next year. Look for more details about the LRA conference and DSICG Events in the Fall Newsletter. LRA Yearbook Many thanks to the Yearbook Editorial Office at Clemson University for inviting DSICG members to review an article submitted for publication in the Literacy Research Association Yearbook. Working with an advisor to peer edit for the first time provides stimulating discussion of current research and expert modeling of review methods. It was an opportunity to sit down with my advisor and discuss research, with the opportunity to grow from her experience in peer reviewing as well as her wide expertise in literacy. Receiving feedback from the Yearbook Editorial staff provided affirmation that the comments we found were confirmed by other peer reviewers, and offered insights into the types of comments one can expect to receive when submitting an article for publication. The 60th annual LRA Yearbook will soon be out. How exciting it will be to see articles that I reviewed contained in the publication! Consider now submitting an article for next year’s Yearbook. For more information on submitting or reviewing check the LRA website: http://www.nrconline.org/yearbook/

DSCIG Executive Board Members

Elizabeth M. Hughes Co-chair Lorien Chambers Schuldt Co-chair Gail E. Lovette Assistant Co-chair

Laurie Friedrich Secretary

Zoi Philippankos Treasurer

Ting Yuan Digital Media Coordinator

Jen Scott Curwood Alumni Liaison

Richard James Member at Large

Contact us at: [email protected]

Find us online at our Facebook Site: Literacy Research Association- Doctoral Students Innovative Community Group


6

I was fortunate to be one of the eight students paired with a mentor faculty member in the LRA DSICG Proposal Mentoring project this year. As a second year doctoral student, this year’s LRA proposal was the first I have submitted on my own research. Luckily, I was paired with Dr. Douglas Kaufman, a warm and supportive mentor who gave me very detailed, insightful, and much needed feedback. I appreciate the interest that Dr. Kaufman, a scholar in the field of elementary writing instruction and teacher education, took in my research and my intellectual development. While I have an inspiring adviser and a supportive network of colleagues and faculty members at my institution, I realize that my growth as a graduate student also depends on networking with other students and faculty members in the field of early writing instruction. It was immensely helpful to have Dr. Kaufman’s feedback, as well as to continue to benefit from his expertise through a phone call when I had further questions about my research interests. After our conversation, I came away with more than the reading suggestions I had hoped for. I also had a chance to hear about his new research and the direction of research in the field. But most of all, this LRA proposal mentoring opportunity has begun what I hope will be an ongoing professional relationship with a faculty mentor who generously volunteered his time to support my growth as an LRA doctoral student. ~Lorien Chambers Schuldt

Our first DSICG proposal-mentoring project was a great success! We matched seven current doctoral students submitting their first proposal as first author for the 2011 LRA conference with esteemed faculty at a variety of institutions across the country. The mentor faculty provided feedback to the doctoral students regarding their LRA proposals. The following faculty generously contributed their time to mentoring our participating members: Kelly Chandler-Olcott, Syracuse University; Julie Coiro, University of Rhode Island; Caitlin Dooley, Georgia State University; Penny Freppon, University of Cincinnati; Douglas Kaufman, University of Connecticut; Michael McKenna, University of Virginia; Joan Rhodes, Virginia Commonwealth University; and Dana Wilber, Montclair State University. Our goal in the coming years is to continue to provide our DSICG members with opportunities to collaborate with leading scholars in our field and to navigate the process of submitting proposals for future LRA conferences. We hope that you will consider participating in this worthwhile project as we look ahead to the 2011 LRA conference.

LRA DSICG Proposal Mentoring Project

Ching-Ting Hsin’s individual research interests include using sociocultural theories to examine multiple literacies in families of diverse cultural backgrounds. Particularly, Ching-Ting focuses on both the home literacy of new-immigrant families in Taiwan and comparing home literacy with school literacy and developing culturally responsive literacy curricula. Yvonne Pek is currently involved in Dr. Catherine Compton-Lilly’s longitudinal project that focuses on how children and their immigrant families make sense of relocation to the US across long periods of time. In particular, she is interested in the focal child’s identity formation and literacy development as she experiences life at home and school.

As Ching-Ting Hsin and I were focusing on similar concepts about literacy, we decided to write a proposal about our research across multiple sites. We enjoyed the serendipity of making the decision just when the Mentoring Project began. We had a wonderful mentor in Dr. Caitlin Dooley who gave us comments on the structure of the paper, writing style, and grammar. She also suggested some research literature for us to read; helped us focus our study; and pointed out a possibility for future study. In all, her feedback strengthened our proposal. We felt that this experience helped us learn to write better proposals and are very thankful for this opportunity. We highly recommend this program to other graduate students. ~ Ching-Ting Hsin and Yvonne Pek, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Mentee Experiences


7

The idea of starting a career where I will either publish or perish is a daunting one, especially as I am early in my career and have yet to establish myself in my professional field. As a graduate student I was instilled with the drive to publish. At Year One, I was afraid that I didn’t have anything important to say. By Year Two, I was in a trancelike state determined to add lines to my vita. Fortunately, by Year Four, I found that being successful in publishing requires that I (a) be fearless and (b) respect the purpose of dissemination and publication.

Ultimately, the purpose of disseminating is not to self-serve our own careers or egos, but to improve the field of education by contributing valuable information with others in the field. With that purpose in mind, when we have worthy information to share with the field (and we do), it is important for us to find the appropriate outlet for information. This requires that we not only know what we have to share, but also the intended audience and mission of the journals where we aim to publish. I find it helpful to do my homework and keep my focus. Below are some of the elements I consider in efforts to publish my work.

Collaborate. Collaborating not only helps produce a better final product, but it eases the stress and challenges of writing alone. When I feel like I have exhausted my efforts on a draft, I send it to my coauthors and ask them to do their magic. This allows me to look at the next draft with fresh eyes. Suggestions: Don’t wait for people to ask to write with you, ask mentors and peers if they want to collaborate on a project. Also, discuss the order of authorship prior to working on a project- it will help reduce the need for awkward conversations later on.

Know your message and know your journals. I find it important to clearly establish the purpose of my manuscript so I can most accurately find

Keeping My Eyes on the Prize: The Purpose of Publishing

By Elizabeth M. Hughes, Clemson University

the right outlet. If my objectives are too aloof, it is difficult to focus on the right journal. If my objectives are too narrow, there may not be a journal looking for my particular topic. I find it is best to do your research and know your journals- trying to force your manuscript to fit a journal is a waste of your time and the editors’ time. Questions I ask before choosing a journal and writing my manuscript include:

• Who is the audience? o The way one writes for a journal whose

audience wants more pure research is different than the way one would write for a journal whose audience is interested in how research directly relates to the classroom experience.

o International audiences require inclusion of more international research.

• What are the submission requirements? o Does the journal want qualitative or

quantitative research? Book reviews? Editorial or legislative articles? What has already been published under the current editors?

o Follow the guidelines provided by the editors-‐ including page limits, table formats, and submission information.

Suggestion: Consider the style of writing and language published in the journal and reference articles from the journal to which you are submitting your manuscript.

Aim realistically high. It is natural to want your manuscript to be in a top tiered journal, but don’t waste your time or the editors’ time by submitting a paper that belongs in a different journal outlet. Suggestion: Familiarize yourself with the acceptance rates of different journals. See library.uncc.edu/files/5/education/acceptancerates07.xls as a reference for journal information.

Don’t give people obvious reasons to reject the manuscript. I do my best not to give the

Continued…


8

reviewers obvious reasons to reject my manuscripts. I usually triple check for content, APA errors, inconsistencies, and references. I don’t want to annoy reviewers with a sloppy paper. My personal APA pet peeve is when the reference section does not match references cited in the manuscript. These errors are easy to fix and communicate that details are important to me. If you submit a sloppy paper, it may reflect sloppy research. Suggestion: Use the “find” function to search for certain errors, such as the use of contractions (find: can’t; replace: cannot).

To become a better writer- serve as a reviewer. A few years ago my advisor forwarded an e-mail calling for applications to serve as a reviewer for a journal. I applied and (to my surprise) was asked to review for the journal. By serving as a peer-reviewer, I have the opportunity to critically analyze submissions and learn what I value or dislike in the submissions. My detailed feedback not only helps the authors improve their manuscript, but it allows me to reflect as a writer and improve my own writing. Suggestion: The role of a reviewer is an important one and not one to be taken lightly. Ask your mentors if you can work with them the next time they have a review to submit. They can give you feedback on how to write a cohesive review and give constructive feedback.

Don’t take it personally. I do my best to submit high-quality work, but let’s face it, we will never please everyone. I like getting positive feedback, but my growth as a writer comes from the constructive criticism I receive. The way I see it there are two types of errors for which one can receive feedback:

1. Critical errors-‐ These are bad. Critical errors are major flaws in your research that can only be fixed with a time machine. Critical errors are often death to a manuscript.

2. Everything else-‐ APA errors, writing style, references, additional analyses, and so forth can be a pain to fix, but they are fixable. I have learned to take the comments and feedback as constructive criticism necessary to make my manuscript better and either re-‐submit it or submit it elsewhere.

Suggestion: Before making any changes, I like to organize my comments by topic- this allows me to decipher what the reviewers are collectively saying. It is not uncommon for reviewer comments to contradict each other and I want to be able to communicate why I changed certain things and did not change others. If all of the reviewers comment on the same thing, I know that is an area I will need to improve for the future.

Enjoy the process and don’t give up. When the first manuscript I co-authored was rejected with permission to resubmit, my professor (first author) asked if I was OK after the rejection. I was more than OK, I was relieved- having the manuscript rejected meant that only three people didn’t like it- once it was published a whole lot more than three people may not like it! Needless to say, we edited and revised the manuscript, which was accepted during the next round of submission and became my first (and favorite) publication. Suggestion: Let the DSICG know when you have something published so your achievements can be recognized it in the Accolades section of the DSICG Newsletter!

It’s exciting to see my name in print (I know, I know- publishing is not about self-glorification, but it is still thrilling!). More importantly, I know that my efforts contribute to improving the published knowledge base in the field of education. By considering the objectives and message of the manuscript, as well as the needs of the journal and audience, I am able successfully publish my work. I am confident that there are more acceptances (and many more rejections) in my future. In order to publish and not perish, I have learned that I need to focus on the true purpose for publication, learn from my previous efforts, and fearlessly go forward- and I wish for you the same.

Keeping My Eyes on the Prize - continued from Page 7


9

Do you have something you want to share in the

Newsletter?

Let us know if you have an idea for an article for the

newsletter. We would love to include your contribution in the Fall 2011 Newsletter.

Please e-mail Laurie at [email protected] with

ideas or interests to write an article. This is a great way to publish and share with

your peers .

LRA is in the process of launching a new website this month that will include discussion boards for members to post and respond to each other. The DSICG will have a space on this site and we’ll keep you posted when it is up and running.

We’re looking forward to using it to network with each other to communicate information about conferences, to reach out to others with similar research interests, and continue to build the LRA community.

Our temporary wiki space on PBworks can be viewed here: http://lradsicg.pbworks.com

New Networking Spaces Coming Soon:


With my second year of graduate school coming to a close, I realize the dreaded “D-word” is no longer a distant hurdle. The day is fast approaching when I will actually have to sit down and write this thing. Perhaps like you, I want it to be good – the best it can be. But how, exactly, does one write an exceptional dissertation? The words of wisdom below are excerpted from Rick Reis’ Tomorrow’s Professor newsletter, and are themselves an excerpt from Chapter 3, Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation, in the book, Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence by Barbara E. Lovitts and Ellen L. Wert. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC, 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102 Copyright © 2009 By Stylus Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. AIMING FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE DISSERTATION

Like published articles, completed dissertations have been written and rewritten. The ideas and presentation have been subjected to expert criticism and honed through repeated drafts, feedback, and editing. And, like published research articles and books, most dissertations are very good. A few dissertations are remarkable or outstanding in some aspect. On the other hand, some dissertations are, for a variety of reasons, just within the boundaries of the profession's standards of quality. They are good enough. In rare instances, some dissertations are unacceptable. The faculty participating in the study provides descriptions of what makes a dissertation outstanding, very good, acceptable, or unacceptable. In the sections following, you will find summaries of what they said about quality at these different levels. Use these summaries as a way to start planning and, later, evaluating your own work. They are also useful guides as you discuss your project with your advisors and committee members: Am I making progress toward

my goal for excellence? Where do I need to make a special effort to develop my dissertation? What might I do to improve the quality? Outstanding dissertations are characterized by originality, high-quality writing, and compelling consequences. They show deep knowledge of a massive amount of complicated literature and mastery of the subject matter. They display a richness of thought and insight, and make an important breakthrough. The body of work in outstanding dissertations is deep and thorough. The student demonstrates a sophisticated grasp and use of theory. In experimental fields, the experiments are well designed and well executed. The quality and care put into the measurement techniques and analyses instill confidence in the results. The data are rich and come from multiple sources Even though outstanding dissertations are rare -faculty see them once or twice a decade, if that often -the faculty in the study were able to proved a very consistent set of descriptors. They described an outstanding dissertation in the social sciences at the higher levels of originality or significance in that it • asks new questions; • addresses an important question or problem; • uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or new types of analyses; • pushes the discipline's boundaries and opens new areas for research; • has practical and policy implications; • is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think.

What makes an Outstanding Dissertation?


11

Continued on page 11

They explained that in its execution, the outstanding dissertation * is very well written and very well organized; * exhibits mature, independent thinking; * displays deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature; * exhibits command and authority over the material; * challenges the literature and strongly held traditional views; * is thoroughly researches; * is synthetic and interdisciplinary; * clearly states the problem and explains why it is important * has a brilliant research design * has well-planned and well-performed experiments (if experimental); * is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory; * has rich data from multiple sources * has a comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing analysis The faculty also described the outstanding dissertation as having the potential to "illuminate an entire area," "startle the field," or "stimulate a lot of activity in the profession." Indeed, the results or conclusion of an outstanding dissertation push the discipline's boundaries and are publishable in the top-tier journals. Along with offering new and significant knowledge, an outstanding dissertation is a pleasure to read. It has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice. Each part of the outstanding dissertation, from introduction to conclusion, is excellent, and the pieces are integrated

The excerpt above comes from Rick Reis’ newsletter, Tomorrow’s Professor. The weekly publication highlights new publications and studies of interest to doctoral students and young faculty in a range of disciplines. To see other Tomorrow’s Professor topics, go to: http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/postings.php To sign up to receive Tomorrow’s Professor go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

What Makes an Outstanding Dissertation? continued from page 10

DSICG Newsletter

Documents

doctoral students development

dsicg newsletter welcome

dsicg newsletter issue

faculty members

lra conference

lra yearbook

job search kristin conradi

dream job