Talk:Final Paper

--Linadiv 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks Bud! I appreciate your inquisitive nature! I am proposing some edits for the introduction. Alex, please review and comment. The passive voice in the original paragraphs was 28% (a pet peeve of mine!), and it is now 7%. I also shortened some sentences and was able to improve the readabiity stats. Hope you are ok with these changes. I can try myhand at the APA style. I am not familiar with it but happy to learn. I can work on that Monday. Is that ok with everyone? By when do you feel we will have a final draft that I can convert?

--Wdeihl 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Just a late evening check for messages. In the process, I was looking at our edits and the way the WIKI presents that information. I became curious about the time stamps on our entries and found that the time is set to the US Navy's master clock at the Naval Observatory. For your interest, see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/timer.pl and follow links to the observatory, etc. Have fun.

--MiguelALopezM 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I took the paper as it stands - excluding bibliography - and converted it to Word. Using 1" margins all around, Arial 10 for text, Arial 12 for headings and double space, it came out just a few lines over ten pages.

--MiguelALopezM 10:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Bud, it's good to see that you have lost "respect" and are using the wiki quite aggrssively. Great job!

All, I like the way the paper is shaping up.

--Wdeihl 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Time flies when you are having fun! It's 1:35AM and I'm edited out.

--Wdeihl 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Alexander, I felt that your conclusion was well written. I've made a few changes to hopefully add clarity. Check to be sure I have not changed your intended statements. I did not see any quotations or references to supporting documents. You might want to try working a couple in.

--Wdeihl 05:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Miguel, I tried to broaden the scope of the introduction to include corporate training as well as higher education. I expanded it to a global view. I hope this conveys your thinking.

You are the second victim of my WIKI learning curve. I hope I'm doing this right.

--Wdeihl 05:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Lina - it was really hard for me to start editing your work. This WIKI environment is still very strange to me and I feel disrespectful. But in the spirit of working in the WIKI, I jumped in. Sorry, you are the victim of my learning curve in this new environment. I hope my changes retain the flavor and meaning you intend. I realize that you can compare versions in another window, but I'm sure it is disturbing to see your work edited and not have immediate feedback regarding the change.

One thing I had a problem with, was identifying where actual quotations started and stopped. So, if I edited any quotations, please change them back and add quotation marks. Thanks, Bud.

--MiguelALopezM 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC) It's great to see the progress. I have been a bit under the weather today. I expect to be back in action tomorrow.

--Wdeihl 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Alexander - good question: "Is immigration the only aspect that is changing America’s higher ed institutions?" At first glance, I thought the same thing. When I review tonight, I'll propose a revision.

--Wdeihl 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Thanks everyone for responding to my nervous messages of late. Things are shaping up. I plan to do my reviewing tonight. Hopefully I'll have that done by midnight (Eastern).

--Aplachuta 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I just added the intro. Miguel, I hope that this is ok.... Please edit it as you see fit.

--Linadiv 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Alex, thank you for the feedback. I agree with your suggestions, and will work on incorporating them and reviewing your additions, deal?

--Aplachuta 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)My reviews were just emailed to the team, 2/22 11:45pm

--Aplachuta 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I will have my section up on 2/23 by 9pm. If we can still use it, please let me know. Also, I can review the final paper before we submit.

--Aplachuta 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)ABSTRACT Is immigration the only aspect that is changing America’s higher ed institutions. What about diverse faculty from around the world, being recruited for online and guest teaching. What are the tactics that are increasing diversity. LITERATURE REVIEW Good examples and excellent start to the paper, showing positive and negatives in the same showing is a good way of making your case. Comparing f2f to online is something that will be appreciated by Datta (she likes the comparisons).

LEARNING NEEDS

Communication and cross-cultural outreach seems like the main tactic here. The style of writing is understandable and not overbearing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL NETWORKING

Comparing cultures and explaining their differences is a good way to explain why social networking is needed within any type of environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING

Recognition and adaptability in both environments sounds fine. The fact that we can stretch this into both arenas is a good strategy.

I will provide an email feedback for the sections I am reviewing.

--Linadiv 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Hello, all, Miguel, thanks for your suggestions. I just read on the assignment posting for week 8 (it is up already) that the paper (in draft) is due Sunday at midnight. So we have few more days, if we choose to use them. If we post earlier, all the better. I think your schedule is sound. Alex, what do you think? As the reviewer of several sections, we need your input. Bud, thanks for offering to jump in and pick up part of the writing load. I would love another pair of eyes (or two!!) to look at the section on educational strategies. I am open to any and all improvements. Also, I agree with Miguel, now that I take a closer look at the bibliography, Miguel has done a fantastic job with it in our Wiki, and I do not need to do much more. I will just double check and supplement it with any new content I have. What do you all think about how to move forward swiftly and effectively?

--MiguelALopezM 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, I believe the bibliography is in good shape. I'd suggest to add new sources only if they are needed as reference to a point we are making in our repective sections. What do you think? I am ready to pick up steam this weekend. I suggest that by Sunday evening we ought to have a solid paper content-wise, that would be converted to an APA-compliant Word document that we need by Monday evening. Tuesday and Wednesday we would go through final refinements. Who volunteers to do the conversion?

--Linadiv 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I think I missed the part about handing in the paper by Wednesday. Good catch, Bud! Looks like we need to pick up speed this weekend. I can do that, and help early next week as I am off work for a couple of days.

--Wdeihl 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Miguel and Lina, Thanks for you recent contributions. I've got a busy day, but I'll read them asap. I still think our schedule is off. Data said, "You have the weekend to reflect on the process and information and be able to hand in the final paper by Wednesday of Unit 8." Isn't that next Wednesday?

--Linadiv 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Hello again. I have posted my two sections and welcome comments. It is late, and I plan to add a summary paragraph to the strategies section tomorrow. I will be ready to review my assigned segment after that. Good night!

--Linadiv 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) All, don't fret. We will deliver a sound product. I would love some help with the bibliography, and have a couple new sourcs to add. Will send those tomorrow. Perhaps Alex or Bud, if you would be willing to take that on, it owuld be wonderful. Miguel, how can I/we help you? Also, how should we adjust our timeline? We agreed to review each other's sections by Sunday the 25th. That gives us a week to turn around the paper to post for preliminary comments. How about authors work on the feedback between Sunday night and Wednesday night, and then send back to reviewers for a final round of review? I will be flying to Europe Saturday, and will be out of commission for about 24 hours. Maybe someone can jump in for me? Thanks!!

--MiguelALopezM 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Bud, I second your expression of concern. I am afraid we are falling behind.

--Wdeihl 02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)On another note, I just read Datta's comment about group projects and it makes me a little nervous. "If you are working as a team, the 'parts' of the paper have been assigned and this week you are in constant communication, tweaking final ideas, reading each other's sections and unifying them. You have the weekend to reflect on the process and information and be able to hand in the final paper by Wednesday of Unit 8."

--Wdeihl 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Miguel, thanks for the draf literature review.

--MiguelALopezM 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Notice Literature Review rough draft posted.

--MiguelALopezM 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Bud, yes, I did get your notes. Thanks.

--Wdeihl 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Thanks Miguel. Did you get my e-mail and notes? Are the helpful? They are just bullet items to trigger some thoughts. Use or discard as you see fit.

--MiguelALopezM 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Since I haven't heard any objections, I removed the Design and Implementation and Technology Implications sections from the body of the final paper. I saved them at the bottom just in case.

--Wdeihl 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Ok. I'll hold back on the technology section.

I believe it would best serve our group efforts if everyone contributes part of the original writing. If the Design and Implementation section is removed, Alexander's (current) opportunity to author is removed. Alexander, perhaps you might like to trade author/reviewer roles for another section. How do you feel about this?

--MiguelALopezM 21:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I agree with Lina's suggestion to eliminate the Design and Implementation and Technology Implications sections. If we do it, I suggest to adjust the assignments to distribute the work more fairly. Any thoughts?

--Wdeihl 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, I've lost track of where I read this, but I believe you agreed to send the required e-mail to Datta about our project status and working agreements. I'm operating under that assumption, so we will each get the 10 point for completing this requirement. Thanks. Bud

--Wdeihl 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)This is a copy of Datta's posting about writing requirements:

The final paper needs to be in excellent APA style. It is important the this form of 'proper presentation' is practiced in this program.

Anyone wishing to publish in the future or be part of a Ph.D. program will be grateful!

Datta Kaur

--Wdeihl 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Lina, for now, let's leave it as a place-holder. I'd like to see how other writing takes shape and if we need to trim or elaborate. I'll continue to think about this and I'm sure I can list some logical statements about selecting technologies and about how they might be used to improve communication, provide opportunities for interaction, address various learning styles, etc.

--Linadiv 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Congratulations, Bud, on a great start! Thanks for providing your section and for inspiring us to do the same. What do you suggest regarding the Implications of Technology section? Do you feel we should speak to it? Please share your thoughts, as this is everyone's "masterpiece"!

--Wdeihl 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)I have posted my initial draft of the section on Implicatons for Social Networking. Since there has been communication about cutting back and the format being in APA style (double spaced), 10 pages, I think this is a good starting point. Since it is the first post and I've not been able to see how this might flow with sections above (to be developed), I hope it will support your other ideas. I look forward to your comments, guidance, edits, etc.

I've written this as a result of the influence of several readings, discussions, conversations with Miguel, etc. I'll have to provide adequate citations as we move forward.

On the topic of Implications for Technology, I just included a statement that alludes to how the use of technology might be informed by these considerations. Per Lina's suggestion, I'm holding off on the development of a separate section. If you do want me to continue in that direction, please advise ASAP, so I have time.

--Linadiv 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)All, per Datta Kaur's reply to my email, I think it is reasonable to trim back our paper, as I think we are making it more complicated than it needs to be. "The final paper requirements are much simpler than it seems: It is a team paper on a topic of team choice: main objective - that it is interesting and relevant to all members and that it is related to online communities." I suggest we minimize and/or delete the topics of Design and Implementation, as well as Technology Implications. If you disagree, I can easily be convinced otherwise, so no pressure. It just seems the other elements of the paper fully meet the criteria. Let's also all take a look at the rubric so we are on the right path. What do you think?

--MiguelALopezM 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) A reviewer is still needed for the IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION sction.

--Aplachuta 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)I added my name to the ??? sections of the paper. Please let me know if there are any questions.

--MiguelALopezM 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) My impression is that Datta Kaur doesn’t pay a lot of attention to format. Once we have the entire paper written in the wiki we can download it to Word and format it if that’s needed. An alternative would be to check whether the Datta Kaur would accept the wiki document.

Please notice that I’ve collapsed the sections Implications for Design, Implications for Measurement and Implications for Planning into a section called Implications for Design and Implementation. I didn’t remove any content at this point.

--Wdeihl 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)--I'm not sure of the format requirements for this paper. Other papers in the CSU OTL program have required APA style and the reference book is the latest edition five. I believe the preferred typeface for print was Times New Roman and 12 pt. for size. We can go with your suggestion and then convert the whole thing once we find out any specific requirement.

--Linadiv 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Thanks Bud, for your contributions. All, I suggest we agree on a font size and style so that when we put all material togehter, we are ocnsitent, and it will be easier than making adjustments then. What do you think? Arial 10? Other thoughts? I am used to MLA formatting as a general practice. Did anyone note if there is a particular requirement here? Please share!

--Wdeihl 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)I've signed up for various responsibilities as drafter or reviewer. I'm running a little behind and will try to get some content in there in the next few days. I'm running behind this week.

--Wdeihl 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Miguel said, "It seems to me that the sections "Implications for Measurement" and "Implications for Planning", while important, are not essential." As I looked over the outline tonight, that was my gut feeling. Let's get under way and we can address that with a statement and suggest it is outside of the scope of this paper.

--Linadiv 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)All, I added some suggestions for team guidelines as Miguel did. Please take a look and continue to add to the list as you see fit. Miguel, if you wouldn't mind prioritizing the introduction first, that can ehlp set the tone and direction for the other parts of the paper. I will review asap. Thanks!

--MiguelALopezM 22:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Lina, I'll wait to hear from Alex and Bud and then, assuming they agree, I'll modify the table of content accordingly.

--Linadiv 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)I like suggestion to consolidate a couple of sections into more of a 50,000 foot view under Implications for Design. I suspect we will easily get our ideas across in 5-10 pages to support our theme, and adding these additional perspectives in a combined section will be a bonus.

--MiguelALopezM 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I am concerned that we may be trying to cover too much ground. It seems to me that the sections "Implications for Measurement" and "Implications for Planning", while important, are not essential. (Bud, I believe you made a similar comment before.) We could remove them and include instead a couple of reflections on those subjects on the "Implications for Design" section. Any thoughts?

--Linadiv 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Thank you Miguel, for the great formatting job after my boo-boo. We are indeed learning alot here! The fields at the top for drafter/reviewer are great. Much appreciated!

--MiguelALopezM 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I volunteer to write a few sections, I'll do the same to review a few later. Please make your picks. Note: If formatting gives you trouble, post the information in this discussion and I'll gladly update the TOC.

--MiguelALopezM 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) No problem. I'll try and fix the format. The tool is not the greatest in that regard and - as Alex experienced already - the format gets lost when you paste. I think the place for the names of writer/reviewer is at the top, I entered fields for that, let me know what you think.

--Linadiv 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Miguel, help! I edited the outline and lost the great formatting you created. I tried to recreate what you did in the outline at the section on leveraging technology, and could use your help to do so - I am stuck! Is there a better place to add the drafter/reviewer names than in the first line of the section? Pleaes advise. Thanks!

--Aplachuta 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)I will add to the Technology and Design phase of the outline this week.

--MiguelALopezM 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I suggest to continue discussions related to the Final Paper (outline. etc.) here.