Hello all.
More feedback on the meeting minutes:
I am happy to do an amateurish lit review on how the MSLQ has been used, but it will need to happen over the Thanksgiving holidays. Before I delve into such a review, however, consider the following.
Getting two papers out is quite ambitious, given the paucity of good data. I don’t think we’d have any trouble doing a purely qualitative paper. In fact, our RoTL reflections could provide grist for that particular mill. If we can collate our reflections, I’d be glad to distill, organize, and reconstitute them as a qualitative paper. It does remain to decide which of the journals on our list we think is most appropriate for submission. My recollection is that they were all solid journals, with no obvious differences in prestige, but that I preferred College Teaching because its formatting specs would be especially easy for me to satisfy quickly. And it’s all about the quickness, isn’t it? If no one has any objections, I’ll go ahead and get the templates in order. Furthermore, if each member wouldn’t mind sending me a stream-of-consciousness list of personal reflections before we get out, I can do most of the writing over the Christmas holidays.
I would urge a purely qualitative paper for now. Any mention of data analysis invites the question of why we didn’t get the results for which we hoped, and any mention of this, in turn, invites the question of what precisely we would do differently next time. I don’t believe anyone in our group knows the answer to this question, and formulating that answer would further delay the paper.
Alas, I’m going to leave the quantitative paper in your capable hands. Although I’ll enjoy writing the qualitative paper as a capstone for our efforts, I’ve elected not to participate in the second
Send me anything you’ve got! Don’t worry about organization, spelling, grammar, or punctuation; just commit some coherent reflections to a document, and let me do the rest. I trust your powers of metacognition!
Best,
Hank
