User talk:Leighblackall/Everything you need to teach and learn online

Initial thoughts

 * As you rewrite, I'd tone down the emotivity i.e., aim to convince by argument/rationale/example rather than strength of personal conviction.
 * I'd probably shift most of this into the body draft - the abstract is really just for summarising the key points.
 * Clarify the title of the paper in relation to abstract - the abstract suggest an LMS critique although the title suggests an explanation of an online learning model. There may even be two papers / chapter here - I fear one might spoil the other? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hmm thanks on all points. Question:
 * Is it inappropriate to write an abstract as a hook, making all sorts of claims and personal convictions that are like a guarantee that the body will be expected to cover with convincing argument/rationale and examples. I can almost see the answer to this.. the emotive tone is too blunt a hook turning editors away. I guess I need to better understand the audience of academic editor. --Leighblackall 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be very journal-specific as to the tone wanted/accepted - I had a quick quiz at the journal (titles look interesting!), but didn't read any abstracts to date. But I wouldn't be too worried about the abstract - it usually gets written last, as a summary of the paper rather than a pitch per se. Mostly journal editors I think will want to see a full paper before deciding whether to reject, ask for a rewrite, or send out to review. Your initial audience is the editor and the reviewers. A radical thesis is fine, but focus on explication of the thesis. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance
Dear Leigh,

Thanks for your interest in contributing to the special issue of the International Journal for Educational Integrity (IJEI). We’re delighted to accept your paper proposal.

Your paper stood out for its clear focus on the special issue brief: to explore the implications of digital technologies on educational or academic integrity. We were particularly interested in the way your proposal offered a boundary crossing experiment with scholarly approaches to educational integrity that deliberately hybridises models of knowledge production, and would welcome your contribution of a full paper in this direction.

Some points that you might like to consider include: a discussion of your approach ot copyright and licensing of the material; the difference between open access and paid services; the relation of vidoe to online teaching and learning; whether and how your approach might contribute to a breakdown of the boundaries between higher education institutions and wider audiences. But we look forward to what you come up with!

Just a reminder: the full paper (3-6000 words) deadline is the 1st of July when we will need to send the paper off to external anonymous reviewers. If you have any trouble meeting this deadline, please let us know. The IJEI formatting and referencing style guides can be found at: http://www.unisa.edu.au/EducationalIntegrity/Journal_submission_guidelines.htm

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any queries.

best wishes UNISA Mon, Apr 19, 2010