《Wei-How to publish in English journals.pptx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Wei-How to publish in English journals.pptx（26页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、How to Publish in English-Medium Journals: My Lived Experience as a ResearcherWei Liu, PhDUniversity of Alberta International,PhD program Training in qualitative research: What is like to live in a male dorm room in Chinese universities? Narrative Research: Obtain and analyse peoples stories Phenome
2、nology: Take snapshots of dorm scenes and analyse their meaning Grounded Theory: Interview and analyze what stages new students go through in their adaptation into the dorm culture Ethnography: live in a dorm yourself and write about what you observe Case Study: study an issue within a definite boun
3、dary and time frame,PhD thesis: The Pedagogic Lived Experience of Chinese Secondary EFL Teachers with regard to the Communicative Approach to Language Teaching Scholarly debates on Task-based language teaching (Confucian education tradition; Foreign language context; Critical pedagogy) How does teac
4、hers teaching respond to the new curriculum idea? Participation in my professors project: Action Research as an approach teachers professional development,2011-2012: Faculty of Education, University of Alberta (Studied with Jean Clandinin) 2012- Now: University of Alberta International,Blind peer re
5、viewed process,In house rejection: Dear colleague,Thank you for submitting your paper LCC-1155 entitled The Changing Pedagogical Discourses in China:The Case of the Foreign Language Curriculum Change and its Controversies to Language, Culture and Curriculum.Unfortunately we do not feel that your pap
6、er is suitable for the journal and so we cannot proceed any further with your submission.We are so sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, but we wish you every success in publishing your paper elsewhere (e.g. in the Journal of Curriculum Studies).Yours sincerely,Major revision Dear Liu Wei, Manus
7、cript ID LCC-1824 entitled Walking with Bound Feet: Teachers Lived Experiences in Chinas English Curriculum Change which you submitted to Language, Culture and Curriculum, has been refereed. The comments of the referees are included at the bottom of this email and in the attached file. The referees
8、have suggested revisions to your paper, some of which are quite major. We would like you to respond to the referees comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please note that the referees ask for more clarification, elaboration, etc, but that your ms is now just below the intended length of 7
9、,000 words. Please, try to keep it close to that maximum. You will be required to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. Please use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. Please upload a revised version of your paper within the next si
10、x months. If you cant meet this deadline we will have to consider any revision you upload as a new submission. Your manuscript number will be extended to denote a revision once you have submitted your revised paper. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Language, Culture and Curric
11、ulum and we look forward to receiving your revision. Yours sincerely,Referee: 1 This is an interesting ethnographic study that investigates Chinese teachers lived experiences against the backdrop of the nations English curriculum change. The paper is well written, and it provides some very vivid det
12、ails to capture the inconsistencies between Chinese secondary-level English teachers language teaching ideologies and their actual practices. However, as much as I enjoy reading the paper, I find it more like story telling, descriptive rather than analytical. It is also quite unconventional in its p
13、resentation of findings and the way the discussion is carried out. My detailed comments are as follows: 1. The opening paragraph begins from Chinese general publics apprehension over the announcement of Nobel Laureates. I understand that the authors intend to lead to the discussion of much-needed ec
14、onomic reform in China. However, I still find this background introduction not tightly linked to the rationale of curriculum reform. Other countries/nations are also in much need of economic and technological innovation (such as the U.S.), so does it justify curriculum reform in the language teachin
15、g enterprise in those contexts? 2. The literature review section (although Im not sure if it should be called as a literature review) introduces a little on three theoretical perspectives on curriculum implementation. But the authors have not reviewed any findings on how teachers lived experience ma
16、y contribute to our current understanding of the theoretical perspectives on curriculum implementation. As a reader who is not very familiar with curriculum implementation or teacher agency research, I cant really see the link of the current study with the existing body of research on curriculum imp
17、lementation. As far as I see, this study needs to have a stronger theoretical base. 3. The authors have not clearly identified the research questions or research purposes of the present study. Although this is an ethnographic study that may not be as clear cut as a quantitative experimental study, I
18、 believe there still should be research questions that guide the inquiry. 4. The authors have been rather vague in their methodology part. How did they choose the BY school? How did they approach the 10 participants? Did they use convenience sampling, snowball sampling or purposive sampling? In addi
19、tion, the authors have not clarified how the multiple data sources were actually analyzed. It seems to me that the data analysis was handled in a quite casual way, as if the authors only cherry pick whats useful in their later presentation. I may not fully understand how the authors actually conduct
20、ed the research, but I believe the authors are responsible for the trustworthiness of a piece of qualitative study like the present one. 5. The authors conjure up the metaphor of “bound feet” of Chinese women in history to describe the dilemma that the Chinese teachers are facing. However, Im still
21、confused here. In the source domain, “bound feet” is assigned with a high status and attached with certain aesthetic sense, then what in the target domain (which I assume is pedagogies) is considered as the bound feet? The communicative meaning-focused teaching or the deductive form-focused teaching
22、? 6. The paragraphs devoted to a re-examination of the history of Gaokao in China (pp. 14-15) seem a little bit out of place here. I cant really see if this re-examination of this particular testing system is part of the discussion of part of the findings. Or maybe the authors should have put it in
23、the literature review. 7. The findings need to be highlighted in the discussion, and need to be linked back to the existing body of research in order to flesh out the contribution of the present study. In fact, the idea that “teachers do not exert the freedom of teaching in accordance to their belie
24、fs” is not entirely new. So what new light does the present study shed on our understanding on teacher agency? Curriculum implementation? Educational change? This brings back my previous question on the theoretical base of the present study. The authors may look at “critical pedagogy” as a lens to b
25、etter understand the teachers lived experience.,Referee: 3 Comments to the AuthorThe manuscript reports on a qualitative study of 10 English teachers pedagogical practices and perceptions in a senior high school in Beijing. The topic is highly relevant to LCC, and the paper is generally well written
26、. However, it is not ready for publication as it stands now. The following issues need to be addressed in a revision before I can recommend the paper for publication.The “new English curriculum” section is very sketchy and does not provide an adequate background for this study. After reading this se
27、ction, I still have only a vague idea of what this new curriculum is like.I take the “How educational change happens” section as an effort to provide potential theoretical frames of the study. However, candidate perspectives are too diverse and wide-ranging to provide a coherent theoretical backgrou
28、nd. Furthermore, the perspectives are merely briefly outline rather than being recontextualized in the Chinese context.It seems that Snyder et al.s (1992) framework of curriculum implementation is presented as the theoretical perspective on the participating teachers work in the classroom (p.4). The
29、 mutual adaptation perspective, however, is not followed up on in the rest of the study. I would like to see the results of the study discussed from that perspective.No research question has been presented to orient the reader and give coherence and structure to the empirical study.Virtually no info
30、rmation is provided for WHY the particular school and the participating teachers were selected for the study. A thick description of the context, typically expected of an ethnographic study is also absent, which can make it difficult to understand the findings in a context-sensitive manner. As a mat
31、ter of fact, I question the characterization of the study as an ethnography. It does not seem to have the extended, prolonged field work and rich resultant data that are characteristic of ethnographic research. To me, the study is more akin to a case study than an ethnography.No information is provi
32、ded about the researcher him/herself. How did s/he relate to the school and participants? What was his/her positionality? How would this positionality influence how the data were collected, analysed, and interpreted? All this is standard and expected information in an ethnographic study and is neede
33、d to orient the reader in important ways.It is a limitation of the study that only two teachers were observed in their routine classroom teaching because there could be discrepancies between demonstration classes and routine classroom activities. My knowledge of the Chinese educational context, as w
34、ell as the authors own observations, suggests that demonstration classes are typically public performances presented for others to “see” and may differ from what actually happens in the classroom. To complicate things, one of the two teachers, Bo, was not observed in a demonstration class, making it
35、 difficult to ascertain whether there were discrepancies between her “three pedagogical discourses” (p.12). Given that only two teachers routine teaching was observed, it is not warranted to claim, as the author has done on p.12, that the 10 BY teachers routine class pedagogy is what Figure 3 portra
36、ys. The small number of teachers observed “in their private domain” should be acknowledged as a major limitation of this study.,Minor revision after second round review: Dear Liu Wei,The revision of your paper entitled Walking with Bound Feet: Teachers Lived Experiences in Chinas English Curriculum
37、Change which you submitted to Language, Culture and Curriculum, has been refereed. The comments of the referees are included at the bottom of this letter.The referees have recommended some further revisions to your manuscript. We would like you to take account of the referees comments (also on the f
38、irst version) and make further revisions to your manuscript accordingly.You will be required to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. Please use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.Please upload a revised version of your paper withi
39、n the next month. If you cant meet this deadline we will have to consider any revision you upload as a new submission.Your manuscript number will be extended to denote a further revision once you have submitted your revised paper.Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Language, Cult
40、ure and Curriculum and we look forward to receiving your revision.Yours sincerely,Referee: 1The author has addressed my concerns to various extents. For example, the discussion cum recommendations have improved considerably, but the issues concerning research design, data analysis, positionality/ref
41、lexion, and their description are addressed less satisfactorily. I do agree with the author that the word limit is a constraint on what s/he could do in the revision. So I hope that the editor can extend the word limit so that the author can properly address all the issues raised by the reviewers. I
42、 have noticed that there are still quite a few typos and minor language issues in the revised manuscript that should have been eliminated before the submission.EDITOR: the article is currently about 6900 words, the recommended length is 7,000, but we can be a bit lenient as the reviewer suggests (ab
43、out until around 7,500-7,700 words) in order to better address the issues mentioned by the reviewer (design, analysis, reflection).,Referee: 2Im very glad to see that the author has made extensive revision in response to my comments. Now the manuscript has an underlying theoretical focus (mutual ada
44、ptation) and the discussion has been strengthened to revolve about the mutual adaptation. I would like the following minor points to be addressed:1. Im not sure if there is one author or several authors for this manuscript. There seems to be some inconsistency in the self-reference in the writing. S
45、ometimes the author is referred to as “I”, whereas in some other places it is referred to as “Author 1”. Please straighten it out.2. The three research questions have been clearly put out. However, the answers to these three questions need to be more explicitly stated in the writing. In particular,
46、answers to Research Question 3 are hard to locate, but only can be inferred.3. The discussion part seems to be a bit detached from the findings. As far as I see, it is more like the authors own reflection or suggestion for the current dilemma rather than comparing and contrasting the findings with t
47、he existing literature. This may undermine the theoretical contribution of the current study.,Third round review Dear Wei,Your revised paper has been received and is currently being considered by the editor. Please mention the above manuscript ID in all future correspondence, and do remember to keep
48、 the contact details in your author account up-to-date. As soon as a decision on your submission is reached, we will let you know by email. In the meantime, you are most welcome to browse our Author Services website, where you will be able to find information about permissions, copyright, language s
49、ervices and what will happen with your article if it is published: http:/journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/ Thank you for submitting your revised paper to Language, Culture and Curriculum. CO-AUTHORS: This email is automatically copied to all co-authors; if you are named as a co-author, but did not give your consent to that, please contact the Editorial Office (RLCC-peerreviewjournals.tandf.co.uk) immediately. Best wishes,Lessons learned: Write about things we deeply care about Research your lived experience Be persistent,Lessons learned: Some different perspectives help Keep