top of page
Screenshot 2025-03-29 214734.png

Publication Rough Draft

Publication Outline with Peer Comments
Blending Theory and Practice: Implementing the Enriched Virtual Model in a K–4 Learning Environment

Peers Comments Reflection

Ann and Ayla—thank you both so much for your kind, honest, and super helpful feedback. Reading your comments honestly made me feel seen as both a teacher and a writer.

​

Ann, your encouragement about the abstract and structure gave me a confidence boost. I’m glad it flowed well and set the tone. Your suggestion to include more research and maybe add challenges others faced really got me thinking—I’ve definitely got more stories and resources I can weave in to deepen the piece and make it more well-rounded.

​

Ayla, I so appreciated how you highlighted the authenticity of my voice. I’ve been worried about whether my tone was too casual, so it’s reassuring to know it still reads well. I also love your idea of breaking the story into phases—year by year or in stages. That could really show the growth over time.

​

Both of you helped me see that I’m on the right track, and now I know exactly what to refine—tighten up citations, decide on a venue, and maybe add a bit more research support. Thank you for making this feel like a real conversation, not just a critique.

Publication Rough Draft Overview

The EDLD 5317 Publication Rough Draft Rubric is a peer-assessment tool for evaluating rough drafts of publications.  The rubric is based on five criteria, each worth between 1 and 15 points, for a maximum total of 50 points.  The criteria are: 

​

1.  Alignment with Publication Venues which evaluates how well the draft meets the submission requirements and style of intended publication venues.  Scores range from minimal of (1-4 points) for draft requiring significant revision to meet publication requirements; may not be suitable for listed venues to exceptional understanding (8-10 points) draft closely follows the submission requirements for listed publications; style and format are appropriate for chosen venues.  

​

2.  Content Quality and Research Contribution will evaluate the substance, originality, and scholarly contribution of the work.  Scores range from minimal of (1-3 points) for content lacking clarity or focus, major revisions needed to establish research contribution to exceptional understanding (12-15 points) for content presenting clear, original insights; research is thorough; arguments are compelling and wee-supported.

​

3.  Organization and Structure will evaluate the logical flow, coherence, and structural elements of the draft.  Scores range from minimal of (1-4 points) for structure needs significant revision, organization impedes understanding of content to exceptional understanding (8-10 points) for organization is logical and effective; transitions are smooth; structure enhances readability.

​

4.  Academic Writing and Citations evaluates writing quality, scholarly tone, and proper citation of sources.  Scores range from a minimal of (1-4 points) for writing needs significant improvement; major citation problems or inconsistencies to an exceptional understanding (8-10 points) for writing is clear, concise, and scholarly; citations are complete and follow appropriate formatting.

 

5.  Development from Outline evaluates how effectively the draft builds upon and expands the publication outline.  Scores range from minimal of (1 point) drafting deviates significantly from outline or fails to develop key points to exceptional understanding (4-5 points) draft effectively develops ideas from outline; expands concepts appropriately.

 

My peers used these criteria to assess each other's drafts, provide feedforward feedback, and award points.  The average score received from peer feedback, along with an explanation of the assessment criteria used by the rubric will be submitted.  Since this is a rough draft, a perfect grade can not be achieved, for ongoing improvements in the developmental process.  

​

Peer Assessments by:

Assessor:  Ann Zastryzny  Score:   50/50

Assessor:  Ayla Rightenour  Score:   45/50

Assessor:  Katelyn O'Quin   Score   /50

Average Score:    47.5/50

​

Where I will Submit:

Step-by-Step: Submitting to JOLT (Journal of Online Learning and Teaching)

JOLT is published by MERLOT and focuses on research and practice in online/blended learning across all educational levels.

Submission Requirements (based on JOLT’s current guidelines):

  1. Manuscript Length: ~2,000–6,000 words

  2. Formatting: APA 7th edition

  3. Sections Required:

    • Title Page with author info (name, affiliation, email)

    • Abstract (150–250 words)

    • Keywords (4–6)

    • Introduction

    • Literature Review or Theoretical Framework

    • Methodology (if applicable)

    • Results/Findings

    • Discussion

    • Implications for Practice

    • References

Submission Method: Online submission via the MERLOT JOLT submission portal: Website: https://jolt.merlot.org/index.html

​

​

bottom of page