As   of   March   2000

        Readers' Choice
The best and worst in the Academic Exchange Quarterly

Readers' Choice represents AEQ readers' most and least favorite
articles, from 1997 - present.  This ranking is not scientific 
and does not reflect on any author's scholarship.  
The informal feedback, received by the Academic Exchange Editor,
via postal mail, e-mail or Annual Evaluation varies  in quantity
received. The largest number of responses come 2-3 weeks after 
the issue is published. Later, it trickles to 0-1 a month, until 
the cycle starts again. Often, the discussed subject matter and 
its relationship to respondent's own criteria or values generate 
intense responses.  Finally, the older the publication date, the
longer exposure of the article and the greater number of responses.
To save space, articles having less than 5 are not listed.

As we see it, this poll is a barometer of your likes and dislikes,
and your emotional reaction after reading  the journal, assuming 
that you cared enough to reveal it to us.  To this effect, when 
you look at Readers' Choice, you may want to compare its results 
with your own feelings about the given article.  Does Readers' 
Choice reflect your judgement or interest or that of your 
colleagues?  Check it out!  Of course, we decided not to print 
readers' dislikes.  For some authors and AEQ Editor would not like 
it  8:)))  However, we do offer an overview of the worst articles.         
Enjoy the findings!

+14 Plagiarism revisited: giving students confidence 
	to claim their own ideas.  Renate W. Prescott, 
	Kent State University.  Summer 1998

+14 Service-Learning Competencies for Beginning Teachers.
        Lynne Ryan, Providence College, RI
	Jane Callahan, Providence College, RI  
        Winter 1999

+13 Service-Learning: Principles, Procedures, and Practices  
	Dwight C. Watson, Hamline University, MN
	Winter 1999

+13 Teaching the computer literacy course to 
	a disparate group of students. Anthony Scime, 
	Wilson College, PA. Winter 1998

+13 Information Literacy, Computer Literacy, & Good Teaching 
        Practices Firm Foundations for Faculty Development.
        Janet R. Cottrell, University of Vermont, Burlington.  
        Fall 1999

+12 Classroom Communities: Successful Learning Design
        or Path To Chaos?  Michalel P. Bochenek,
	Elmhurst College, IL. Fall 1999

+11 Listserving with a friend. Ben Varner,
	University of Northern Colorado, CO. Spring 1999

+11 Strategies for addressing plagiarism 
	in a networked environment. Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe,
	Illinois State University. Fall 1998

+11 Their Own Best Critics Edward A. Kearns, 
        University of Northern Colorado. Summer 1998

+10 Learning styles and the first few days in 
	the composition classroom.  Kevin Morris, Greenville 
	Technical College, SC.  Winter 1998
+10 Education for the real world.  Matt Benzing,  
	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, NY.  Spring 1998 

+10 Daily brain teasers: Promoting collaboration, persistence, 
	and critical and creative thinking. Jeanne L. Higbee, 
	The University of Georgia  and Pamela V. Thomas, 
	The University of Georgia. Winter 1998

+09 Problem-Based Service-Learning.  
	Rick Gordon, Antioch New England Graduate School, NH 
	Winter 1999 

+08 Service-Learning: Curricular Options. 
	Marie Troppe, University of Maryland
	Winter 1999 

+7 Using English Feature Films in the Modern World Literature Class.
        Kevin Morris, Greenville Technical College, SC.  Spring 1999

        Editor's Choice from AE Extra:
All the players on the New Paradigm Team

The worst articles often have one or more of the four common characteristics:
lack of rigor, no interest in the reader, have a hidden agenda, or exhibit banality.
  • Lack of rigor implies that articles are incomplete, unclear, and fuzzy.
  • Lack of interest in the reader results when author forgets that
    Academic Exchange is "teachers' professional development resource."
  • Most articles, no matter what journal, have an agenda. The difficulty lies
    in deciphering whether author's agenda is in line with journal's mission.
  • Finally, banality, some authors forget that AEQ is at the forefront of
    academic journals in originality, freshness, or application of new
    communication technology.

We value your input.   To have a say in what we do, please complete Feedback Form.