reviewing programs for - 2018 acpa...
TRANSCRIPT
Reviewing Programsfor
Presenters
Brandin HowardReview Training & Education Committee Member
University of Vermont
Jackie KoernerReview Training & Education Coordinator
Saint Louis University
Agenda
• Program types• Review timeline• Expectations of reviewers• Competencies• Program scoring rubric• Conducting a solid review• How to complete your reviews• Frequently asked questions
Program Types
• New program types for ACPA17!• Curriculum driven, learner‐centered• Focus on our purpose, curriculum, & learning
Program Session Types
Program types that require review:– General Convention Programs (60 min.)– Sponsored/Co‐Sponsored Programs (60 min.)– Competency‐Based Sessions (75 min.)– Extended Sessions (120 min.)– Spotlight Sessions (30 min.)– Research Papers (3 per 75 min. slot)– Poster Sessions
TimelineSept. 19: Reviewers Assigned to ProgramsOct. 5: Reviews DueOct. 21‐23: Program SelectionOct. 25: Program Presenters NotifiedNov. 1: Presenter Commitments DueNov. 1: Presenter Webinar Series BeginsDec. 2016: Time/Space Notifications SentAll dates are estimates and may change!
Better Reviews=
Better Programs =
Better ACPA17
Reviewer Expectations
• Quality reviews will:– Consider the program type (ex. General program, sponsored program, research paper)
– For all program types:• Utilize the Program Scoring Rubric• Determine whether the proposal corresponds with professional competencies
• Assure the proposal is grounded in theory or conceptual framework
Professional Competencies• Advising and Supporting (A/S)• Assessment, Evaluation, and Research (AER)• Law, Policy, and Governance (LPG)• Leadership (LEAD)• Organizational and Human Resources (OHR)• Personal and Ethical Foundations (PPF)• Social Justice and Inclusion (SJI)• Student Learning and Development (SLD)• Technology (TECH)• Values, Philosophy, and History (VPH)
Program Scoring Rubric
• Alignment of Learning Outcomes with Professional Competencies
• Organization• Innovative Approach• Theoretical Foundation• Significance and Relevancy• Application of Professional Competencies
Rubric Area One: Alignment of Learning Outcomes with Professional Competencies
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
The program proposal includes clear, detailed learning outcomes and examples of how each
learning outcome directly aligns with the
Professional Competency it
addresses.
The program proposal includes several
examples of alignment between learning
outcomes and Professional
Competencies. However, the learning outcomes themselves and/or their alignment
with one or more Professional
Competencies are somewhat unclear and/or lack needed
detail.
More evidence is needed regarding how the learning outcomes address one or more of
the Professional Competencies.
The program proposalcontains unsupported
generalizations regarding learning outcomes and their
connection to Professional
Competencies and/or proposal lists Professional
Competencies with no connection to proposal
content.
The program proposaldoes not include
learning outcomes and/or little or limited
mention and connection with Professional
Competencies.
Rubric Area Two: Organization
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
The program proposalfully demonstrates a
well-plannedpresentation that would
be engaging toattendees. There is a
clear connection, progression, and
integration of session content and activities, as
they relate to the identified Professional
Competency(ies) level(s) or critical issues.
The program proposalclearly articulates a well-
planned presentation that would be engaging to attendees. The ‘flow’ of the session (content and activities) makes sense given the topic
and there is a connection to the
identified Professional Competency(ies)
level(s) or critical issues.
The programproposal describes how content will be
shared and activities conducted in a way that makes sense.
There is limited connection between
the session format/organization
and identified Professional
Competency(ies) level(s) or critical
issues.
The program proposal outlines session
content and activities without describing how
they build on each other to create a
cohesive experience. There is no connection between the session format/organization
and identified Professional
Competency(ies) level(s) or critical
issues.
The program proposal does not demonstrate
a well-plannedpresentation that
would be engaging toattendees.
Professional Competency level or critical issues are not
identified.
Rubric Area Three: Innovative Approach
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
The program proposalfully demonstratesinnovative and/or
creative approaches toprofessional practice,theory or research.
Recent citations substantiate the need
for this innovative approach.
The program proposal clearly articulatesinnovative and/or
creative approaches toprofessional practice,theory or research. Literature review
supports this innovative approach
but citations are somewhat dated.
While acceptable, theprogram proposal
needs to more clearly define innovative and/or creativeapproaches to
professional practice,theory or research. Citations provide
limited background to support this approach.
The program proposaldoes not demonstrate
innovative and/orcreative approaches toprofessional practice,
theory or research andneeds further
clarification to be acceptable. Limited citations provided.
The program proposal does not represent innovative and/or
creative approaches toprofessional practice,theory or research. No citations provided to
demonstrate this is an innovative approach.
Rubric Area Four: Theoretical Foundation
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
The program proposalfully demonstrates
relevant conceptual and theoreticalfoundations. All
sources mentioned in proposal are included in reference list and
references are complete.
The program proposal clearly articulates
relevant conceptual and theoretical
foundations. Multiple sources are cited but
some sources are missing and/or are
incompletely cited in references.
The program proposal, while acceptable,
needs to more clearlydefine relevantconceptual and
theoretical foundations. Sources cited are incomplete and/or
sources mentioned in the proposal do not appear in citations.
The program proposaldoes not demonstrate
relevant conceptual and theoretical foundations
and needs furtherclarification to be
acceptable. Proposalhas few citations.
The program proposaldoes not demonstrate
relevant conceptual and theoretical foundations. No citations provided.
Rubric Area Five: Significance and Relevancy
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
The program proposalfully demonstrates the
session topic is educationally/professio
nally significant and relevant for student affairs educators.
The program proposalarticulates how the sess ion top ic i s
educationally/professionally significant and
relevant.
The program proposal, while acceptable,
needs to more clearly describe how the session topic is
educationally/professionally significant and
relevant.
The program proposalprovides limited description as to
session’s significance or relevance to Student
Affairs.
The program proposal does not demonstrate
how the session topic is significant or relevant to
Student Affairs.
Rubric Area Six: Application of Professional Competencies
4: Excellent 3: Good 2: Average 1: Fair 0: Poor
Proposal describes several activities step-by-step through which participants engage with and/or have an opportunity to apply
content directly related to Professional Competencies.
Proposal describes 1-2 activities where
participants engage with and/or have an
opportunity to apply content.
Proposal describes activities that will
engage participants, but limited information on activities is provided.
Proposal infers participant engagement
and application of Professional
Competencies. No details provided.
Proposal does not demonstrate how
participants will apply content learned in session related to
Professional Competencies to
practical application opportunities. Proposal does not indicate any
plan for assessment of learning outcomes or
practice..
What Makes a Solid Review?
• Scoring aligns with rubric standards• Scoring reflects provided feedback
– Feedback states “This will be a great program!” but listed score is low
• Feedback should be:– Clear, concise, and specific– Provided with an ethic of care– Provided as if your name were visible to the reader
Examples• Good Review
– “Great application of supported theory, applicable learning outcomes, and engaging presentation approach. Very valuable to current issues in higher education and to various functional areas. Great application of experience/own research for foundation of proposal.”
• Bad Review – “Will be a good presentation.”– “Lacks support & theory.”– “Not interesting. Poorly written.”
Reviewer Commitment• Topics you expressed interest in reviewing• No more than 8 proposals assignments per reviewer• After initial 8 are completed, let us know if you can help do
more!• Time commitment ranges depending on the complexity of
proposal and comments• Tools available to support you – review worksheet, rubric
We appreciate YOU! Thank you for helping to make ACPA17 an amazing professional development experience for everyone.
Logging into CDMS
Go to: http://cdms.myacpa.org/ and login as reviewer
You will see a list of the programs that you have been assigned to review in CDMS
Program Review Screen
• screenshot
Program Description
• screenshot
Enter Your Comments and Category Rankings
Program Recommendation Screen
Selection Process in Summary• First round is anonymous group review• Look for:
– Tie to professional competencies, when appropriate– Supported by data and theoretical framework, when appropriate– Well‐written and structured proposal– Background of presenters matches the content they’d like to present
• Include positive and constructive comments to support scores
• Please follow‐through with your reviews• Make this an educational and professional process for you and proposer
Frequently Asked Questions
• What happens if I log in and can’t see my assignments?
• What if I can’t complete all of my reviews?• Will the authors find out my personal information?
• About how many proposals are submitted each year?
• How many reviewers are there usually?
Questions?Brandin Howard
Review Training & [email protected]
Jackie KoernerReview Training & [email protected]
Dean KennedyGeneral Programs
Ray PlazaProgram [email protected]
Contact InformationVicky Dean
Extended [email protected]
Jason GarveyResearch Papers & Posters
Laila McCloudSponsored & Co‐Sponsored Programs
Sarah LauxSponsored & Co‐Sponsored Programs
Ric MontelongoResearch Papers & Posters
Convention Programs [email protected]