Proposal Review Rubric

Below is information on how proposals will be scored. Proposal submitters are encouraged to consult this rubric prior to submission of their content.

 

REVIEWER RUBRIC

Criteria

5-Excellent

4-Good

3-Acceptable

2-Weak

1-Unacceptable

Relevance and significance (applicability, meaningfulness, and value of the theoretical, empirical, and/or practical contribution in relation to the conference theme)

Clearly addresses the conference theme in significant ways that will contribute to theory, research, and/or practice. Likely to be a very worthwhile session for multiple groups.

Addresses the conference theme in important ways that would contribute to theory, research, and/or practice. Likely to be a worthwhile session, possibly for multiple groups.

Addresses the conference theme in a way that can contribute to theory, research, or practice. May be a worthwhile session for researchers and/or practitioners.

Tangentially addresses the conference theme in a way that might contribute to theory, research, or practice. Might not be a worthwhile session, or its value might be limited to a narrow group.

Does not address the conference theme in a way that seems likely to contribute to theory, research, or practice. Does not appear to be a worthwhile session.

Originality and insightfulness (current, with thought-provoking research questions, cutting-edge applications, groundbreaking conclusions, etc.)

Cutting-edge, thought-provoking, and groundbreaking for many participants. Attendees are very likely to gain new knowledge and insights.

Current, original, and groundbreaking for at least some participants. Attendees are likely to gain new knowledge and insights.

Current and fairly original, if not groundbreaking. Attendees may gain new knowledge and insights.

May be current, but not particularly original or groundbreaking. Attendees may not be likely to gain new knowledge or insights.

Not current, original, or groundbreaking. Attendees are unlikely to gain new knowledge or insights.

Basis in theory, research, and/or practice (a clear theoretical, empirical, or pedagogical framework, with explicit references and justifications displaying knowledge of the state of the art)

Clearly defines a framework and discusses state-of-the-art theory, practice, and/or research in ways that demonstrate in-depth knowledge and provide direct justification for the presentation content.

Identifies a framework and discusses relevant theory, practice, and/or research in ways that demonstrate solid knowledge and provide justification for the presentation content.

Mentions a framework and refers to relevant theory, practice, and/or research in ways that demonstrate knowledge and provide some justification for the presentation content.

Mentions or implies a framework and refers to theory, practice, and/or research, but does not discuss them in ways that directly support the presentation content.

Does not mention a framework or refer to theory, research, or practice in ways that relate to the presentation content.

Support for conclusions and/or recommendations (use of a design suitable to answer the research questions or address the pedagogical goals, with clear substantiation for claims)

Indicates that ample support for well-substantiated conclusions and recommendations will be provided based on a rigorously designed investigation/project.

Indicates that concrete, specific support for conclusions and recommendations will be provided based on a well-designed investigation/project.

Suggests that at least indirect support for conclusions and/or recommendations can be provided based on a reasonably well-designed investigation/project.

Implies that support exists for claims, but leaves unclear whether sufficient substantiation can be provided for conclusions or recommendations.

Draws unsubstantiated conclusions or makes claims or recommendations for which the design does not suggest support can be provided or inferred.

Clarity of proposal (level of detail, organization, and focus, suggesting the likelihood of a streamlined, well structured, professional, accessible presentation)

The proposal is very well written, with unfailingly clear, detailed, relevant descriptions, suggesting a high-quality professional presentation.

 

The proposal is well written, with mostly clear, detailed, relevant descriptions, suggesting a smooth and in-depth presentation that would be accessible to most attendees.

The proposal is adequately written, with sufficient detail, organization, and focus to suggest a presentation of moderate quality that would be accessible to many attendees. 

 

The proposal is unevenly written and/or lacks detail, organization, or focus in ways that suggest the presentation may be weak or inaccessible to many attendees.

The proposal is not well written and/or lacks detail, organization, or focus in ways that suggest the presentation would be poor.

Specification and likelihood of achieving presentation outcomes (intended outcomes should be stated explicitly in the abstract)

Intended outcomes are explicitly stated and seem very likely to be achieved.

Intended outcomes are stated or clearly implied and seem likely to be achieved given the format.

Intended outcomes may not be stated, but can easily be inferred and seem possible to achieve given the format.

Intended outcomes are not clearly stated, take effort to infer, and/or might not be achievable given the format.

Intended outcomes are not stated, cannot be inferred, and/or do not seem likely to be achievable.

 

If you might be interested in reading proposals for this or an upcoming CLLC, please email sed@viu.edu for details on requirements and eligibility.