Specifically, reviewers: * Must be NASP members and provide their NASP member IDs * Can be regular members or student members who have completed their methodology coursework * Need to provide an e-mail address or addresses at which they be reached now and during the summer * Commit approximately 6 hours total during a 2-week time period * Must be able to review during July * Review 30 proposals online (each containing no more than 800 words) Specific instructions are provided for rating the proposals.
2011 CONvENTION NEWS Fe b r u a r y 2 2 – 2 6 , S a n Fr a n c i s c o element of the proposal. Successful posals that describe an untested “good Preparing a successful nAsP proposals have summaries that make idea” are typically rated fairly low on it easy for the reviewers to understand this dimension. For example, if you de- Convention Presentation Proposal exactly what will be presented and how veloped and implemented a particular the content is relevant to the field. Be counseling approach in a school, you sure to consider each dimension of the need to provide some evidence that B y K at h l e e n m i n K e & S u S a n R at t e R R e e proposal scoring calculation. you evaluated the outcomes. Simply A ll proposals considered for specific deadlines. Over the summer, Empirical support for session con- describing the technique is unlikely to NASP convention presentations volunteers representing practitioners tent. The first dimension, empirical be viewed as sufficient. undergo a masked review pro- and trainers review the proposal sum- support for the research methodology Organization and clarity. The sec- cess. Each year, some proposals that maries. Reviewers are being recruited and/or practice, creates some difficulty ond dimension, organization and clar- appear to have merit are not accepted now. If you are interested in serving in at times. Typically, too little informa- ity, is more frequently a problem area for presentation because these pro- this capacity, see the insert box below tion is provided. That is, some authors for submitted summaries. Summaries posals either violated a submission or visit the website. spend most of their three-page limit should be very carefully reviewed for rule or did not provide sufficiently Reviewers see only the summaries giving general background on their spelling, grammar, and usage errors. clear information to result in a posi- that are submitted. They do not read topic and fail to provide any degree of Sometimes it appears as if authors tive decision. abstracts and they do not know who detail about the core content of the wrote the proposal quickly and did not There is no magic to writing a suc- wrote the proposals. Reviewers rate the session. edit their work. Carelessness in the cessful convention proposal, but there summaries on three dimensions: (a) If you are presenting a specific preparation of the proposal makes re- are simple best practices for doing so. empirical support for research method- research study, be sure to give infor- viewers wonder if similar carelessness These are outlined below and can be ology and/or practice, (b) organization mation on your methodology. Re- will be reflected in the actual presenta- helpful to authors at all levels—stu- and clarity of content, and (c) quality viewers want to feel confident that tion, resulting in lower scores. Remem- dents, graduate educators, researchers, of outcomes for participants. Each you followed appropriate procedures ber that reviewers are reading many and practitioners—in writing a success- dimension is rated on a 1–5 scale. Each in designing the study and analyzing proposals (usually approximately 30), ful proposal. summary is read by three different the data. Results should be explained so they appreciate prose that gets to NASP’s goal is to ensure the high- reviewers. Scores are summed across briefly, and implications for further re- the point quickly and does not require est quality, most relevant sessions on reviewers and an individual proposal search and practice should be included. a lot of deciphering. Short, declarative, a diverse range of topics. We also want can have a score ranging from 9 to 45. If you have not completed your analy- active voice sentences are likely to fit to encourage individuals, particularly The cut-off scores for each proposal ses at the time you submit the pro- the bill. It helps to begin with a brief practitioners who might not normally type (i.e., paper, poster, symposium, posal, this is acceptable (provided you paragraph that introduces your topic think to submit a proposal, to do so. You mini-skills) are set based on the amount will have them completed by the time and gives a quick overview of a few key may not be doing theoretical research, of function space available for each ses- of convention). However, you still issues. This paragraph should make the but you probably are doing effective sion length. The amount of space differs should identify how you plan to ana- reader interested in what is about to skills-based practice that other practitio- from year to year, according to the lyze the data and what your expected follow. In subsequent paragraphs, out- ners would find useful. Ask yourself, “Am venue. Typically, however, there is most outcomes will be. If your proposal line in as much detail as possible (stay- I doing something that really works? Is space for poster sessions, followed by does not involve a particular research ing within the 800-word limit) what it grounded in research? Do I have the paper sess
Pages to are hidden for
"Convention Proposal Reviewers Needed!"Please download to view full document