Convention Proposal Reviewers Needed! by ProQuest


More Info
									                                         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

           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
To top