ETUG 25 – Rubric for Review of Proposals

ETUG 25th Anniversary Conference
Rubric for Review of Proposals

Each proposal is blind reviewed (no names or affiliations are shared between proposal submitters and reviewers) and by at least two SCETUG members representing the content area and/or interest section that corresponds to the subject of the proposal.
Evaluation Rating: Scale 1-4 (1 is Lowest and 4 is Highest)

1. Do not accept (explain reasons)
2. Probably do not accept but there is some aspect of the proposal that is of interest and could possibly be combined with another proposal or re-structured (explain)
3. Conditional acceptance, either with moderate changes (explain changes) or if there aren’t any other similar proposals that are stronger
4. Absolutely accept (explain reasons)

Session Criteria	Disagree	Neither Agree or Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
	1	2	3	4
The session is relevant to the overall theme of the conference and to ETUG community
The proposal summary is well-written.  It clearly states the session objectives, what will occur in the session, and the participant outcomes.
The session type is appropriate for the session content.
The session addresses an important issue in teaching and learning with technology
The session is informed by the relevant theory, practice, and/or research in the area
The session topic will be of interest to the ETUG attendees from a variety of perspectives (e.g. diverse disciplinary backgrounds, diverse roles, different regions, size of institution).
The topic is forward-thinking, new/innovative, is transformative (helping us to move forward) or reflective (helping us to learn from our past)
The format is interactive, participative, or activity-based in a way that encourages networking and active participation among participants.   (Not applicable for the poster session and Gasta Lightning Talks)
The topic is strongly relevant to the region (e.g. BC-based topics and presenters)
TOTAL SCORE  (out of 36)

Note: When submitting you will be required to select one of the proposal formats, but it is possible that your submission may be accepted on the condition of adapting it to another format (e.g., an individual presentation proposal might be accepted if you are willing to adapt it to a poster or a Gasta Lightning Talk). If this is the case, you will be given the choice to accept this format change or to decline to be in the conference program when notified of its acceptance.
What improvements could be made to the proposed session? (If you provided ratings of 3 or below on statements 1-4 above, please included concrete suggestions for improving these aspects of the proposed sessions.): 
Please provide any other comments you have about the session: 
Your Overall Recommendations (please select one option below as per the following guidelines):

• Accept with minor or no revisions
• Encourage major revisions
• Do not accept