Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ProgramReviewerTraining
UsingRubrics
Rubricsmakeassessingproposalsefficient,consistent,andobjective.
Rubricsprovidepresentersandreviewerswithaclearunderstandingofwhatisexpected.Reviewerscanthenprovideconcretedirectionsaboutthequalityoftheproposal.
UsingRubrics
Everyonehasadifferentfocuswhenreviewingaproposalbasedontheirownexperiences,professionallevel,andotherqualities.Therubrichelpsstandardizetheevaluationprocess.
Eachproposalisreviewedbythreereviewers.
ReviewFields
Reviewfieldsspecifictoprogramtypes.
Reviewformwillonlypromptreviewersfornecessaryreviewfields.
• Relevance• Framework• EngagementandApplication• Method• FocusonCompetency• JustificationforAdditionalTime
• JustificationforLessTime• ResearchorPracticeMethods• LearningOutcomes• Findings• Competencies
ReviewFields
ReviewFields
Allreviewfieldsaregivenascoreof0-4
0
Poor
1
Fair
2
Average
3
Good
4
Excellent
ReviewFields:Relevance
0
Theprogramproposaldoesnotdescribeitsrelevancytothe
field.
1
Theprogramproposalcontains
allusionstothefieldofhighereducationbut
failstomakeanyspecific
connectionsbetweenthetopicandthe
field.
2
Theprogramproposaldescribes
relevancyoftheoveralltopictohighereducationprofessionals,butnotthe
specificcontentofthe
session/proposal.
3
Theprogramproposalincludesspecificexamples
ofhowtheprogramrelatestootherhigher
educationprofessionals,butdoesnot
clarifyspecificallywhether itis
relevantwithinaspecific
functionalareaoracross
functionalareas.
4
Theprogramproposalincludesspecificexamples
ofhowtheprogramrelatestootherhigher
educationprofessionals,andarticulateswhetherthatrelevancyis
withinaspecificfunctionalarea
oracrossfunctionalareas.
ReviewFields:Framework
0
Theprogramproposaldoesnot includeareviewofthe
literatureorthereviewprovidedisnotrelevanttotheproposal.
1
Theprogramproposalincludes
areviewofliterature;
however,therelevancytotheproposaltopicis
notclear.
2
Theproposalincludesareviewoftheliteraturethatisrelatedtothetopicofthe
proposal;however,the
directrelationshiptothespecific
contentofthesession isunclear.
3
Theprogramproposalincludesareviewoftheliteraturethatisrelatedtothetopicofthe
proposalanditsrelationshiptothespecific
contentoftheproposal,whilenotarticulatedspecifically,are
apparent.
4
Theprogramproposalincludesanintentionalandthoughtful
reviewofrelevant
literaturethatmakesclearand
specificconnectionstotherestoftheproposal.
AccessyourassignedprogramsandsubmityourresponsesthrougheShow.
eShow usesterminologythatisdifferentthanwhatyoumaybeusedto.
ReviewingProposalsineShow
AccessingeShow
LogintotheACPA18ProposalandReviewerServiceCenter(https://s1.goeshow.com/acpa/annual/2018/program_team_login.cfm)
AccessingAssignedProposals
Thenextpagehasinformationaboutthereviewerprocess.Clickonthelinkatthebottomofthepagetobeginreviewingproposals.
ReviewForm
OntheReviewForm page,youwillhavealistofalltheproposalsyouareassignedtoreview.
ReviewForm
Toviewaspecificproposal,clickon[Review]nexttothetitle.
ReviewForm
Apop-upwindowcontainingalltheinformationsubmittedwithaproposalwillcomeup.
ReviewerForm
Youmayreadthroughtheproposal.Belowthecontentisthe“ACPASessionReviewerForm.”
Clickontheappropriateeducationalsessiontype.
Therelevantrubricsectionswillbeactivated.
ReviewerForm:AssessmentSummary
ReviewingtheProposal
ü Eachsectionrequiresaratingnumber(0-4).Reviewersmayoptionallyleavecomments.Thisisanopportunitytoprovideconstructivefeedbackforthecoordinatingpresenter.Sharingtipsforwhattoconsiderinfutureproposalswillalsobeveryhelpful.
ü Aftercompletingthereview,click[Save].
ü Closethewindow.
ThankyouforyourtimeanddedicationtoservingtheACPAcommunityasaprogramreviewer.
Questionsaboutreviewing?Sattik Deb– [email protected]
TomMurray– [email protected]
