Profile |
Proposal Rubrics |
Paper Presentations, Poster Presentations, Roundtables, & Exploratory Sessions
All proposals for the annual meeting are reviewed by at least two proposal reviewers, using the rubric criteria below. The criteria are designed to address diverse submission types (e.g., research studies as well as position papers or descriptions of innovative programs or practices).
REVIEW CRITERIA (1=inadequate to 5=superior)
1. Clear focus/problem: The proposal has a clear focus and/or addresses a problem that is timely and significant to science teacher education.
2. Theoretical or conceptual framing: The research study or philosophical viewpoint described in the proposal is grounded in a conceptual or theoretical framework and in the research base for science teacher education. The position or innovation described in the proposal is grounded in a conceptual or theoretical framework and in the research base for science teacher education.
3. Mode of Inquiry: For research studies, the work is based on sound methodology and research practices. For philosophical viewpoints, it is clear how the logic and coherence of arguments is tied to the theoretical or conceptual framework. For position papers, the position is well-grounded in the existing literature and considers multiple perspectives and arguments. For innovations, there is a clear connection to the theoretical or conceptual framework and pedagogical perspective of the authors.
4. Findings/Conclusions (if research study), Contributions (for philosophical viewpoints, position paper, or innovations): The work contributes to the knowledge base in science teacher education either through synthesizing the existing literature and the implications for practice, and/or by providing evidence of the effectiveness of an innovation.
5. Relevance to science teacher education: The proposal is relevant to the mission of ASTE to advance policy and/or practice through scholarship, collaboration, and innovation in science teacher education.
6. Interest to the ASTE membership: The proposal session has implications for the work and interests of the ASTE membership– including science teacher educators in a variety of roles, and contexts (e.g., preservice/ inservice or formal/ informal).
Professional Development Workshop Rubric
Please rate the proposal using the following criteria: 1=poor, 3=good, 5=excellent
| Criterion | 1 | 3 | 5 | Score |
| Clarity of focus on science teacher education | Purpose of the workshop unclear and/or not relevant to science teacher education. | Purpose of the workshop lacks clarity and/or is of limited relevance to science teacher education. | Purpose of the workshop is clear and relevant to science teacher education. | |
| Relevance to ASTE membership | Workshop is likely to be of interest to few ASTE members. | Workshop is likely to be of interest to a moderate number of ASTE members. | Workshop is likely to be of interest to a large portion of the ASTE members (broad appeal). | |
| Expertise of Presenters | Presenters lack the necessary experience or expertise to achieve the workshop goals. | Presenters have relevant experience or expertise related to the goals of the workshop. | Presenters have the necessary experience and expertise to achieve the goals of the workshop. | |
| Learning Objectives | Objectives are inappropriate and/or unlikely to be met in the workshop format/time allotted. | Objectives are appropriate but may be difficult to achieve in the workshop format/time allotted. | Objectives are appropriate and achievable for the workshop format/time allotted. | |
| Content of the proposed workshop | Workshop activities are not appropriate to the topic and/or do not reflect best practices. | Workshop activities are somewhat appropriate to the topic and reflective of best practices. | Workshop activities are appropriate to the topic, high quality, and instructional strategies reflect best practices. | |
| Availability post-workshop | Availability to participants after the workshop is not fully described or perfunctory (e.g., provide email to participants to contact presenters). | Presenters have a plan to provide support for participants in applying what they learned in the workshop. | Presenters offer a clear plan for continued support and availability to participants post-workshop that will foster ongoing learning and collaboration. | |
| Diversity and Equity Focus | Workshop activities are not appropriate to diversity and equity topics and/or do not reflect best practices. | Workshop activities are appropriate to diversity and equity topics and/or reflect best practices. | Workshop activities are appropriate to diversity and equity topics, high quality, and/or reflect best practices. | |
| Strength of proposal: | ||||
| Weakness of proposal: | ||||
| TOTAL SCORE = |
.svg){kind=logo}