ISTE Design and Development Presentation Proposal Guideline

Design and Development is comprised of AECT members who are interested in promoting quality teaching and learning through the application of instructional design competencies to design effective learning experiences, develop instructional materials and environments, evaluate the adequacy and impact of instruction, assess learning gain, and manage instructional projects and research. We are particularly interested in proposals that are the results of empirical research, that focus on a theory or concept, and/or that focus on the practice of instructional design and development.

A panel of peers convened from specific division membership will read and rate proposals submitted to that division. To prepare an excellent proposal, be sure to use concise, correct language. Identify your target audience – those attendees who will find your presentation relevant and timely. Pay attention to the way you format your proposal on the electronic page. Use paragraph breaks, correct grammar and mechanics, upper and lower case type, and a common font. Be accurate! Avoid jargon, spelling errors, and typographical errors. Use spell and grammar check, but also ask someone who does not know your project to read the proposal for clarity. Poorly presented proposals, regardless of the merit of their content, have little chance of being recommended for the convention program.

Guidelines for Design and Development Practice Proposals

Proposals reporting on the practice of instructional design and development should describe effective practice in innovative instructional designs, effective instructional tools, new instructional development approaches, and are the results of design-based or development research efforts investigating instructional design approaches or interventions. The proposal should include at least the following information:

· Official name of the project or product.

· Context for the project: Original design problems; Overview of timeline and budget; Conditions under which the project was carried out (consulting, in-house development, individual effort, etc.).

· The rationale for the instructional solution(s) chosen: Theoretical foundation, relationship of the solution to the problem.

· Description of the successes and challenges: A comprehensive description of the problems and/or challenges related to the project, what worked, what didn’t and recommendations of what would be done differently in the future.

· Evaluation: Statement of the measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the project and overview of the data from those measures. What measures were chosen, why those measures and how it relates to the instructional solutions chosen.

· Current status of the project: Where is it being used? By whom? What have been the outcomes of the project?

Guidelines for Design and Development Research Proposals

Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method empirical studies should describe completed research that involved the collection of data or meta-analyses (see below for information about papers describing theories unaccompanied by data and other non-data-based papers). Research proposals must include at least the following sections:

• Title
• Introduction: Briefly summarize the relevant research and theory, provides the purpose of the study, and research questions.
• Method: Including a brief description of the sample, data collection procedures, and analytical framework (if applicable).
• Results: Including a description of the data analyses used.
• Discussion: Including conclusions and implications for research, theory, and/or practice.

Research proposals that the reviewers deem to be above average may be recommended for the special “Featured Research” track of the conference program.

Guidelines for Design and Development Theory/Concept Proposals

Theory/concept proposals must address a theoretical construct, analysis of related research, and original recommendations for future research and/or development. The proposal may not be a report of a specific research study or development project. Theory/concept proposals must include at least the following sections:

• Title
• Introduction: Briefly summarize the educational need or void in the literature that this discussion/presentation aims to address.
• Literature review: Provide a systematic review and analysis of the relevant research and theory.
• Outcome: Describe the outcome of your work (an analytical framework, as set of design guidelines, a position on an issue).
• Conclusion/Recommendations: Clearly state your recommendations for the field and/or a future research/development agenda.

For this			Scale** descriptors (scale used indicated importance of criteria)
Criteria*	Type of		(low) 1	3	5 (high)	Weight
Use à	Proposal	Evaluation Criteria	2	6	10	Scale
Clarity (10 pts)	Practice	Defines a design problem	No problem defined, not design problem	Vague description of problem	Design problem clearly defined	10
Relevance (10 pts)		Describes relationship of design problem to instructional solutions	R’ship between problem and solution not defined, not an instructional problem	Vague description of r’ship, unclear how solution relates to problem	Clearly describes r’ship between problem and instructional solution	10
Suitability (5 pts)		Describes rationale for solutions chosen, changes made	No rationale provided for solutions/changes	Vague description of rationale, not grounded in research/theory	Sound rational for solutions and changes, related to research/theory	5
Quality (10pts)		Describes design successes and failures	No mention of success and failures	Vague description, lacks description of either	Rich description of both successes and failures	10
Format (5pts)		Demonstrates r’ship among design problem, solutions, and evaluative measures	No relationship among problem solution, evaluations included	R’ships vague, potentially disconnect among problem, solution, and/or eval	Rich description of r’ship among problem, solution,& eval; informs theory	5
Clarity (10 pts)	Research	Clarity of proposal (how well it is written)	Does not conform to grammatical principles	Grammar, structure, and/or logic issues	Well written, logical grammatically correct	10
Relevance (10 pts)		Relevance to convention theme, timeliness, and general interest level of topic	Not relevant to conference, will not be of great interest to community	Some what related to conference themes, some interest to community	Matches themes of conference, great interest to community	10
Suitability (5 pts)		Suitability for division/organization mission and membership	Not suitable to div/org, mission, membership	Vaguely suitable to div/org, mission and membership	Suitable to div/org, mission and membership	5
Quality (10pts)		Quality of proposed session’s content	Poor description of content, content not supported/relevant	Average quality, lacks some definition	High quality, thorough, description, good support	10
Format (5pts)		Format, organization, length and session type	Not well organized or formatted for session	Either well organized or formatted, not both	Well organized and formatted for session	5
Clarity (10 pts)	Theory/ Concept	Defines a conceptual / theoretical problem	No problem defined, not conceptual/theoretical problem	Vague description of concept/theory	Conceptual or theoretical problem clearly defined	10
Relevance (10 pts)		Describes relationship of problem to research/practice	R’ship between problem and research/practice not defined	Vague description of r’ship	Clearly describes r’ship between problem/research	10
Suitability (5 pts)		Describes theories/concepts of interests to membership	No interest to div/org, mission, membership	May be of interest	Suitable for div/org, mission and membership	5
Quality (10pts)		Provide scholarly support for ideas	Lacks scholarly support for ideas	Lacks mention of key work in area	Well supported in scholarship and research	10
Format (5pts)		Demonstrates r’ship among theory, research, and/or practice	No relationship among theory, research, and/or practice	R’ships vague	Rich description of r’ship theory, research, practice	5

* Current AECT proposal scales; ** Scale descriptors for ratings low, med, high - use descriptions to guide your numeric ratings between 1 and 5 or 2 and 10.