Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Each proposal is blind reviewed (no names or affiliations are shared between proposal submitters and reviewers) and by at least two peer TESOL members
representing the content area and/or interest section that corresponds to the subject of the proposal. Reviewers are referred to the TESOL Interest
Section Chairs or Interim Strand Coordinators who advise the Conferences Professional Council. This committee works with TESOL staff to select the
proposals that will appear in the convention program. Proposals are rated in five categories on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
Evaluation Criteria Poor (1 Point) Fair (2 Points) Good (3 Points) Very Good (4 Excellent (5 Points)
Points)
1. Currency, Topic is not current Topic is only Topic may not be Topic is current, The topic is cutting-
importance, and and/or lacks tangentially related current or important, and edge, relevant,
appropriateness of importance or to the field, not groundbreaking, but appropriate to the groundbreaking, or
topic to the field appropriateness to current or it is relevant to the field and potential significant to the
the field. It does not important to the field and potential audience. It appears field and potential
appear to be a field and/or to the audience. It might to be a worthwhile audience. It appears
worthwhile session. potential audience. be a worthwhile session. to be a very
It may not be a session. worthwhile session.
worthwhile session.
2. Purpose, The length and The proposal may The length, content The length and The length, content,
participant content are be appropriate for and delivery content are and delivery
outcomes, and inappropriate for the session type. methods are appropriate for the methods match the
session type the session type, The length and generally session type and session type. The
and the delivery content are appropriate for the delivery methods. objectives and
methods and/or inappropriate for session type. The The objectives and participant
objectives are not the session type, objectives and participant outcomes are very
clearly stated or and the delivery participant outcomes are clear. clear.
implied. methods and outcomes are stated
participant or implied but may
outcomes are too lack sufficient focus.
general or broad.
3. Theory, practice, The proposal does The proposal The proposal refers The proposal refers The proposal refers
and/or research not mention theory, provides somewhat to clearly to the specifically to the
basis practice, or background relevant theory, relevant theory, relevant theory,
research, or it is references to practice, and/or practice, and/or practice, and/or
unclear how this theory, practice, research in an research in a research in a
session is connected and/or research, understandable way thorough and detailed and
to the field. but the references and relates it to the comprehensible comprehensible
are not specific or content. manner (i.e. current manner (i.e.,
recent, or the citations, current citations,
proposal does not terminology, and/or terminology, and/or
relate the theory, debates in the field) debates in the field),
practice, and/or and relates it and relates it
research to the directly to the directly to the
content. content. presentation
content.
4. Support for The proposal does The proposal states The proposal gives The proposal The proposal
practices, not indicate how it or implies some indication as provides details provides ample
conclusions, and/or will support its references to to how practices, indicating that the details indicating
recommendations claims. support, but it is not conclusions, or practices, that the practices,
clear whether recommendations conclusions, or conclusions, or
sufficient support will be recommendations recommendations
will be provided for substantiated. will be will be clearly
practices, substantiated. substantiated.
conclusions, or
recommendations.
5. Clarity of The writing suggests The writing suggests The proposal is The proposal is The proposal is very
proposal as that the that the adequately written clearly written and well written and
indicator of presentation may presentation may but suggests that suggests that the suggests that the
presentation be poor. be weak. the presentation presentation will be presentation will be
quality may be uneven or of very good quality. of professional
of moderate quality. quality.