DOWNLOAD as DOC or PDF

PRESENTATION TYPES
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA
STRANDS

PRESENTATION TYPES

1. Oral Presentation
2. Interactive Poster Presentation
3. Round Table Discussion
4. Multi-paper sets
5. Symposium
6. Panel Discussion
7. Workshop

EACH PARTICIPANT OF ESERA 2009 CONFERENCE CAN APPEAR ON THE PROGRAM AT MOST 5 TIMES INCLUDING CHAIRING A SESSION. PARTICIPANTS CAN BE THE FIRST AUTHOR OF AN ORAL PRESENTATION ONLY ONCE. ADDITIONALLY, ONE CAN BE THE FIRST AUTHOR OF AN INTERACTIVE POSTER PRESENTATION TWICE.

1. Oral presentations will be made in a room with more than 35 seats. Each oral presentation session will be chaired by an experienced colleague who is knowledgeable about the session topics and the papers to be presented. There will be computer-projection equipments ready in each room. So, please prepare a computer slide show and bring your files with you before the session starts and hand in to the support staff and/or session chair ready in your room. Each 20 minute oral presentation will be followed by a 10 minute discussion moderated by the session chair.

2. Interactive poster presentations will be made in large halls and will also be moderated by experienced researchers. The size of the poster boards is 90 cm (width) x 100 cm (height). Each poster should not exceed that size. You might like to visit one of the following websites for ideas on putting your poster together effectively:

How to prepare a poster
Creating an Effective Conference Presentation

An interactive poster session is a dynamic forum among presenters, a moderator, and the audience, intended to encourage discussion and sharing of multiple perspectives. Each interactive poster session highlights approximately eight posters with a common theme. Each presenter is given maximum 5 minutes to present his/her work and that is followed by questions from the audience.

3. Round table discussions will take place among smaller groups of 10-15. Oral presentations will be made and the discussions will be moderated by a chair person. Presenters should bring paper hand outs to facilitate discussions with participants.

4. Multi-paper sets will be organized by a lead person and will contain 4-5 presentations under a common topic of interest to the group. The set will be submitted by the lead person however, each paper in the set has to meet the oral presentations criteria and needs to follow the same praperation guidelines. The lead person will also designate a discussant for their session.

5. Each Symposium will be organized by a lead person and will contain 4-5 presentations under a common topic of interest to the group. However, the presenters in each group must be at least from 2 different countries.

A symposium proposal should not be submitted as a collection of individual papers but rather as an amalgamation of them. Therefore the proposer (the lead person) is in charge of bringing together and integrating the contributing papers into a single proposal file by clearly indicating each paper and its authors (together with affiliations). Crucially important is to be able to sufficiently present, in a separate section of the proposal, how these individual papers contribute to an understanding of different perspectives of the topic in hand and relate to each other. There is a limit of maximum 8 pages (including all references) for a symposium proposal. The lead person will also indicate a discussant for their session.

6. Panel discussions will be organized so that 4-5 eminent researchers can discuss a problem from different perspectives and perhaps reach a resolution during the discussion under a moderator.

7. Workshops are useful in that a topic (thematic, methodological, or otherwise) can be handled in a thorough way and preferably with the participants’ hands-on involvement. Workshop organizers should demonstrate sufficient expertise in the topic they are proposing.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Each proposal should include the following:

a) Name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, and postal address.
b) Type of presentation preferred
c) A maximum of 200 words abstract
d) Synopsis, including references, maximum about 1500 words. This corresponds to an absolute maximum of 3 pages (including figures and tables).
(Typing: Times New Roman 12 points, all margins 2.5 cm, DIN A4, single spacing)

The synopsis should include the following:

Empirical papers:

1) Background, Framework, and Purpose
2) Rationale
3) Methods
4) Results
5) Conclusions and Implications
6) Bibliography

Theoretical papers should include definition of the problem, its place in the literature, outline of argument put forth and conclusions

The proposals will be submitted electronically.

PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER JANUARY 16TH 2009 WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CONFERENCE.

For all presentation types a formal written paper needs to be prepared and made ready for inclusion in the conference proceedings. The Electronic ESERA 2009 Conference Proceedings will be available after the conference.

PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA:

1. Invoking Scientific interest: Does the study make an original contribution to issues that are likely to be of interest to participants and the broader audience in the research field?

2. Purpose of the study and problem being addressed: Are there clearly stated research questions? Is the rationale for the study described explicitly? Is the theoretical framework elaborated clearly?

3. Research design and methodology: Is the design employed appropriate for the study and the research questions? Is there a clear description of an appropriate methodology?

4. Data analysis and research findings: Are the results clearly presented? Does the data analysis provide convincing support for the findings?;

5. Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the outcomes: Are the conclusions valid? Are there clearly argued implications for further research, teaching practice or educational policy?

6. Organization, structure and language of the submission: Is the proposal well organized and clearly communicated? Is the bibliography appropriate and relevant?

•		The standards, in terms of quality, will be the same for all presentation types.
•		The following criteria will be applied: For all presentation types the work to be presented should be original and unpublished elsewhere before; be complete and written by utilizing data that are already gathered.
•		However, preliminary reports may be presented as a poster or in a round table discussion. These studies may be still under development and hence findings may be tentative.

Each proposal will go through a double blind review process. The reviewers will rate the proposals according to the six criteria listed above by using a five scale grading scheme as follows:

1: Poor, 2: Inadequate, 3: Adequate, 4: Good, 5: Excellent, NA (not applicable)

Reviewers will also provide feedback for each criterion receiving a rating less than five by clearly stating what the proposals are lacking and how it might be improved.

STRANDS
1. Learning Science
Theories, strategies, and models of learning; meaningful learning, conceptual development, conceptual change, developing understandings, developing skills. Cognitive, affective, and social factors in learning science.

2. Teaching Science
Instructional methods, perspectives and innovations, laboratory-based practices, use of ICT in science education, and use of drama in science education

3. The Nature of Scientific Content
Structure and essence of scientific content, how scientific content differs from other contents; visualization, metaphors, models, modelling, analogies, simulations, and animations in science and their use in science education

4. History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science
Historical, philosophical and social issues of science, nature of science, and epistemology of science as they are related to science education

5. Discourse and Argumentation in Science Education
Understanding, supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, discourse analysis, the talk of science classrooms, and meaning making in science classrooms

6. Scientific Literacy
Teaching about scientific literacy, decision-making about socio-scientific issues, and public engagement of science

7. Informal-Outdoor Science Education
Developing and evaluating the impact of programs and experiences outside the classroom by institutions and organizations other than schools (i.e. museums, science and technology centers, zoos and botanical gardens, scientific research laboratories, and outreach centers) and learning experiences through mass media (in print, film, broadcast, electronic, etc.)

8. Environmental Education
Ecological education, experiential education, education for sustainable development, indigenous science, and attitudes and interests towards environmental issues

9. Science Curriculum and Evaluation
Curriculum development, reform, implementation, dissemination and evaluation, and international comparison studies such as TIMSS, PISA, ROSE; evaluation of schools and institutions

10. Assessment of Student Learning and Development
Development, validation and use of standardized test, achievement tests, high stakes tests, and instruments for measuring attitudes, interests, beliefs, self-efficacy, science process skills, conceptual understandings, etc; authentic assessment, formative assessment, summative assessment; approaches to assessment.

11. Educational Policy
Policy and Practice issues: local, regional, national, or international issues of policy related to science education

12. Cultural, Social, and Gender Issues
Equity and diversity issues: Sociocultural, multicultural, bilingual, racial/ethnic, gender equity studies and science education for the special needs

13. Pre-service Science Teacher Education
Pre-service professional development of teachers, pre-service teacher education programs and policy, field experience, and issues related to pre-service teacher education reform

14. Professional Development
In-service science teacher education, teachers as lifelong learners; methods, innovation and reform in professional development; evaluation of professional development practices, reflective practice, teachers as researchers, and action research