Guidelines for abstract submission
Abstracts should be a short document that is intended to capture the interest of a potential reader of your paper/participant of your session. It should engage the reader by telling what your presentation, workshop, or contribution is about. For that purpose it is important to pay attention to the context of your proposal (how does your work relate to the work of others?), whether it is a piece of research, or a presentation of best practice, or a discussion about a conceptual work. With regard to the body of the abstract you should make clear what the scope of the innovation is (course level, institution, across institutions, corporate training center, company). Make a clear statement about the topic of your proposal. The abstract should discuss in brief the key issues of your presentation, target audience, and should also give a concise overview of your major findings or experiences.
Proposal Format
The EDiNEB Network accepts two types of proposals: 1) proposals which involve research presentations as single paper, workshop or symposium, and 2) proposals for single presentation, workshop or symposium that address reports on practice, reflections on educational development, demos or descriptions of good practice.
The on-line submission systems will prompt you to enter information about title of the proposal etc.
Proposal Quality
To ensure the overall quality of presentations it is imperative that all proposals pay explicit attention to the following.
- Objectives or purposes of the proposal
- Perspectives on practice or theoretical framework
- Methods or Modes of Inquiry, or Evaluation of Practice
- Data sources or evidence of trends and issues identified
- Results, Conclusions or Point of View
- Implications for Research, Theory, or Innovation of Practice
- References
Use separate headings in the proposal to pay attention to the issues mentioned above.
Proposal Review
Abstracts should not exceed a maximum of 1000 words. Abstracts will be reviewed (double-blind review by two independent reviewers) on the following criteria:
- Clarity of Abstract: Clear - Unclear
- Theoretical / Practical Significance: High - Low
- Originality: Original Ideas - Lacks Originality
- Scope of Innovation: Program-Wide - Single Course
- Quality of the Report on practice / Quality of Conceptual Framework: Excellent - Poor
- Mode of Research Inquiry / Appropriateness: Excellent - Poor