Information for Reviewers

With the call for proposals extended, reviews will take place between November 8 to 21.

Reviewer Process

All reviewers will be emailed information on how to review proposals in our peer review system. In the email, reviewers will be asked to navigate to PEAR (Peer Evaluation, Assessment and Review) software. PEAR is the University of Guelph’s institutional peer review software. The email will provide all reviewers with further information regarding logging into the system and reviewing your assigned proposals.

Updated Timeline: Reviewers should expect the email to arrive on November 8th – please contact the organizing committee (or check your junk mail) if you have not received the information by November 9th. All reviews will need to be completed by November 21st.

Reviewer Instructions (for reviewers external to University of Guelph)

Reviewer Instructions – University of Guelph Community Members (for reviewers with a uoguelph.ca email address)

Review Criteria

Reviewers will rate each proposal in five categories (each worth five points):

  1. (re)Thinking Tradition. Does it uphold or challenge an Educational Development tradition?
  2. Learning Outcomes. Are the presentation’s outcomes clearly stated? Are the Learning Outcomes valuable? Are the Learning Outcomes valuable? Does it appear that all Learning Outcomes can be achieved in the time allotted?
  3. Engagement. Does the proposal appear to be interactive and engaging?
  4. Meaningful content. Does the proposal provide meaningful information/research and make a contribution to our understanding of teaching/learning or leadership?
  5. Relevance. Is the proposal relevant for the audience? Is the proposal supported by relevant literature or experience?

We encourage reviewers to provide comments intended to help proponents improve their submissions. Please note that any text included in the comments section will be shared with proponents. Please use the following guidelines when writing suggestions and comments:

  • Be concrete and specific.  Focus on particular things the presenter could work on, and give examples whenever possible.
  • Comment on the proposal, not the person who wrote it.
  • Include suggestions for resources or references that may be of use to the proponents.
  • Be constructive. Let presenters know which aspects of their proposals are effective and/or ineffective in a supportive manner.

The peer review process for this conference is anonymous: proposals are forwarded to reviewers without identifying information in as much as that is possible.