2022 Proposal Review Criteria EN
Proposal Review Criteria
For Research Reports and Brief Research Reports, the following categories are scored on a 1–5 scale:
- Choice of Problem or Theoretical Foci
- Is it clear what issue the proposal addresses? Is the issue the proposal addresses an important one? Does the research build on and move an area of mathematics education forward?
- Theoretical Framework
- Is the study or argument framed by theory? Does the study or argument employ a theoretical framework? Does the theoretical framework contribute to a deeper understanding of the question the study addresses?
- Mode of inquiry (empirical proposals only)
- Is the methodology clearly explained? Does the study employ a methodology appropriate for the question it investigates? Does the methodology contribute to answering the question(s) posed by the study?
- Rigor of Analysis or Argument
- For an empirical proposal please consider the following questions: Does the proposal present data and analyses thereof? Does it do so in a way that is rigorous? Are the analyses supported by the data and methodology?
- For a theoretical proposal please consider the following questions: Does the proposal offer a penetrating analysis of the issues? Does the proposal make a careful and clear argument for its theoretical contributions?
- Interpretation or Implications
- For an empirical proposal please consider the following questions: Are the claims, conclusions, or suggestions made based in the study’s data? Are the implications of the work made explicit? Does the work contribute to a better understanding of the issue(s) addressed?
- For a theoretical proposal please consider the following questions: Does the proposal extend our understanding of the issues? Does the proposal sharpen our understanding of distinctions that had not been made before or that were made weakly? Does the work have implications for practice at any level of mathematics (e.g., classroom teaching, research, policy)?
- Addressing the Theme
- Does the proposal make meaningful connections to the conference theme? Are the connections to the theme apparent throughout the proposal?
- Quality of Writing
- Does the proposal conform to the formatting style for the conference? Does the proposal display high quality writing? Does the proposal communicate ideas effectively?
Reviewers will also have opportunities to provide written comments to the authors and to the strand leaders, who will compile the reviews and forward recommendations to the Local Organizing Committee.
For Posters, the following categories are scored on a 1–5 scale:
- Choice of Problem or Question
- Is it clear what issue the proposal addresses? Is the issue the proposal addresses an important one? Is the issue of interest to members of PME-NA?
- Response to Issue
- Does the proposal present a response to the issue it raises? Does the approach taken to responding to this issue seem sound? Would a poster describing the work be likely to benefit those who would see it?
- Note: Since Poster proposals are only 1-page in length, questions about a study’s theoretical framework, mode of inquiry, rigor of analysis and interpretation are collapsed into this category about the response to the issue communicated in the single page proposal.
- Quality of Writing
- Does the proposal conform to the formatting style for the conference? Does the proposal display high quality writing? Does the proposal communicate ideas effectively?
For Working Groups, the Local Organizing Committee will review all proposals collectively to determine a set that they feel will best serve the PME-NA community (e.g., address a diverse range of topics, avoid similar working groups that will directly compete for participation). The paper and abstract for a Working Group might address the following:
(a) a brief history of the Working Group (number of times you have met before, what has been
accomplished) or if this is a new working group, the history of the topic and rationale for starting a new working group;
(b) the issues in the psychology of mathematics education that will be the focus of the work;
(c) the plan for active engagement of participants in productive reflection on the issues;
(d) anticipated follow-up activities; and
(e) for groups that have met previously, the way(s) in which this paper builds on and extends previous work of the group. A maximum 100-word description will be needed for the conference program.