Call for Proposals

The Call for Proposals is now closed.

Please carefully read the information below about Proposal Guidelines, Presentation Types,
Conference Tracks, and the Proposal Review Rubric.

Proposal Guidelines

Please note these two very important guidelines when creating and submitting your proposal:

  • No person may be listed as a presenter on more than three (3) presentation proposals. If an individual is listed as a presenter on more than three proposals, only the first three proposals submitted will be reviewed. Additional proposals will be declined without review.
  • Proposal abstracts are limited to 500 words in length, including any references. In case an abstract is longer than 500 words, only the first 500 words will be reviewed.

Presentation Types

Proposals to present at OpenEd18 must be categorized as one of the following types of presentation:

  • Lightning Talk (5 minutes) – this is a very short version of a traditional conference presentation
  • Poster / Demo Session (50 minutes) – presenters stand near posters that describe their work and answer attendee questions as attendees stroll the gallery
  • Roundtable (25 minutes) – these intimate conversations include 8 – 10 people seated around a table
  • Traditional Presentation (25 minutes) – this is a traditional conference presentation
  • Symposium (50 minutes) – up to three people present related papers, followed by commentary from a separate discussant
  • Panel Presentation (50 minutes) – up to three people make brief opening remarks and then answer audience questions, facilitated by a separate moderator

Conference Tracks

Proposals to present at the conference should directly address one of the following topics. If your presentation fits under multiple tracks, please select the track you believe best matches your proposal.

  • INTERSECTIONS: OER and Accessibility
  • INTERSECTIONS: Open Education and Assessment
  • INTERSECTIONS: Open Education and Learning Analytics
  • INTERSECTIONS: Synergies Between Open Education, Open Data, Open Access, and Open Source
  • MODELS: Models Supporting the Adoption, Use, or Sustaining of OER in Adult Basic Education
  • MODELS: Models Supporting the Adoption, Use, or Sustaining of OER in Developing Countries
  • MODELS: Models Supporting the Adoption, Use, or Sustaining of OER in Higher Education
  • MODELS: Models Supporting the Adoption, Use, or Sustaining of OER in K-12 Education
  • OPEN: Critiques of OER and Open Education
  • OPEN: The Ethics of Open Education
  • OPEN: The Meaning of Open
  • OPEN: Open in the Disciplines
  • OPEN: Open Pedagogy and Open Educational Practices
  • OPEN: What’s Next for OER and Open Education
  • RESEARCH: Research on the Impact of OER
  • ROLES: The Role of Faculty in Advocating for, Supporting, or Sustaining OER Adoption and Use
  • ROLES: The Role of Instructional Designers in Advocating for, Supporting, or Sustaining OER Adoption and Use
  • ROLES: The Role of Librarians in Advocating for, Supporting, or Sustaining OER Adoption and Use
  • ROLES: The Role of Students in Advocating for, Supporting, or Sustaining OER Adoption and Use
  • SOCIAL: Increasing Hope through Open Education
  • SOCIAL: Intersectionality and Open Pedagogy
  • SOCIAL: Open Education and Social Justice
  • SOCIAL: The Politics of Open Education
  • STRATEGIES: Collaborations in Support of Open Education
  • STRATEGIES: Promoting and Evaluating Institutional and Governmental Open Policies
  • STRATEGIES: Tools and Technologies Supporting Open Education
  • SUSTAINABILITY: Business Models for Open Education
  • SUSTAINABILITY: The Economics of Open Education
  • UNANTICIPATED: Other Topics

Proposal Review Rubric

Proposal reviewers will use the following questions to guide their ratings of proposals. These questions were adapted from the OER18 Criteria for Review (CC BY).

1. Is it relevant to open education? Is it closely related to the specific conference track it was submitted under?

We adopt a broad interpretation of ‘education’ that includes formal and informal learning settings in schools, colleges, universities, the workplace, homes and communities, and that occurs at any stage in learners’ lives, including continuing and adult education.

2. Will it be useful to conference participants?

While the majority of attendees will be from the higher education sector, the conference is also attended by people from K-12, corporate, and other sectors.

3. Does it make a contribution to scholarship and research relating to open education?

Does the proposal include novel findings, models, methodological approaches, or other information that will be beneficial to the field?

4. Does it include appropriate reflection and evaluation?

Is the proposal merely anecdotal or descriptive? Is there sufficient reflection, evaluation, or linking to theory and research?

5. Is it clear and coherent?

Has the author clearly stated their purpose or research question?
Is the abstract well written, with reasonably correct grammar and punctuation?

6. Does it conform to the guidelines?

Is it too long (i.e. over the 500 word limit, including references?)

7. Does it avoid being overly commercial?

Some proposals may have a strong focus on a specific product or service that is being promoted by a commercial company on its own or in partnership with an educational institution. Is the proposal sufficiently focused on the conference themes and useful for participants that it is more than a ‘sales pitch’?

8. What is your overall recommendation?

Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this proposal.
Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this proposal.
Borderline: Overall, I would not argue for accepting this proposal.
Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this proposal.
Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this proposal.