Now that you have completed your study, you will want to present your results at AECT’s annual meeting . This chapter will describe a process we have found useful for preparing our proposals. In the following pages, we will describe how to prepare both research and non-research oriented paper proposals.
Most of us have experience in writing term papers, research papers, articles, and/or a dissertation or thesis. But, as we may later learn, it is a different matter to try to condense our research findings or ideas into a short abstract of a few pages. Yet, it is solely on the basis of such an abstract that the acceptability of our work will be judged for presentation at AECT's annual conference. In this paper, we would like to offer some suggestions for readers who may be writing their first proposal as well as for those who have submitted proposals in the past. Hopefully, these suggestions will help you obtain a higher rating and acceptance of your proposal.
AECT's convention offers its members a choice of different session formats. Sessions can vary each year, but typical lengths are 30 60, 75, or 90 minutes and may include two or more similar papers or two or more presenters. Roundtables sessions are 30-minute paper sessions devoted to a single paper. Roundtables are appropriate for small group discussions of topic of importance and interest to AECT members. A third session type is fee workshops which are a half or full day in length that focus on professional development opportunities or a special event. Recently, a fourth type of session was added. These sessions are the Feature Research papers that are data based research studies selected after a rigorous review by reviewers from the ETR&D consulting editors. Presenters must submit a full paper to a discussant well in advance of the conference. Two papers are bundled into a 60 or75 minute session with the time split between the two paper presentations and comments from the discussant.
We will divide our discussion according to two types of abstracts. The first type will be the reporting of research results and the second will be non-research abstracts such as an analytical paper, literature review, or report on a project. (We chose the term non-research to represent the several categories of proposals that do not report original data.) We will focus on how to write the 750 to 1000 word abstract which can be submitted for most AECT session types.
Regardless of the proposal type, the key idea is to determine what information to include in the proposal and how to present it to gain the interest of the reviewers and convince them that your project is worthy of acceptance. First, you should read the proposal guidelines carefully and follow them exactly. Adhere to the specifications involving length and format (spacing, margins, and headings). When in doubt about the format, follow APA guidelines (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th. Ed). If you are submitting your proposal online, which has become the favored or exclusive mode for most professional conferences, then you will likely have little if any control over the formatting. We suggest writing the abstract with a word processor and use white space to create distinct headings. The final draft is then pasted into the field on a web page for submission.
Make sure you enter the information correctly into the proper fields for an electronic submission. Failure to do these simple things will start the review with an immediate negative impression. Reviewers might think, “If this individual was sloppy in preparing a proposal, how careful was he/she in doing the original project (and how much time will he/she spend in preparing the presentation)?” Second, you must consider who will review your proposal. Most papers are reviewed by individuals (usually about three) who are knowledgeable about instructional technology, but may not necessarily be an expert in your specific topic. So, place yourself in their position and think of what is needed to make your proposal interesting and understandable. Be sure to provide adequate background information and explanations. You can enhance your chances for acceptance by selecting a timely and relevant topic. With this general plan in mind, let's now take a closer look at each type of proposal.
A proposal reporting the results of your research should follow a format similar to a paper you would submit to a journal such as ETR&D. Note that although qualitative and quantitative studies differ in orientation (e.g., inductive vs. deductive approaches), methods, and data analysis, the structure of the proposals for each are basically the same. Regardless of the research approach, you will want to include an introduction, description of methods, results, and a discussion (implications, summary, recommendations, etc.). We will discuss each of these separately in the following paragraphs.
Introduction. The first sentence of the proposal should be a precise statement concerning the nature of the problem written in terms your reviewer will understand. For example, while preparing a proposal for a research study we have conducted on text density, we realized that the term text density would not describe the nature of our research, which was a concern, with the computer screen design of computer-based instruction. Thus, our introductory sentence focused on the problem of designing computer-based instruction. The sentence read, “A critical process in developing lessons for computer-based instruction is to determine the manner in which information will be displayed on the screen.” This sentence focused the reviewers' attention on two thoughts, designing computer-based instruction and how information is displayed on a computer screen. The remainder of the paragraph briefly summarized the related literature, defined key variables (e.g., “text density”), explained the experimental conditions, and identified the specific research questions addressed by the study. Again, you need to be precise when presenting the key points of the study by focusing on what the reviewer needs to know.
Although qualitative research is more exploratory and open than quantitative (especially experimental) studies, you should still clearly convey in your introduction a goal and a purpose. For example, “This study used ethnographic methods to explore children’s use of computer technology during projects. A major goal was to determine to what degree teachers explicitly integrated technology use with the lesson design.”
Methods and Data Sources. This paragraph is for summarizing your research methods and the materials used in your data collection. First, begin with a sentence describing the participants–how many and who they were. Second, describe your experimental design, independent variables (treatment) and dependent (outcome) variables, and your method of assigning individuals to the various treatments. Third, describe the materials and briefly discuss any special techniques you used. Fourth, describe the sequence of steps involved in an experimental session and specify the types of data collected. Here is an example from one of our proposals:
At the beginning of each lesson, the learner-control group selected between high- and low-density text, while other groups received standard materials. At lesson completion, subjects were administered an attitude survey and an achievement posttest, followed three weeks later by a delayed retention test.
This section was actually about three pages in the full paper, but was reduced to two sentences in the proposal to explain the primary events. Since the length is limited in conference proposals, you must carefully summarize your methods and data sources in terms that will adequately convey your study. While the qualitative study will not include treatment assignments or independent/dependent variables, it is essential to provide a clear description of the study context, participants, researcher roles, and data collection tools.
Results. The results section is a summary of findings that are important to your study and/or which can contribute to the literature. Typically, this section should be rather brief and to the point, indicating what the analyses revealed in relation to your hypotheses or research questions (or in the case of qualitative research, “foreshadowed problems” or study framework). After reading the results, the reviewers should be anticipating your interpretation of those results in the next section.
Discussion and Implications. Rather than merely summarizing your proposal, we would suggest that you title the last section “Educational Implications” or “Discussion”. In our proposals, we have used this section to interpret or explain the results of the study and to compare them to those of prior studies. Then, we discuss the educational (or practical) implications of the research by exploring ways an instructional technologist (or teacher) can apply the results to an actual project (or lesson). Finally, we end the proposal with suggestions for future research to indicate how the present study might spur additional investigations on related variables.
Non-research proposals can take many different forms, including a literature review, analytical paper, description of new methods, or a progress report for a project. Superficially, writing such proposals may appear to be a rather simple task compared to a research proposal. We have found, however, that the opposite is often the case, as there does not appear to be a generally accepted format for the non-research proposal. In reviewing proposals of this nature, we have identified three parts that seem to be fundamental. Let's analyze the content of each of these sections.
Introduction. The first paragraph of the proposal should introduce the topic and state both its relevance and importance to your audience. You can then support your introductory statements with related literature and additional background information on the project. Again, you will need to consider the reviewers' perspective and infer what they need to know about the topic.
Key Arguments, Findings, or Products. The next section is used to summarize the key points of the project, topic, or method. Explain the components, steps, tasks, etc. and elaborate on any unique features. For example, a proposal dealing with the status of a project might take a historical perspective that reviews the milestones, while a proposal concerning a new methodology would clearly explain the steps of the process. For a literature review or position paper, use this section to communicate the perspectives that your analysis supports and how thinking about the topic might be changed as a result.
Discussion and Implications. As with the research proposal, we would encourage you to use this final section to review the main conclusions or products of your project and discuss their implications for theory or practice. For example, for a case study in which a new training strategy is reported, you could describe how another organization could implement or improve upon what you have done. When proposing a literature review, interpret the meaning of the findings for practice and the design of future studies. Providing clear examples of how your ideas can be used by others in the field is likely to have high appeal to the reviewers and program planners.
We would like to encourage each of you to consider submitting a carefully constructed proposal to AECT for the next conference. Begin by thinking through your ideas (it's never too early; we start discussing next year's proposals at this year's conference). Next, outline your proposal using the major sections and guidelines we have suggested. Third, write your first draft. Do not count words as you go, and do not worry about exceeding the length limit at this point. It is much easier to produce a quality proposal by trimming a long draft than by padding a short one. Just as this chapter took us several drafts, the remainder of the process will revolve around reviewing, revising, and polishing. When it reads the way you want it to (or you have had enough), show it to someone else to obtain some “outside” feedback before sending it out. If you have followed these steps, you can probably feel good about your work and confident about its chances. But also recognize that an acceptance is never guaranteed. There are many variables beyond your control, such as the number of open slots for presenting, biases of the particular reviewers, and the fit of your proposal with the emphasized trends or types of different sessions. So, should your proposal be rejected, don't despair. The point remains that if it is carefully planned and well written, the chances of that happening should be reduced.