|
|
|
SREE encourages diversity in its membership and in Society activities. The 2025 Program Committee encourages submissions across the conference program that include the presence and perspectives of individuals from diverse backgrounds. |
Paper Types and Review Criteria
SREE will accept proposals for three types of studies: impact evaluations and/or cause-and-effect; research methods; and strategies and approaches for using evidence from cause-and-effect studies. This last category is aimed at encouraging the development of practices that connect rigorous research with on-the-ground practice in education settings. The review criteria for these three proposal types differ as noted below.
Studies that use descriptive methods, including qualitative approaches, may be included if the proposal addresses how the study or method informs the design, implementation, or interpretation of results from an impact evaluation or cause-and-effect study. These proposals may be identified as “Impact Evaluations and/or Cause-and-Effect” studies.
Review Criteria (Empirical) for Impact Evaluations and/or Cause-and-Effect Studies
Theoretical Criterion
To what extent does the study build upon and extend our understanding of key phenomena?
Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the study address an important problem of policy or practice in education?
To what extent does the study have the potential to inform critical decisions about educational policy or practice (e.g., quantifying and interpreting effect sizes, comparing realistic alternatives)?
Methodological Criteria
To what extent does the study employ elements of research design that attempt to eliminate potential sources of bias that may interfere with valid cause and effect conclusions?
For a study that is descriptive or qualitative, to what extent does the proposal address how study findings complement, inform, or help interpret knowledge gained from a causal impact evaluation?
Does the study include valid and reliable measures of key variables and outcomes?
Is the study sample adequately representative of the population of interest?
Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly address the conference theme by contributing research that helps navigate the future of education research, as appropriate?
Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
How does this paper, poster, or session -- and where relevant, the research that underpins it -- meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives, foster participation of voices that are impacted by the issue(s) of study, and contribute to achieving more equitable outcomes in education? Please use this space to elaborate on any theoretical, methodological, procedural, participatory, and/or collaborative dimensions of the session (and where relevant, the research that underpins it) you deem as relevant for achieving more equitable outcomes in education and/or solving pressing challenges in education.
Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Integrated Symposia only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and include an independent discussant who will comment on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications.
Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Moderated Discussions Only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices.
Review Criteria for Studies of Research Methods
Theoretical Criteria
To what extent does the study improve our ability to identify and/or report cause and effect relationships in education?
For a method that is descriptive or qualitative, to what extent does the proposed method directly complement, inform, or help interpret knowledge gained from a causal impact evaluation?
Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the study identify a problem with important implications for producing and/or reporting evidence of effectiveness in education?
To what extent does the study present a solution to a problem that will advance the capacity to design, conduct, and/or report research?
Methodological Criteria
To what extent does the study provide evidence of the utility and adequacy of the methods employed or proposed?
If the study uses real or simulated data, does the analysis provide compelling evidence that the proposed methods are an improvement over existing methods?
Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly address the conference theme by contributing research that helps navigate the future of education research, as appropriate?
Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
How does this paper, poster, or session -- and where relevant, the research that underpins it -- meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives, foster participation of voices that are impacted by the issue(s) of study, and contribute to achieving more equitable outcomes in education? Please use this space to elaborate on any theoretical, methodological, procedural, participatory, and/or collaborative dimensions of the session (and where relevant, the research that underpins it) you deem as relevant for achieving more equitable outcomes in education and/or solving pressing challenges in education.
Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Integrated Symposia only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and include an independent discussant who will comment on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications.
Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Moderated Discussions Only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices.
Review Criteria (Applications/Practice) for Proposals of Strategies and Approaches for Using Evidence from Cause-and-Effect Studies
Theoretical Criterion
To what extent does the study extend our understanding of key phenomena related to using evidence from cause-and-effect studies in education?
Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the proposal address an important problem of policy or practice in education?
To what extent does the proposal have the potential to inform critical decisions about educational policy or practice (e.g., quantifying and interpreting effect sizes, comparing realistic alternatives)?
Methodological Criterion
To what extent is the strategy or approach anchored in an evidence-base with internal and external validities?
Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly address the conference theme by contributing research that helps navigate the future of education research, as appropriate?
Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
How does this paper, poster, or session -- and where relevant, the research that underpins it -- meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives, foster participation of voices that are impacted by the issue(s) of study, and contribute to achieving more equitable outcomes in education? Please use this space to elaborate on any theoretical, methodological, procedural, participatory, and/or collaborative dimensions of the session (and where relevant, the research that underpins it) you deem as relevant for achieving more equitable outcomes in education and/or solving pressing challenges in education.
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and include an independent discussant who will comment on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications.
Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Moderated Discussions Only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices.
Individual Papers and Posters
Proposals for individual papers and posters should be submitted as a structured abstract, as outlined in the following paragraph. The abstract is limited to 1000 words, excluding references, tables, and figures.
We recommend that abstracts be organized using the following headings*:
- Background/Context: Description of prior research on the subject and/or its intellectual context and/or its policy context.
- Purpose/Objective/Research Question: Description of the focus of the research, including hypotheses.
- Setting: Specific description of where the research took place.
- Population/Participants/Subjects: Who, how many, key features or characteristics.
- Intervention/Program/Practice: Specific description of the intervention, including key components of how it was implemented or administered, and its duration.
- Research Design: Specific description of the research design, including strategies for eliminating sources of bias.
- For a descriptive and qualitative study, provide a description of the method, including how the study design complemented, informed, or helped interpret results from an evaluation or cause-and-effect study.
- Data Collection and Analysis: Description of methods used in collecting and analyzing data.
- Findings/Results: Description of main findings with specific details.
- Conclusions: Description of conclusions, limitations, and recommendations of authors.
NOTE: In the submission, authors will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing the ways in which the methods and/or content embed equity principles and practices.
*Abstracts for proposals that are not studies of cause-and-effect do not necessarily need to include all recommended headings.
In-the-Pipeline Posters
Proposals for the in-the-pipeline poster session should be submitted as a structured abstract, as outlined in the following paragraph. The abstract is limited to 1000 words, excluding references, tables, and figures.
We recommend that abstracts be organized using the following headings*:
- Background/Context: Description of prior research on the subject and/or its intellectual context and/or its policy context.
- Purpose/Objective/Research Question: Description of the focus of the research, including hypotheses.
- Setting: Specific description of where the research is taking place.
- Population/Participants/Subjects: Who, how many, key features or characteristics.
- Intervention/Program/Practice: Specific description of the intervention, including key components of how it is or will be implemented or administered.
- Research Design: Specific description of the research design, including strategies for eliminating sources of bias.
- For a descriptive and qualitative study, provide a description of the method, including how the study design complemented, informed, or helped interpret results from an evaluation or cause-and-effect study.
- Data Collection and Analysis: Description of methods that will be used in collecting and analyzing data.
- (Optional) Preliminary findings: Description of preliminary findings.
NOTE: In the submission, authors will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing the ways in which the methods and/or content embed equity principles and practices.
*Abstracts for proposals that are not studies of cause-and-effect do not necessarily need to include all recommended headings.
Symposia, Integrated Symposia, and Moderated Discussions
Each element of a symposium, integrated symposium, or moderated discussion submission will be subject to the same limit of 1000 words per abstract. In each case, the space limit does not include references, tables, or figures. For example, a symposium or integrated symposium with 3 papers would have a word limit of 3500 (1000 x 3 plus 500). A moderated discussion with a moderator and 3 panelists would have a word limit of 3500 (1000 x 3 plus 500), but a non-standard discussion might not have individual elements and simply require a moderated discussion justification (session description). In each case, the space limit does not include references, tables, or figures. For each session type (symposium, integrated symposium, moderated discussion), submitters will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing how the session -- and where relevant, the research that underpins it -- meaningfully engage(s) with multiple perspectives, foster participation of voices that are impacted by the issue(s) of study, and contribute to achieving more equitable outcomes in education.
*Note: The headings above were derived from Mosteller, Nave & Miech (2004), Why We Need A Structured Abstract in Education Research. Educational Researcher 30(1), 29-34.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ727552.pdf
Conference Program Limit
An individual may be a presenting author (in a symposium, integrated symposium, paper session, general poster session, or in-the-pipeline poster session) or moderated discussion participant (moderator or panelist) no more than twice in the conference program. This restriction does not include serving as a symposium organizer, integrated symposium organizer, symposium discussant, integrated symposium discussant, moderated discussion organizer, paper session chair, or workshop instructor. The presenting author must be identified in the abstract submission process for each paper or poster and will be designated in the conference program.