We enthusiastically invite you to participate in the 38th Annual POD Conference to be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on November 6-10, 2013!
This year’s conference theme is Freedom to Connect -- Freedom to Risk -- Freedom to Learn. This theme invites us to explore the diverse landscape of higher education and the learning journey that includes questioning, experimentation, discovery and wisdom. We’re building on Michael Wesch’s 2012 POD Conference plenary, which urged us to venture out beyond our personal and professional comfort zones and marvel at new learning opportunities.
The mission of education is to empower others and promote meaningful connections among people and between people and their world. This year’s conference will examine multiple routes, methods, and networks that allow us to create rich and rewarding connections as learners and educators. How do we foster the cognitive connections that are the foundation of learning? What role do the interpersonal and affective play in generating new knowledge? How do we pave the way as educators to permit linkages across disciplines, programs and institutions?
The learning process does not come without risk
. This year’s theme reminds us that learning requires embracing the new and venturing into the unknown, perhaps dealing with vulnerability and uncertainty. Risk factors for success may be internal – we meet resistance in our own minds and hearts—or they may stem from lack of access or external support. We invite you to investigate the many roles that risk and vulnerability play in the higher education setting. What can we do to support ourselves, or others, through the learning curve? How do we nurture transformation and change in a risk-averse world? What are the scholarly practices and practical considerations for helping others embrace innovation, cope with change, and learn from failure or struggle?
is to explore, grow and create. "Freedom to learn" is the ability to make a positive difference, to progress beyond boundaries, and to persist despite challenges. How do we cultivate a culture in our minds, our classrooms and our campuses in which learning takes center stage? In a time of budget cuts, multiplying technologies, and diverse students, how can we sustain a commitment to learning excellence and access for all? What are the solid practices and scholarly approaches that help us document the difference we are making with students and colleagues, share the lessons we are learning as professionals, and expand the innovative practices on our campuses?
Pittsburgh is a fitting locale for this year’s conference because it is a place of reinvention and resilience. Known as "Steel City" in its heyday, then having experienced serious economic challenges, Pittsburgh is now a thriving metropolis with a base in manufacturing, energy, information technology, financial services and health care. With 33 colleges and universities, Pittsburgh is nicknamed "College City," a perfect alignment with our collective POD foci on teaching and learning. Famous folks and risk takers from Pittsburgh include artist Andy Warhol, steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, playwright August Wilson, choreographer and dancer Martha Graham, scientist Jonas Salk, and writer Gertrude Stein. Get excited about coming to Pittsburgh and learn more about what this vibrant city has to offer at: http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/!
We look forward to seeing you in Pittsburgh this year!
Please begin preparing your proposals now! We welcome proposals featuring best practices, new resources, innovative approaches, discussion of critical issues, presentation of research and work-in-progress. All proposals will be evaluated using a blind peer-review process (see below for the review rubric). Detailed information about the session types, topic areas, guidelines for submission, submission process, review rubric, and the Robert J. Menges Honored Presentation Award is listed below.
Because the POD website is undergoing some major changes that will be deployed this spring, we ask your patience with some uncertainty regarding dates for getting conference information up on the website and for opening our online proposal submission portal. We anticipate the online proposal portal opening in mid-February. The online proposal submission deadline will be in early March. Please watch for announcements over email, and feel free to email the conference team members, listed above, with questions.
Please read the information below carefully before submitting!
The POD Network in Higher Education welcomes proposals for a variety of session types, including:
- 3-hour interactive workshops
- 6-hour interactive workshops
- 75-minute interactive sessions
- 75-minute roundtable discussions
- 35-minute research presentations (session format new in 2012)
- Poster presentations
For all session types, proposals should describe work that is systematically designed, implemented, and assessed. Proposals should make clear how participants might to apply, extend, or adapt the ideas they learn. Specific information about the different session types follows.
Pre-conference workshops emphasize learning-by-doing and provide participants the opportunity to explore topics in depth through a combination of hands-on activities, reflection, and discussion. Proposals should include a detailed outline describing the types of learning activities and interaction you plan. Proposals should indicate the maximum number of participants and any special room set-up you might need. You may also request a nominal materials fee where justified (e.g., for the cost of a book actually used in the session); please include this information in the body of your proposal if relevant. Audio-visual equipment, including an LCD projector, external speakers, and flipchart, may be requested. Wireless internet access will be available throughout the conference space. Computer laboratories are not available and laptops cannot be provided for presenters.
The majority of pre-conference workshops are three hours in length. These shorter workshops will take place the morning of Thursday, November 7. Fewer six-hour sessions are offered and are reserved for proposals that provide a clear rationale for needing the longer session. Six-hour workshops will begin the afternoon of Wednesday, November 6 and conclude the morning of Thursday, November 7.
Pre-conference workshops are advertised in the conference registration materials. We will notify you of pre-registration numbers before the conference and request that you be prepared for and accommodate on-site registrants as well.
Please direct questions regarding pre-conference workshops to co-chairs Katie Kearns (email@example.com
) and Kathryn Cunningham (firstname.lastname@example.org
75-minute interactive sessions:
Interactive sessions combine brief presentations or panel discussions with methods that engage all participants, reflecting POD’s long-standing tradition of interactive, collegial sessions—not of lecturing or reading papers to passive audiences. Session leaders are encouraged to incorporate meaningful activities as appropriate, selecting from a variety of methods such as presentation, demonstration, discussion, application, feedback, group and individual work, and role playing. We encourage you to creatively model exemplary teaching! Audio-visual equipment, including an LCD projector, external speakers, and flipchart, may be requested. Wireless internet access will be available throughout the conference space.
Please direct questions regarding 75-minute interactive sessions to co-chairs Carolyn Oxenford (email@example.com
) and Bill Watson (firstname.lastname@example.org
75-minute roundtable discussions:
Roundtable discussions provide an opportunity for various kinds of interactions in a smaller group setting (10-15 people), such as discussion of a concept, approach, program, issue, case study, or reading. This format is ideal for getting to know people who may be facing similar issues to you, exploring new ideas, and sharing practices. It is contrary to the spirit of a roundtable discussion for the facilitator to make a formal presentation. No audio-visual equipment is available for roundtable discussions.
Please direct questions regarding 75-minute roundtable discussions to co-chairs Bruce Larson (email@example.com
) and David Sacks (firstname.lastname@example.org
35-minute research sessions:
Research sessions are a newer session format, introduced at POD 2012, in response to increasing interest in and demand for opportunities to disseminate relevant research results. Research sessions include a presentation and discussion of new or on-going educational, professional, or organizational development research. Session leaders present their original research (i.e., systematically designed, generalizable studies employing sound methodologies and data analysis practices) for the first 20-25 minutes, reserving 10-15 minutes for Q&A. Although research sessions are designed primarily to share and discuss findings, proposals should address how the session leaders will use active and engaging methods of presenting and explaining their work. As in all POD sessions, we encourage you to creatively model exemplary teaching! Audio-visual equipment, including an LCD projector, external speakers, and flipchart, may be requested. Wireless internet access will be available throughout the conference space.
Please direct questions regarding 35-minute research presentations to chair Julie Sievers (email@example.com
The poster session provides an ideal format for presenting your research, program, or work-in-progress in a context where you can engage in many one-on-one discussions with colleagues. Attractive posters using large, readable fonts and illustrative graphics will attract conference participants and invite conversation about your work.
Each poster presenter will have a 4x8 foot poster board, tacks, and a small presenter’s table. The poster board can easily accommodate large format posters or individual 8½”x11” sheets. The presenter’s table is ideal for displaying materials, handouts, business cards, etc. The poster session site has no multi-media support and no power outlets. Personal laptops may be used during the poster session, but we recommend bringing an additional battery, a back-up laptop, and/or paper handouts. Wireless internet access will be available throughout the conference space.
In contrast to the Poster Session, the Resource Fair provides an open venue for sharing materials and ideas from your work. The fair is open and non-reviewed. Information about the Resource Fair will be available when conference registration opens.
Please direct questions regarding poster presentations to co-chairs Chris Garrett (firstname.lastname@example.org
) and Danny (Danielle) Fontaine (email@example.com
Topic and Audience Designations
During proposal submission, proposers may assign one to three topics to their session. Topic selections are indicated below. Presenters can also add one topic of their own designation, if needed.
Adjunct Professional Development:
Practices, processes, theories, techniques, programs pertaining specifically to adjunct or part-time faculty development.
Budgeting, funding, management, planning, performance appraisal, staff/faculty recruitment and retention, and other issues concerning the administration of a center or other unit.
Measuring the effectiveness of an aspect of practice and/or outcomes in order to improve (designate other topics to indicate the subject of assessment – e.g., teaching & learning, programs, Faculty PD).
Addressing issues relevant to under-represented or minority populations on campus, in the classroom, in administration.
Faculty Professional Development:
Practices, processes, theories, techniques, programs pertaining to faculty development.
Graduate Student Professional Development:
Practices, processes, theories, techniques, programs pertaining specifically to graduate and professional student development.
Practices, processes, theories, or techniques related to the systemic development of institutions and organizations.
POD Professional Development:
Practices, processes, theories, techniques, programs pertaining to development of those in the professions represented by POD (e.g., Center staff, technologists, etc.).
Organization, implementation, practices, theories, techniques related to programs and services (in centers and other units).
Systematic, generalizable investigations into clearly defined questions, employing accepted methods for data collection and analysis (designate other topics to indicate the subject of research – e.g., teaching & learning, programs, Faculty PD).
Practices, processes, theories, techniques related to retaining students and improving graduation rates.
Practice of, results of, and programs supporting Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Practices, processes, organizational ideas related to establishment and growth of centers, programs, or other projects.
Incorporating or applying principles of environmental and/or programmatic sustainability into educational development work.
Teaching & Learning:
Practices, processes, theories, techniques related to classroom and other teaching and learning.
Explorations of current and new technologies that can support teaching, program or organizational development.
Proposers may also identify particular one or two audience(s) or population(s) likely to benefit or to have interest in the proposed session. Audience selections are indicated below. Presenters can also add an audience designation of their own, if needed.
- All POD members
- Community colleges
- Faculty (conference attendees who are faculty and also part-time developers)
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
- International POD participants
- Instructional Technologists and technology integration specialists
- Large colleges and universities
- New/recent faculty developers (5 years or less)
- Seasoned faculty developers
- Small colleges and universities
- Graduate teaching assistants or those supporting this population
- Other (please specify):
The topics, intended audience, and abstract of the session will be listed in the conference program.
Rules for proposal submission
Anyone is welcome to submit a proposal. Once a session is accepted, each presenter and co-presenter must agree to be a member of POD and be a paid registrant at the conference.
Number of proposals per person
Each attendee may propose one pre-conference workshop as either the primary presenter or co-presenter. Additionally, each attendee may submit up to two other proposals for conference sessions, but he/she may be the primary presenter for only one of these sessions. For the second session, he/she must be listed as a co-presenter. Interactive sessions, roundtable discussions, posters presentations, research presentations and POD-sponsored sessions (submitted by POD committees through a separate process) are included in this two-session limit. Sessions sponsored by the Conference Committee are not included in this limit.
An attendee may submit one concurrent session proposal as the lead presenter and a second concurrent session proposal as co-presenter.
An attendee may submit two concurrent session proposals as co-presenter.
An attendee may submit one pre-conference workshop proposal as the lead presenter, a concurrent session proposal as lead presenter, and a second concurrent session proposal as co-presenter.
All proposals are blind-reviewed by peers according to specific review criteria (please see below). In your proposal, replace names of people and institutions with Xs in your title, abstract, and session description. The only identifying information should be in the contact information. Proposals that identify people or institutions will be rejected automatically in the review process. If your proposal is accepted, you will have the opportunity to edit the title and abstract to include names and institutions.
Sale of materials and the solicitation of consulting work
POD’s statement of “Ethical Guidelines for Educational Developers” (section 2h) emphasizes the importance of allowing “no personal or private interests to conflict or appear to conflict with professional duties or clients' needs.”
To avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest, POD does not permit in any conference session the sale of materials before or during the conference nor the solicitation of presentation materials after the conference. Furthermore, POD does not allow presenters to solicit consulting work during any session listed in the program. Sessions should not directly or indirectly solicit the purchase of materials or programs.
Session presenters are permitted to use materials they have created and to refer to consulting work that they do, but neither materials nor services may be offered for sale during the session. All materials used during the session should be made available for session participants. Proprietary materials should not be used as the primary presentation material but may be included in a list of resources or bibliography. Pre-conference workshop presenters may receive permission to charge an additional fee for materials (such as books), to be collected with the conference registration fee.
The conference schedule includes a Vendor Exhibit to provide a specific time when materials can be sold and consultation work can be solicited.
Questions about this conference practice should be addressed to the POD Executive Director or the conference chairs.
Because the POD website is undergoing some major changes that will be deployed this spring, we ask your patience with some uncertainty regarding dates for opening our online proposal submission portal. We anticipate the online proposal portal opening in mid-February. The online proposal submission deadline will be in early March. Please watch for announcements over email, and feel free to email the conference team members, listed above, with questions.
As you prepare your proposal ahead of time, please follow the guidelines for components of the proposal and ensure that your proposal activities align with the session type you propose.
Components of the proposal
- Contact information for main presenter and all co-presenters
- Session title (no more than 10 words)
- Session abstract (no more than 100 words)
- Designation of one to three topic areas, and one or two specific audiences.
- Please select the type of session best suited for your proposal. Strive for a strong fit between what you intend to accomplish and the type of session you choose.
Session description (no more than 500 words)
- Provide a conceptual framework for your work, e.g., theoretical or empirical basis, goals, implementation, research findings, and assessment.
- State expected outcomes for session participants.
- Outline the session activities and plan for interaction. Please model exemplary teaching and learning practices. For poster presentations, focus on the manner in which you plan to present your work rather than on the type of interaction you anticipate.
- Meaningfully connect your proposal to the conference theme, Freedom to Connect -- Freedom to Risk -- Freedom to Learn, OR to POD’s mission and values.
- Where appropriate, integrate critical reflection related to diversity.
- References (no more than 150 words): Strong proposals cite canonical and current literature or scholarly online sources . You do not need to remove your name if you authored a reference; however, if you refer to the text in the description above, do not state that you are the author.
- Audiovisual request: AV equipment (LCD projector, external audio speakers, flipchart with markers) may be requested at the time of proposal submission, limited to pre-conference workshops, interactive sessions, and research sessions only. NO AV support other than flipcharts is provided for roundtable sessions. Wireless internet access will be available throughout the conference space. POD is unable to supply laptop computers; presenters must bring their own laptops.
- Please check the self-nomination box if you wish to be considered for the Robert J. Menges Honored Presentation Award. Research-based proposals may be eligible for this award, as described below. Please see below for details about this award.
The session review rubric has been revised for 2013. Reviewers will use the following procedure and criteria to review proposals:
Please give a rating for each criterion:
4 = excellent 3 = good 2 = fair 1 = poor N/A
Based on the description of activities provided:
1. _____ The session is likely to accomplish the outcomes stated in the proposal.
2. _____ The session will be conducted in appropriate ways for the chosen session format (see very specific description of session types and purposes in the call for proposals).
3. _____ The session is likely to be a model of exemplary teaching, learning, faculty and/or organizational development practices.
4. _____The proposal takes a scholarly approach to practice. That is, the material to be presented incorporates previous research, theory, evidence, and/or assessment. It is not heavily anecdotal.
Innovation and applicability
5. _____This session will address ideas, topics, or practices that are highly relevant and significant in faculty and/or organizational development.
6. _____This session will offer fresh information and/or describe innovative or creative practices. It is not a reprisal of previously presented information.
7. _____The material is likely to be applicable to other campuses, institutions and/or programs; it is not highly institution-specific.
POD mission and values
“The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) fosters human development in higher education through faculty, instructional, and organizational development. POD believes that people have value, as individuals and as members of groups. The development of students is a fundamental purpose of higher education and requires for its success effective advising, teaching, leadership, and management. Central to POD's philosophy is lifelong, holistic, personal, and professional learning, growth, and change for the higher education community.”
8. _____The session is likely to foster critical reflections about diversity and/or encourage attendees to foster more responsive and inclusive campuses.
9. _____The session is likely to explore ideas related to the conference theme or to POD’s mission and values.
Total your ratings (please double check addition): _______
Reviewers are requested to provide comments and feedback that explains the rationale behind their scoring, in addition to addressing each rubric criterion.
For more information about the rubric and to see a previous proposal (highly rated by the previous rubric in 2012) reviewed and rated with the new rubric, please see below.
Rationale for the new review rubric for 2013 and model proposal
The previous proposal rubric asked reviewers to rate a proposal on 10 criteria and then provide a holistic recommendation to accept, accept with reservations, or reject the proposal. This approach was problematic when the multiple criteria and the holistic recommendation were not aligned for individual proposals, hampering the final selection process by the conference team. We believe that by asking for numerical ratings of each criterion, the program chairs will have more systematic and consistent review data, while the availability of the N/A option will also enable reviewers to recommend that a particular criterion should not be considered for a proposal. Other changes this year include reorganization and refinement of the criteria and removal of one criterion that was deemed redundant.
2012 Model Proposal
The Paths People Take Through the Services We Offer
All POD members
1 – Assessment, 2 – Programs, 3 – Research
Educational developers offer a variety of services, ranging from one-time workshops to ongoing programs like learning communities to consultations and collecting student feedback. However, individual instructors obviously do not participate in everything. Rather, they create their own combinations and sequences of these programs. What do we know about the patterns of use and what can we learn from those patterns? In this interactive session, we will explore findings from a statistical analysis of ten years of data to learn more about the sequence in which instructors experience educational development and discuss the implications of these findings.
Educational developers typically offer a variety of services, including one-time programs like workshops, ongoing programs like learning communities, and individual consultations, which often include student feedback. (Sorcinelli et al., 2005; Lee, 2010). Our field has scholarship that looks at overall use of services (Wright, 2011; Plank et al., 2005), as well as studies that measure the effectiveness of specific categories of service, finding, for example, that ongoing programs like learning communities have greater impact than one-time workshops (Holley, et al, 2011) and that collecting midterm feedback can enhance instruction (Finelli, et al, 2011).
However, another dimension to consider is the “curriculum” individual instructors make for themselves as they proceed (or do not proceed) through our services. Individuals do not participate in all of our programming nor go through programs in a set order but, rather, create their own combinations and sequences over time. The perspective of individual participants as they make their way through our offerings provides an informative lens for understanding their experience of educational development. Which programs are mostly likely to be an entry point to participation in our services? Do one-time workshops act as a gateway to bring in new users who will then move on to other programs that will have a greater impact, as is commonly assumed? Are participants in ongoing, extensive programs more likely to take advantage of other services? What about those who consult individually with developers or collect midterm feedback? Do instructors from different demographics follow different paths? Which participants are more likely to become repeat users?
To begin to answer questions like these, this study examines 10 years of user data from a major university teaching center. Statistical analysis of these records--which comprise over 11,000 instructors, 1,700 programs, and 5,400 individual consultations--reveals typical patterns of usage, showing some of the pathways instructors follow and the different combinations and sequences they create for themselves.
Educational development in the 21st century must be evidence-based and responsive to the needs of a diverse population of faculty and graduate students. Better understanding the different ways instructors experience our programs helps us do both. This analysis lets us see our programs from the perspective of those we serve and also provides us with useful evidence for making decisions about the services we provide.
- Discussion of the questions and assumptions that participants have about how people use their services, which will be recorded on flipchart for later discussion.
- Explanation of the data, the statistical analysis, and the patterns found.
- Small group activity: each table will be given a subset of data reflecting one pattern and a set of guiding questions to interpret it.
- Discussion of what we can learn from these patterns, ideas for further research, and implications for our work in educational development
Participants will leave the session with a set of findings on patterns of use, a model for analyzing their own programming, and ideas for further research.
Finelli, C. J., Pinder-Grover, T., & Wright, M. (2011). Consultations on teaching. In Advancing the culture of teaching on campus. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Holley, M., Chism, N., & Harris, C. (2011). Collaborating to assess the impact of educational development. Presentation at 2011 POD-HBCUFN Conference, Atlanta.
Lee, V. (2010). Program types and prototypes. In A Guide to Faculty Development, 2nd ed.
Plank, K. M., Kalish, A., Rohdieck, S. V., & Harper, K. A. (2005). A vision beyond measurement: Creating an integrated data system for teaching centers. To Improve the Academy. Vol 23 (pp. 173-190).
Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2005). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understand the present. NY: Wiley.
Wright, M. C. (2011). Measuring a teaching center’s effectiveness. In Advancing the culture of teaching on campus. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
2013 Rubric applied to 2012 model proposal
Robert J. Menges Honored Presentation Award
|Based on the description of activities provided, the session is likely to accomplish the outcomes stated in the proposal.
|Based on the description of activities provided, the session will be conducted in appropriate ways for the chosen session format (see very specific description of session types and purposes in the call for proposals).
|Based on the description of activities provided, the session is likely to be a model of exemplary teaching, learning, faculty and/or organizational development practices.
|The proposal takes a scholarly approach to practice. That is, the material to be presented incorporates previous research, theory, evidence, and/or assessment. It is not heavily anecdotal.
|Innovation and applicability
|This session will address ideas, topics, or practices that are highly relevant and significant in faculty and/or organizational development.
|This session will offer fresh information and/or describe innovative or creative practices. It is not a reprisal of previously presented information.
|The material is likely to be applicable to other campuses, institutions and/or programs; it is not highly institution-specific.
|POD mission and values
|The session is likely to foster critical reflections about diversity and/or encourage attendees to foster more responsive and inclusive campuses.
|The session is likely to explore ideas related to the conference theme or to POD’s mission and values.
|Reviewer comments: This proposal is clearly scholarly in nature and relevant to a wide variety of faculty development programs. The activities proposed are appropriate to a 75-minute interactive session, with a carefully planned mix of presentation and on-point participant activities using the information presented. While it may well foster more responsive campuses, this is not an explicit purpose of this session.
Before indicating that you would like your proposal to be considered for the Menges Award, please be sure that you can provide the following additional materials by the date indicated. By midnight July 1, 2013, please send De Gallow (firstname.lastname@example.org
) a summary of the details of your research. Your summary will be forwarded (with names removed) to the Menges Award Selection Committee for their consideration.
The summary should consist of no more than 2000 words, excluding references. Tables, bibliography, and pictures are allowed as appendices and will not be counted in the 2000-word limit.
- Please indicate the total number of words used (not counting headings and appendices).
- Please remove any institutional or other personally identifying information (replace with XXX).
The summary format should present information in the following categories:
- A clear statement of your research question(s) and its scope;
- A literature review with appropriate citations and a corresponding bibliography in the appendices;
- A description of the research design, along with sample questions, forms, rubrics, and/or results in the appendices;
- The results, including data to support conclusions and reliability and validity of the data (the latter may be included in the appendices);
- A discussion about the importance, implications, and the limitations of the work to the profession in general, and further research directions recommended.
The Menges Award Selection Committee will review your application according to the following criteria:
- Strength and clarity of question and presentation of research question and approach: Appropriateness of question(s) to the design of the study. The research question is clearly stated, and its significance clearly identified. The design of the study is appropriate to the question(s) and is addressed thoroughly and effectively. The appendices include documentation to illustrate the results. The discussion of the question is well-written.
- Connections: Relationship to field, previous research, and/or theoretical frameworks. The research question’s relationship and significance to a larger pedagogical issue or issues is clearly explained. The relationship of the project to previous research and/or theoretical frameworks is addressed thoroughly through the literature, with appropriate citations and references.
- Consistency: Coherence across data, analysis/findings & conclusions. The data are clearly presented and explained, are useful, reliable, consistent and support the conclusions. Limitations of the data are clearly discussed and do not diminish the value of the current study.
- Contribution: Value to advancing the field; connection to POD’s mission. The value of the study will or will potentially advance the field and POD’s mission.
For questions, please contact De Gallow (email@example.com