Interested in submitting a proposal for the ELUNA learns 2022 series? As you prepare a proposal, please review our sections on content, proposal instructions, and understanding the rubric in order to make your submission a success.
Any questions about the call for proposals can be directed to Shay Beezley (Program Chair) at [email protected]
Content
The online series is a little different than your typical break-out session at the Annual Meeting. When submitting a proposal, consider focusing on one or more of the following:
- Live demonstrations – Attendees want to be engaged with the content being shown, plus the webinar format lends really well to step-by-step presentations of a specific task or process!
- Specific functions – Attendees are interested in technical presentations that go into the nuts and bolts of functions within any given Ex Libris product
- Interoperability between Ex Libris products whether with another Ex Libris product or other tools – Attendees are interested in learning how products can be used together or in conjunction with other tools.
- Relevant skills (not product specific) – Attendees are interested in building out skills (coding, data manipulation, analysis techniques, working with APIs, as a few examples) that support their ability to perform functions within Ex Libris products
- Content targeted for the intermediate/advanced audience – Our user community has expressed a need for sessions beyond beginner-level.
Proposal Instructions
Proposal Title: Titles should be no longer than 10 words, proofed for spelling and typos, and capitalized in title case. You may use this title case converter as needed.
Example: Alma and Your Library: Best Practices
Proposal Abstract: Abstracts should be no longer than 150 words. Please proof your abstract for spelling and typos.
Theme: Choose one or more themes that aligns with your proposal. Themes will be used to identify sessions that fit well together and develop the overall lineup.
Applicable Ex Libris Product: Tag the products that your proposal directly relates to. You may tag more than one product. Select ‘None-General’ for strategy-oriented proposals.
Learning Outcomes: Please provide at least one learning outcome. When developing your proposal, consider what specifically you want attendees to learn at your session. A well-written learning outcome uses verbs that are specific and actionable and avoids broad verbs such as “understand” or “appreciate.”
Examples:
-
- At the end of this session, participants will be able to perform basic Alma normalization rules.
- At the end of the session, participants will be able to describe the Primo road map.
For more tips on writing good learning outcomes, visit https://apha.confex.com/apha/learningobjectives.htm or https://www.bu.edu/cme/forms/RSS_forms/tips_for_writing_objectives.pdf
Target Audience: Select up to 2 skills levels to ensure that your presentation will reach the right audience if your proposal is accepted.
Session Length Preference: Submitters may indicate if their proposal fits a 20 minute or 40 minute session length or may indicate no preference.
Presenters: ELUNA learns presentations are capped at a maximum of two speakers.
Speaker Bio: Please include a short bio of each speaker as part of your proposal. This information will be used to display during the presentation via the ON24 platform. Good speaker bios generally convey why the speaker is the right person for the presentation and can include but not limited to the following: position title/institution, relevant experience, or professional interests.
Speaker Headshot: Please provide a 500px x 500px headshot. Headshots will display alongside your bio on the ON24 platform.
Understanding the Rubric
The Program Committee reviewers (representatives from ELUNA working groups and/or appointees by the Program Committee Chair) will review and rate each proposal with the following criteria:
| 3 Outstanding | 2 Acceptable | 1 Needs Improvement | 0 Not enough information | |
| Title
The title fits the abstract description and meets the word count requirement |
The title generally describes the session in a way that generates attendee interest | The title generally describes the session | The title is vague or doesn’t align with abstract | No title |
| Abstract
The abstract clearly describes the session, is mostly free of typos/errors, and meets the word count requirement |
The abstract clearly and succinctly describes the session while generating attendee interest; is well-organized, requires no additional proofing | The abstract generally describes the session; may have some minor errors to be fixed; may need some adjustment to sentence flow | The abstract has multiple spelling and typos, is not descriptive enough, or doesn’t align with title | No abstract |
| Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes clearly describe the anticipated outcomes for attendees of skills or knowledge gained from the session
|
Learning outcomes clearly and succinctly describe the anticipated outcomes of the session and generate attendee interest | Learning outcomes adequately describe the anticipated outcomes of the session | Learning outcomes are not clear or hard to understand | No learning outcomes |
| Metadata (Theme(s), Applicable Products, Audience, Panel)
The metadata to assist organizing the session in the program is present and fits the title/description |
Metadata is provided for every area; proposal content fits selected theme(s), products, or target audience | Metadata is provided for every area; proposal content fits selected theme(s), products, or target audience; may need some revision | Some metadata is provided, but not all; proposal content does not fit selected theme(s), products, or target audience | No metadata provided |
| Overall Relevance | The proposal is of high relevance to current or emerging issues in the profession, Ex Libris products, or the conference theme | The proposal is relevant to the profession, Ex Libris products, or the conference theme | The proposal does not appear to have value for the program content; is unclear; topic appears to be already addressed in a higher quality proposal | The proposal is irrelevant; topic relevance is unclear or obsolete |