Commission chairs are responsible for reviewing commission-related annual conference proposals. Chairs are encouraged to form a special "Proposal Review Committee" comprised of commission members willing to assist with this responsibility of deciding the conference sessions that will be designated as "commission-sponsored". The reviews take place during two weeks in mid-February. Start early enough to find persons willing to read and to give the readers time to review proposals and submit their evaluations in sufficient time for the chair to then submit summaries of the evaluations to the Annual Conference Committee.

The commissions have a strong voice in the programming of the annual NACADA conference. Each commission may choose up to three (3) concurrent sessions for commission-sponsored status at the Annual Conference. The three sessions may be invited by the commission (for which the commission determines topic and selects the presenters to assure that current issues are addressed) or selected (commission selects sessions from those proposals, that have been individually submitted and identified by applicant as having content-related to that commission). Or, the commission could combine these two methods for securing presentations. One risk in inviting several people to submit and guaranteeing their acceptance is that there may be several more proposals from the general pool that chairs later may want to award “sponsored” status. Chairs may want to encourage individuals to submit a proposal, but not guarantee its acceptance.

NOTE: If a commission invites someone to submit a proposal on a certain topic, the presenter will still need to formally register and pay a conference registration fee. Sometimes when a presenter is invited to present, they assume a complimentary registration goes with it—but that is not the case! All presenters must register for the conference. Commission Chairs can not waive the registration fees for presenters.

The commission-sponsored sessions are in addition to the annual commission meeting time slots allotted during the conference and a special "Hot Topics" session period that may be scheduled at the discretion of the Annual Conference Committee. All methods of selection must go through the online Call for Proposals system, whether invited or commission-sponsored, within the time frame allotted. If it is determined that no "Hot Topics" sessions will be provided at a particular conference, it is at the discretion of the Annual Conference Advisory Board whether to give commissions the opportunity to select up to four commission-sponsored sessions for that conference rather than only three, and commission chairs will be notified accordingly.

Commissions will read all proposals individually submitted and identified by the presenter as related to their proposal's topical area (referred to as program tracks on the Call for Proposals form) and may choose additional sponsored sessions to select if they have not already invited their allotted number of sponsored sessions. All commission-related proposals have to be evaluated and forwarded to the program committee, which will make the final determination on their acceptance -- this includes those recommended for acceptance, those guaranteed acceptance as "commission-sponsored", and any not recommended for acceptance.

All commission-sponsored sessions will be noted in the conference program as “Sponsored by XYZ Commission".  Since proposers might have listed two commissions as being relevant to the presentation (e.g. Transfer Students and Two-Year Colleges), a session might carry two (2) different commission-sponsored designations.

Executive Office staff will contact Commission Chairs in January to ask each chair for a list of proposal readers -- first and last name plus e-mail address for each reader. Typically, having 3-5 proposal readers is sufficient. A password will be provided for each reader to access the online proposal evaluation system. Proposals will be available for reading online after the Call for Proposals has closed. Readers submit their individual evaluations to their respective Commission Chair by the 3rd week of February. Commission Chairs must summarize all their readers’ evaluations and submit a recommendation on each proposal to the current year's Annual Conference Chair by the end of February. Specific deadline dates for the activities outlined above are communicated to reviewers at the beginning of the review process.

The evaluation criteria used by reviewers and characteristics of effective proposals are summarized below. For more detailed information on instructions for proposal submission and a tutorial for writing effective presentation proposals and abstract, please visit the NACADA web site at www.nacada.ksu.edu/proposals/index.htm.

Evaluation Criteria Used by Reviewers —

In reviewing the proposals from which you will be selecting your commission's sponsored sessions, it is recommended that the following standards be used:

1. Clearly stated purpose and objectives
2. Timeliness of the subject matter
3. Topic's contribution to the advising field
4. Creativity in an approach to a situation or in ways to manage it
5. Adaptability of ideas to a variety of institutional settings

Presentation titles should be descriptive of the content of the session. They need not reflect the title of the conference.

Priority will be assigned to proposals that demonstrate new ideas or methods, or indicate a high level of knowledge and unique treatment of the topic. Proposals from inexperienced, as well as experienced presenters, researchers, and practitioners are earnestly solicited.

Three Characteristics of Effective Proposals —

1. A solid foundation for proposal content (a framework of the program should be evident based on data indicating success of a program or strategy discussed). Proposals should reflect the diversity of students and advising programs when possible.
2. Adherence to proposal submission guidelines — It is important to include all information requested in the program proposal guidelines and adhere to length restrictions where indicated.
3. Reflective of good writing practices — Well-written proposals are rated more favorably than those lacking clarity, specificity and conciseness. A logical program organization should be evident. Proofreading your proposal before submitting is essential.

Guidelines for Writing an Effective Presentation Proposal —

Reviewers rely on an in-depth well-written description to enhance their understanding of the content and goals of the presentation. A complete description includes background information, an overview of the presentation, and a description of the format. If the program is reporting research, a description of methods, findings and recommendations may be appropriate. The program description should also include learning outcomes, the relationship of the program to the conference theme, methods of audience involvement (i.e., engaging in discussion, sharing effective practices, analyzing a case study), and the familiarity and background of the presenters with the subject matter of the program.

If appropriate, an effective proposal description

• Mentions relevant theories and research
  
• Includes an outline of the presentation
  
• Describes intended learning outcomes for participants
  
• Describes the institution and/or presenters

Link to Well Written Proposals (Click here if you would like to read the proposal):

• Why Do I Have to Take This Class??!
• Advising as Teaching and Learning: Best Practices, Tools, and Tips
• Applying the Glue that Holds Us Together: Building Trust Through Effective Advising Administration and Leadership
• Helping High-Achieving Students Develop Parallel Plans