1. Program Reviewer Training
Thank you for volunteering your time to review program proposals for ACPA20 in Nashville, Tennessee.

2. Land Acknowledgement (pg. 1)
ACPA – College Student Educators International is the leading comprehensive student affairs association that advances higher education and engages students for a lifetime of learning and discovery. Although serving an international audience, our membership is primarily from the United States and our offices are headquartered in Washington, D.C. at the National Center for Higher Education.
Related to our mission of supporting and fostering learning through the generation and dissemination of knowledge, ACPA acknowledges the painful history of genocide in the United States for native, aboriginal, and indigenous peoples. We honor and respect the many and diverse tribal nations and peoples who were forcefully removed from, as well as those still connected to, this land. (continued)
We would like to begin this Reviewer Training with a Land Acknowledgement.
ACPA – College Student Educators International is the leading comprehensive student affairs association that advances higher education and engages students for a lifetime of learning and discovery. Although serving an international audience, our membership is primarily from the United States and our offices are headquartered in Washington, D.C. at the National Center for Higher Education.
Related to our mission of supporting and fostering learning through the generation and dissemination of knowledge, ACPA acknowledges the painful history of genocide in the United States for native, aboriginal, and indigenous peoples. We honor and respect the many and diverse tribal nations and peoples who were forcefully removed from, as well as those still connected to, this land.

3. Land Acknowledgement (pg. 2)
We particularly acknowledge and recognize that the land upon which our international headquarters is located today has long served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst a number of Indigenous people, including the Accohannock,  Pocomoke, Piscataway, Anacostank, Mattapanient, Nangemeick, Pamunkey, Tauxehent, Nanticoke, Chickahominy, Monacan, Mattiponi, Nansemond, Rappahannock, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Assateague tribal nations as the original occupants of the Washington, D.C. region.
ACPA strongly advocates for higher education and student affairs professionals to honor the land, the original tribal occupants, and the history of the place where you are located. Further, we have a responsibility to continually self-educate, reflect, and listen to the histories and people in our areas. Including tribal land acknowledgements in practice, and understanding and acknowledging history,  is not only respectful and educational, it is the justice-oriented advocacy necessary for continuing the work of dismantling the devastating effects of settler colonialism in our society.
We particularly acknowledge and recognize that the land upon which our international headquarters is located today has long served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst a number of Indigenous people, including the Accohannock, Pocomoke, Piscataway, Anacostank, Mattapanient, Nangemeick, Pamunkey, Tauxehent, Nanticoke, Chickahominy, Monacan, Mattiponi, Nansemond, Rappahannock, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Assateague tribal nations as the original occupants of the Washington, D.C. region.
ACPA strongly advocates for higher education and student affairs professionals to honor the land, the original tribal occupants, and the history of the place where you are located. Further, we have a responsibility to continually self-educate, reflect, and listen to the histories and people in our areas. Including tribal land acknowledgements in practice, and understanding and acknowledging history, is not only respectful and educational, it is the justice-oriented advocacy necessary for continuing the work of dismantling the devastating effects of settler colonialism in our society.
It is important that we acknowledge this history and maintain this consciousness as we review and select the program for ACPA20.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities
Participate in the online Review Training to ensure understanding of evaluation tools and the review process.
Support the collective growth and development of our colleagues in the field by using the Reviewer Rubric consistently and providing constructive, thoughtful, and inclusive feedback.
Each year we receive hundreds of submissions and the selection process of proposals addressing the array of topics and competency areas in student affairs and higher education would not be possible without the time and dedication of volunteer reviewers such as yourself. Serving as a program proposal reviewer is an excellent professional development opportunity, as well as an opportunity to give back to the profession.
Part of your responsibility as a Reviewer is supporting the collective growth and development of our colleagues in the field. Reviewers evaluate program proposals for ACPA20 and also provide constructive feedback to the Coordinating Presenter. This feedback can support our colleagues growth by strengthening the programs that are accepted and providing suggestions for future improvement for programs that are not selected. Your feedback has the potential to help shape our work for the upcoming convention and beyond.
Whether this is your first time evaluating program proposals, or if you have volunteered to do so for previous conventions, this session will provide you with information about your role as a reviewer, how to use the rubric to provide feedback, and how to log in to the reviewing platform, eShow.

5. Knowing Yourself as a Reviewer
Program proposals are matched with Reviewers based on Competency Areas and Program Topics.
If you are assigned to any program proposals you believe you do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate, or if you identify a conflict of interest, please notify the Program Team by at
Program proposals are matched with Reviewers based on Competency Areas and Program Topics indicated on the Program Proposal and the Reviewer Application.
If you are assigned to any program proposals you believe you do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate, or if you identify a conflict of interest, please notify the Program Team by at so the program can be reassigned.
Program Reviewers are asked to have Intermediate or Advanced skill level in accordance with the ACPA/NASPA Competencies for the proposals they are reviewing. Remember, you do not need to have a full understanding of a topic to review or provide meaningful feedback to a proposal. Sometimes a different perspective can be helpful but reflect and maintain an awareness of your strengths and limitations as a Reviewer. Further, while Coordinating Presenters are asked to remove identifying information from their proposal it is possible you may be assigned a proposal and you can identify the presenter(s) based on the information shared. If you receive a program proposal and you feel you are uncomfortable with the topic or too close to the presenters, the Program Team can reassign the program to another Reviewer.

6. Using the Reviewer Rubric
As a Reviewer, you are asked to use the Reviewer Rubric when evaluating proposals. Rubrics make assessing proposals efficient, consistent, and as objective as possible.
The rubric helps standardize the evaluation process by providing presenters and reviewers with a clear understanding of what is expected.
Everyone has a different focus when reviewing a proposal based on their own experiences, professional level, and other qualities like background knowledge. As a Reviewer, you are asked to use the Reviewer Rubric when evaluating proposals that you review.
Rubrics make assessing proposals efficient, consistent, and as objective as possible. The Reviewer Rubric helps standardize the evaluation process by providing presenters and reviewers with a clear understanding of what is expected.
Reviewers will use the rubric to evaluate the proposal on specific criteria. Reviewers can elaborate on their scoring according to the rubric by using the provided textboxes for additional comments.
Also, in an effort to support thoughtful and quality review of program proposals, each program proposal is assigned to and evaluated by a total of three reviewers. The scores that you give a program proposal will be averaged with the scores from the other reviewers.

7. Program Rubric Criteria
Criteria For All Proposals
Learning Outcomes
Relevance
Framework
Engagement
Knowledge Synthesis & Application
Sequence
Time Allotment
Additional Criteria For Research Papers, Research Posters, & Practice Posters
Research or Practice Methods
Findings/Results & Implications
There are six different program types at ACPA20. All program proposals are evaluated on a shared set of seven criteria, which are:
Learning Outcomes: The proposal provides specific learning outcomes clearly connected to the session
Relevance: The proposal explains why the topic matters to higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students.
Framework: The proposal is grounded in relevant literature and makes clear connections between literature, session content, and aligns with ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement.
Engagement: The proposal explains the methods used to actively engage participants is informed by principles of universal design.
Knowledge Synthesis and Application: The proposal explains the methods to promote participants’ synthesis and application of knowledge
Sequence: The order of topics/activities is articulated and clearly explained.
Time Allotment: The proposal includes a clear, realistic, and commensurate (e.g., not too much or too little) allotment of time for each topic/activity.
There are also two additional criteria that apply to Research Papers, Research Posters, and Practice Posters. The additional criteria will only appear when reviewing these specific types of proposals. These criteria are:
Research or Practice Methods: Proposal provides a clear overview of the methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry including data sources, evidence, materials, etc.
Findings/Results and Implications: The proposal provides an overview of the research findings/results and implications for practice, research and/or policy.
All review criteria are given a score of zero to three. The benefit of such a scale is that it is quick and efficient; however, as with most Likert scales, there is little room for subtlety. This is where you, as a reviewer, exercise your judgment in accordance with the Reviewer Rubric on how well each proposal meets the criteria upon which it is being evaluated.
The samples in the next two slides demonstrate the differentiation between each score based on the Reviewer Rubric and provides you with some concrete definitions of what each score may represent.

8. Program Rubric Example: Relevance
Contains no direct explanation of session relevance to higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students. 1
Alludes to the field of higher education but does not make any specific connections between the session and higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students. 2
Includes a direct explanation of session relevance to higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students; does not specify relevance within a specific functional area or across multiple functional areas; does not articulate relevance to a diverse range of positionalities, including social group memberships. 3
Includes a direct explanation of session relevance to higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students; articulates relevance within a specific functional area or across functional areas; articulates relevance to a diverse range of positionalities, including social group memberships.
For the review criteria of Relevance, you will rank the proposal from zero to three. For this particular review criteria, a three indicates the program proposal includes a direct explanation of the session’s relevance to higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students; articulates its relevance within a specific functional area or across functional areas; and articulates its relevance to a diverse range of positionalities, including social group memberships.
By contrast, a one indicates the program proposal alludes to the field of higher education but does not make any specific connections between the session and higher education, Student Affairs and/or college students.

9. Program Rubric Example: Framework
Does not include a review of the literature or the review provided is not relevant to the proposal. 1
Includes a review of literature with clear relevance to the session topic; does not establish clear connections between the framework and any component of the Outline of Session Presentation; the framework presented does not align with ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement. 2
Includes a review of available knowledge with clear relevance to the session topic; establishes clear connections between the framework presented and some components of the Outline of Session Presentation; the framework presented does not align with ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement. 3
Includes a review of available knowledge with clear relevance to the session topic; establishes clear connections between the literature and all components of the Outline of Session Presentation; the framework presented aligns with ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement.
For the review criteria of Framework, you will also indicate zero through three. In this case, a two would indicate that the program proposal includes a review of available knowledge with clear relevance to the session topic and establishes clear connections between the framework presented and some components of the Outline of Session Presentation, but does not explain the relationship between the literature and does not align with ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement.
On the other hand, in this particular case, a zero would be that the program proposal does not include a review of the literature or the review provided is not relevant to the proposal.
Each of the nine criteria will have a similar Likert scale from zero to three with corresponding descriptions for each score.

10. ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement
ACPA – College Student Educators International actively promotes and recognizes principles of fairness, equity, and social justice in relation to, and across, intersections of race, age, color, disability, faith, religion, ancestry, national origin, citizenship, sex, sexual orientation, social class, economic class, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, and all other identities represented among our diverse membership.
By appreciating the importance of inclusion, we acknowledge that the collective and individual talents, skills, and perspectives of members, constituent groups, and partners foster a culture of belonging, collaborative practice, innovation, and mutual respect. ACPA seeks to empower and engage professionals, scholars, and partners in actions that productively contribute to accomplishing the goals of our association.
At the center of our work is our commitment to equity and inclusion. As noted in our Equity and Inclusion statement
“ACPA – College Student Educators International actively promotes and recognizes principles of fairness, equity, and social justice in relation to, and across, intersections of race, age, color, disability, faith, religion, ancestry, national origin, citizenship, sex, sexual orientation, social class, economic class, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression, and all other identities represented among our diverse membership.
By appreciating the importance of inclusion, we acknowledge that the collective and individual talents, skills, and perspectives of members, constituent groups, and partners foster a culture of belonging, collaborative practice, innovation, and mutual respect. ACPA seeks to empower and engage professionals, scholars, and partners in actions that productively contribute to accomplishing the goals of our association”
As a reviewer it is important to keep this commitment as you review your assigned programs.

11. Accessing the Education Service Center
Log in to the ACPA20 Reviewer Service Center
(s1.goeshow.com/acpa/annual/2020/program_team_login.cfm)
To coordinate the proposal review process we will use eShow. eShow is an event management solution that ACPA20 is using to assign program proposals to reviewers and for reviewers to submit their evaluations. In order to access your assigned submissions and submit your responses, you must log into the Reviewer Service Center in eShow. Please contact the Program Team with any accessibility needs to receive access to proposal reviews in a different format.
To log into the ACPA20 Reviewer Service Center you can follow the link in the notification you will receive when proposals are assigned. You may also go to the direct link on this slide
or access the site through the ACPA20 convention at convention.myacpa.org. Put your cursor over “Education” on the menu bar, then select “Program Reviewer” from the dropdown menu. You will find the direct link to the ACPA Reviewer Service Center on this page.

12. Signing in to Education Service Center
Log in to the ACPA20 Reviewer Service Center
(s1.goeshow.com/acpa/annual/2020/program_team_login.cfm)
To sign in to the Reviewer Service Center you will enter the you provided on your Reviewer Application and your password. Your password will be provided to you in the notification you will receive when proposals are assigned. If you change your password you will enter the password you created to login. If you forget your password, select the “Forgot Password?’ link for assistance with resetting your password.

13. Begin Reviewing Proposals
The next page has information about the reviewer process. Select the “Please click HERE to begin reviewing proposals” link.
After signing in, the next page has information about the reviewer process. At the bottom of the page select the “Please click HERE to begin reviewing proposals.”

14. Programs Proposals to Review
On the Review Form page, you will have a list of all the proposals you are assigned to review.
On the Review Form page, you will have a list of all the proposals you are assigned to review at the bottom.

15. Review Form
To begin reviewing a specific proposal, select “Review” next to the title.
To begin reviewing a specific proposal, select “Review” next to the title under the “Task” column.

16. Proposal Information
A pop-up window containing all the information submitted with a proposal will come up.
A pop-up window containing all the information submitted with a proposal will come up.

17. Reviewer Form
You may review the proposal. Below the content is the “ACPA Session Reviewer Form.”
Select the appropriate educational session type.
The relevant rubric sections will be activated.
You may review the proposal. Below the content is the “ACPA Session Reviewer Form.” Here you must select the appropriate educational session type. So, for example, if you are reviewing a Research or Practice Poster, you would select that from this menu to ensure that you get the rubric appropriate for Research and Practice Posters. After you select the session type, the relevant criteria on the rubric become activated for your feedback.

18. Reviewing the Proposal
Each criterion requires a rating number on a scale (0-3). Reviewers may leave comments to clarify their rating. This is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback for the coordinating presenter.
Each criterion corresponds with the Reviewer Rubric and requires a rating number on a scale of zero to three. Reviewers may leave comments to clarify their rating. This is an opportunity to provide constructive and objective feedback for the coordinating presenter. Sharing recommendations for what to consider in future proposals is also very helpful.

19. Providing Constructive Feedback
Provide statements that identify the strengths and/or weaknesses of a proposal and share recommendations for what to consider in future proposals.
The feedback should directly relate to the program proposal content.
Remember a goal of feedback is to help strengthen those programs that are not selected this year for a future convention while helping those accepted strengthen their program for this year.
Constructive feedback includes statements that identify the strengths and/or weaknesses of a proposal by providing information that will allow the presenters to improve the program if selected or improve the proposal for future submissions. The feedback should be objective in that it directly relates to the program proposal content and the reviewer maintains an awareness of their own competency with the given topic area.
Remember one of your goals is to provide meaningful feedback, as it can help those who do not get selected in strengthening their submissions for a future convention while also helping those who are accepted in strengthening their session for this year.

20. Reviewer Form Completion
Assessment Summary & Required Textbox
The final piece of the Review Form is an Assessment Summary where you will indicate your overall assessment of the program proposal by indicating your evaluation of whether to Recommend, Recommend with Reservations, or Do Not Recommend the program proposal.
There is a textbox for you to offer your overall thoughts related to the evaluation of the proposal and the final recommendation. A response in this textbox is required to provide summary feedback to the Program Team and the coordinating presenter.
Perhaps a program proposal you review receives a high score according to the rubric but you have concerns about inclusivity or the proposal was for an experiential session but it does not include an interactive or skill-building component to justify the 75 minute session and would be better as 60 minute general convention program. These are things you can describe in more detail using this final summary. Please note that after the review process is complete and the Program Team has made final determinations on the status of proposals, presenters will be notified of their proposal status of accept, waitlist, or decline and will also receive the comments from the Reviewers provided in the textboxes of the Reviewer Form.
After you have completed your review, you must select “Save”. You may then close the window.

21. Editing a Saved Review
Should you need to return to your review to make edits or complete it you may do so by selecting the date hyperlink next to the title under the “Task” column. Ensure you scroll to the bottom and select “Save” to retain any changes you made. All reviews must be complete by September

22. Additional Resources for Reviewers
ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement (
ACPA’s Strategic Imperative for Racial Justice and Decolonization (
Principles of Universal Design (
ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators
For additional resources to prepare you for your role as a Reviewer, please visit the ACPA20 Reviewer Resources linked on the ACPA20 Convention website including ACPA’s Equity and Inclusion Statement, ACPA’s Strategic Imperative for Racial Justice and Decolonization, information about the Principles of Universal Design, and the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators.

23. Questions about reviewing?
Thank You
Thank you for your time and dedication to serving the ACPA community as a program reviewer.
Questions about reviewing?
Thank you for your time and dedication to serving the ACPA community as a program reviewer. ACPA20 will be a success because of the efforts of volunteers like yourself.