🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on the issues involved
here.

First, I am among perhaps a minority of convention attendees who
cannot count on receiving financial assistance to attend.  Typically
my community college has paid 0 to less than half of the cost --
because we have about $15,000 a year for "staff development"
for a college with more than 7,000 FTE students (that money is used
for 100 full-time faculty, and 100 FTE faculty, and more than 200
support staff.

So the quality of presentations is a major factor in my continued
attendance at AECT conventions.  Limiting the number of
presentations per person so that "everyone" has a chance to
present is not likely to ensure ongoing quality.

Second, blind reviewing for AECT presentations is, from my experience
a myth.  I reviewed for two divisions this year and have reviewed for
one or two divisions for each of the previous three years.  I believe
that most of the proposals I reviewed last year and many in the second
In the past two years, authors were, more often than not listed.  And in
some cases even when they weren't included, it was easy to tell the
authors by the citations and/or information about a research study.

I believe we should indeed have blind reviews.

Third, there is more than one way to participate in the convention -
for example, I believe we should encourage more thorough
official discussions of presentations.  Research paper discussants
could be asked to submit written critiques which could be published
in the Research Proceedings.  Some of the discussions I have heard
have been outstanding.  But, as one person told me in Nashville,
too often it seems that discussants haven't read papers before
the presentations themselves and just jot their responses on the
spot.  Publishing a substantive critique would satisfy some
school's publication requirements.

Fourth, what guidelines might we establish to limit presentations,
ensure quality, reduce the rush from one presentation to another...?
I suggest that we limit the number of presentations (not papers)
to three.  Thus a person could co-author any number of papers, but
could only present or co-present three.  This allows professors
to receive adequate credit for contributions to (guidance of) of
the work of their graduate students (professors as secondary
authors and non presenters) as well as to have the opportunity
to be a primary author and presenter of other papers.

Peggy Cole
pcole@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu