We are pleased to invite submissions for the upcoming EERA Conference that will be held at the Sheraton Sand Key Resort in Clearwater Beach, Florida. We invite submissions across a range of session formats, including paper presentations, roundtables, panels, posters, and our newest format: Research-to-Practice/Policy sessions.

​

The Research-to-Practice/Policy format has been introduced to highlight the ways in which educational research informs and impacts practice and policy in meaningful ways. These sessions are intended to show how educational research translates into real-world impact in classrooms, schools, communities or policy settings.  

​

In addition, please note that each session type now includes guiding prompts and evaluation criteria. These prompts are intended to support proposers in aligning their submissions with the goals of the selected format, while also providing greater transparency regarding the review process.

​

​The link to submit your proposal is: https://event.fourwaves.com/eera26. We are accepting submissions from September 4 until October 6.

​

We look forward to receiving your proposals and to building a program that advances research, practice, and collaboration across the field of education.

 

EERA Conference Session Descriptions, Guiding Prompts, Evaluation Criteria, and Example Proposals:

 

Paper Presentations:

 

Description: Paper sessions feature individual presentations of empirical research that meaningfully contribute to the field of education. Submissions should report on completed, data-based studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches. Proposals should reflect work that could be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

 

Note: Papers that are primarily literature reviews, program descriptions, or anecdotal reflections should be submitted under another format (e.g., roundtable, research-to-practice, or policy session).

 

Each session will include multiple papers grouped by theme, with time allotted for each individual presentation and audience discussion.

 

Proposal Prompt Questions:

1. What is the primary research question or theoretical concept your paper addresses, and why is it significant to the field?

2. How does your presentation contribute to ongoing scholarly conversations or introduce new perspectives?

3. What are the key findings or implications you intend for the audience to take away?

 

Evaluation Criteria: 

• Addresses a significant issue, question, or gap in education research.

• Strong grounding in relevant theory or conceptual literature aligned with the study’s purpose.

• Clear, rigorous description of research design, methods, and data analysis.

• Logical organization and clear articulation of purpose, process, and findings.

• Evidence-based conclusions with relevance to educational research or practice.

• Reflects quality suitable for development into a refereed journal manuscript.

• Writing is professional, grammatically correct, and easy to follow.

​​

Roundtable Presentations:

 

Description: Roundtables offer interactive, small-group discussions focused on emerging ideas, in-progress research, or tightly focused topics in policy, practice, or theory. This format is ideal for presenting literature reviews, early-stage work, exploring methodological or practical dilemmas, discussion of policy issues, innovations in teaching, leadership or program design, or raising questions in underrepresented areas of educational research. Roundtable presentations are not suitable for presenting finalized research findings. 

 

Proposals should describe how presenters will facilitate inclusive, conversation-rich dialogue and engage participants in collaborative reflection or knowledge sharing.

 

Presenters should be prepared to facilitate an inclusive, conversation-rich session rather than deliver a formal lecture.

 

Proposal Prompt Questions:

1. What is the central issue, question, or challenge you aim to explore with participants during this roundtable?

2. How will you structure the conversation to encourage meaningful participation and diverse perspectives?

3. What outcomes or insights do you hope participants will gain from this discussion?

 

Evaluation Criteria: 

• Addresses a timely, important, or underexplored issue in education research, practice, or policy.

• Clearly defined objectives and focus aligned with the interactive, discussion-based roundtable format.

• Thoughtful framing of questions, dilemmas, or topics with strong potential to spark meaningful dialogue.

• Well-developed plan for engaging participants in inclusive, collaborative discussion.

• Logical organization and clear articulation of the session’s purpose, structure, and intended outcomes.

• Reflects quality and relevance appropriate for peer engagement and professional knowledge exchange.

• Writing is professional, grammatically correct, and easy to follow.

 

Panel Presentations:

​

Description: Panel sessions bring together multiple presenters to explore a shared topic or issue from diverse perspectives. Designed to promote dialogue and deepen understanding of complex educational topics. Panels may include scholars, practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders and should be a coordinated session with defined roles and interactive discussion between those stakeholders and the audience.

Proposals must describe:

• The unifying theme.

• Panelist roles and individual contributions.

• How the session will facilitate engagement among panelists and with the audience.

This format is ideal for:

• Examining a controversial or multifaceted issue.

• Bridging research, practice, and/or policy.

• Highlighting collaborative efforts across roles, institutions, or disciplines.

​

Proposal Prompt Questions:

1. What is the overarching theme or issue the panel will address, and why is it timely or critical to discuss?

2. How do the panelists' diverse perspectives (researchers, practitioners, policymakers, etc.) contribute to a holistic exploration of the topic?

3. What are the intended takeaways or calls to action for attendees after hearing from the panel?

​

Evaluation Criteria: 

• Focuses on a relevant issue that benefits from multiple perspectives.

• Clear session structure, sequence, and defined panelist roles.

• Advances knowledge or challenges assumptions in research, practice, or policy.

• Includes strategies for fostering interactive discussion.

• Writing is professional, grammatically correct, and easy to follow.

 

Poster Presentations:

 

Description: Poster sessions provide an informal, visual platform for sharing research, evaluation results, theoretical frameworks, literature reviews, or innovative practices. Presenters display their work on a poster and engage in informal, one-on-one or small-group conversations throughout the session. Posters are not just for early-stage work but also for visually rich (e.g., images, graphs, concept maps) or practice-oriented topics (e.g., pedagogy, professional development models, student engagement techniques, assessment tools). 

Ideal for:

• In-progress research, pilot studies, student work, pedagogical topics, or visually rich topics.

Presenters are encouraged to use engaging visuals and interactive elements (e.g., QR codes, videos, handouts) and be prepared for conversational, accessible dialogue.

​

Proposal Prompt Questions:

1. What is the main focus or research question of your poster, and how does it contribute to the field?

2. What are the key findings, project outcomes, or innovative aspects that will be highlighted visually in your poster?

3. How do you plan to engage attendees in discussion and provide meaningful takeaways during the interactive portion of the poster session?

​

Evaluation Criteria: 

• Addresses a relevant issue in education research, practice, or policy.

• Purpose and takeaways are clearly articulated.

• Demonstrates potential to engage attendees in constructive dialogue.

• .Goals and intended outcomes are clearly described.

• Writing is professional, grammatically correct, and easy to follow.

​

Research to Practice or Policy:

​

Description: This session format highlights how educational research is applied in real-world settings such as classrooms, schools, communities, or policy contexts. Submissions should demonstrate meaningful connections between research and its practical or policy-based applications. This format is ideal for showcasing the impact research has on policy, program development, or pedagogy. 

​

Each session will include multiple papers grouped by theme, with time allotted for each individual presentation and audience discussion.

​

Examples of suitable topics include:

• Translating research into instructional strategies or interventions.

• Using data to inform policy or leadership.

• Practitioner-researcher partnerships improving equity or outcomes.

• Research-informed curriculum, program implementation, or professional development.

• Case discussions or strategy sharing.

​

Proposal Prompt Questions:

1. What specific research findings or evidence-based practices are you translating into practical strategies or policies?

2. How will you demonstrate the application of these findings in real-world practice or policy contexts during your session?

3. What are the primary challenges or considerations in implementing these practices/policies, and how will your session address them for attendees?

​

Evaluation Criteria: 

• Focused on applying research to practice or policy.

• Clearly articulates real-world relevance and goals.

• Shows potential impact on education professionals or systems.

• Research findings or theoretical foundations are clearly explained.

• Session promotes critical thinking, collaboration, or skill-building.

• Writing is professional, grammatically correct, and easy to follow.

 

Sample Fictional Proposals​

​

Sample Fictional Paper Proposal:

​

Title: Cultivating Belonging: A Mixed-Methods Study of Inclusive Pedagogy in Urban Middle Schools

Proposal:

This paper explores how inclusive pedagogical practices influence students’ sense of belonging in urban middle schools, particularly among historically marginalized populations. The central research question guiding this study is: How do teachers’ inclusive instructional strategies affect students’ perceptions of belonging in diverse classroom environments? This question is significant because belonging is a foundational element of student engagement, motivation, and academic success, yet remains underexamined in middle school settings where identity development and peer dynamics are especially complex.

​

The study contributes to ongoing scholarly conversations by integrating theories of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2018) and social-emotional learning (CASEL, 2020) to examine how instructional choices shape relational dynamics in classrooms. While prior research has explored inclusive teaching in general terms, this study offers a nuanced look at how specific practices—such as collaborative learning, identity-affirming content, and restorative classroom management—impact students’ lived experiences of inclusion.

​

Using a convergent mixed-methods design, the study draws on survey data from 312 middle school students across five urban schools, alongside semi-structured interviews with 18 teachers and classroom observations in 12 classrooms. Quantitative measures assessed students’ sense of belonging, perceived teacher support, and engagement. Qualitative data provided rich insights into how teachers conceptualize and enact inclusive pedagogy, and how students interpret those efforts.

​

Findings indicate that classrooms where teachers consistently used identity-affirming content and collaborative learning structures had significantly higher student-reported belonging scores (p < .01). Interviews revealed that teachers who viewed inclusion as relational rather than procedural were more likely to adapt instruction responsively and foster emotionally safe environments. Observational data supported these findings, showing that inclusive classrooms featured more equitable participation and fewer disciplinary disruptions.

​

Implications for practice include the need for professional development that helps educators move beyond compliance-based inclusion toward relational and culturally sustaining approaches. The study also highlights the importance of student voice in evaluating pedagogical effectiveness, suggesting that belonging should be a core metric in instructional design and school climate assessments.

​

This presentation will share key findings, methodological insights, and practical recommendations for educators, school leaders, and researchers. Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of how inclusive pedagogy can be operationalized and evaluated in middle school contexts, and how it contributes to broader goals of equity and student well-being.

 

Sample Fictional Roundtable Proposal:

Title: Beyond the Grade: Reimagining Feedback for Equity and Engagement in College Classrooms

​

Proposal:

This roundtable invites faculty, instructional designers, and researchers to explore how feedback practices in higher education can be reimagined to promote equity, engagement, and student agency. The central question guiding our discussion is: How can feedback in college courses move beyond grading to become a meaningful, student-centered process that supports learning and inclusion?

​

In many college settings, feedback is narrowly tied to summative assessment—grades, rubrics, and brief comments on assignments. Yet research in learning sciences and inclusive pedagogy suggests that feedback is most powerful when it is timely, dialogic, and formative. This roundtable will examine how college instructors can shift from transactional feedback models to approaches that foster reflection, revision, and relational trust.

​

The conversation will be grounded in early-stage findings from a faculty learning community at a regional university, where instructors across disciplines experimented with alternative feedback strategies. These included ungraded formative assignments, audio feedback, collaborative rubrics, and student feedback journals. Preliminary reflections from participating faculty and students revealed promising outcomes: students reported feeling more connected to their instructors and more confident in their learning process, while faculty noted deeper engagement and more authentic student work. However, challenges also emerged—such as time constraints, institutional grading policies, and uneven student readiness for self-directed learning.

​

Rather than presenting finalized results, this roundtable will surface questions, tensions, and strategies relevant to feedback reform in college contexts. Participants will be invited to share their own experiences with feedback—what’s working, what’s challenging, and what’s evolving. Structured prompts will guide discussion around key themes, including:

• Designing feedback systems that support diverse learners and reduce performance anxiety

• Balancing formative feedback with institutional demands for grades and accountability

• Building student capacity for self-assessment and peer feedback in higher ed

• Addressing equity concerns in who receives meaningful feedback and how it’s interpreted

​

The session will be highly interactive, with the presenter facilitating small-group dialogue, posing reflective questions, and encouraging participants to co-create a set of guiding principles for inclusive, student-centered feedback in college classrooms. Attendees will leave with new perspectives, practical ideas, and a deeper understanding of how feedback can be leveraged to support equity and engagement in postsecondary education.

​

This roundtable is ideal for college instructors, teaching and learning center staff, and educational researchers interested in assessment reform, inclusive pedagogy, and student agency. It offers a space for collaborative reflection and knowledge exchange, rather than formal presentation, and encourages participants to think critically and creatively about the future of feedback in higher education.

​

Sample Fictional Panel Proposal:

Title: Humanizing AI: Navigating the Opportunities and Ethical Dilemmas of Artificial Intelligence in Education

​

Proposal:

This panel explores the rapidly evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in education, bringing together researchers, practitioners, and policy experts to examine both the transformative potential and the ethical complexities of AI integration in classrooms, institutions, and educational systems. The overarching theme is: How can educators harness AI to enhance learning while safeguarding equity, privacy, and human connection?

​

AI tools—from adaptive learning platforms and automated grading systems to generative technologies like ChatGPT—are reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. Yet these innovations raise critical questions: Who benefits from AI? Whose data is used and how? What happens to pedagogical relationships when machines mediate learning?

​

This panel brings together four distinct voices to explore these questions:

• A learning sciences researcher will share findings from a recent study on how AI-powered tutoring systems affect student motivation and autonomy in online learning environments.

• A classroom educator will discuss firsthand experiences using AI tools to support differentiated instruction, highlighting both gains in efficiency and concerns about student reliance on automation.

• An instructional designer will examine the design and implementation of AI-enhanced feedback systems, focusing on how to preserve meaningful human interaction in digital learning spaces.

• A policy analyst will address regulatory and ethical considerations, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the need for transparent governance in educational technology adoption.

​

Together, these panelists will offer a holistic exploration of AI’s impact across research, practice, and policy. The session will be structured to promote dynamic dialogue: each panelist will provide a brief framing statement, followed by moderated discussion around key themes such as:

• Equity and access: Who is included or excluded in AI-driven learning environments?

• Pedagogical integrity: How does AI affect the role of teachers and the nature of learning?

• Ethical design: What principles should guide the development and deployment of AI tools in education?

• Future directions: What should educators, institutions, and policymakers prioritize as AI continues to evolve?

​

Audience engagement will be a central component of the session. After the moderated panel discussion, attendees will be invited to pose questions, share experiences, and contribute to a collaborative set of guiding principles for ethical and effective AI use in education. The session will also include a live polling activity to surface participant perspectives and spark conversation.

​

This panel is ideal for educators, technologists, researchers, and decision-makers seeking to understand and shape the future of AI in education. It aims to move beyond hype or fear toward a nuanced, actionable conversation about how to humanize AI and ensure it serves the diverse needs of learners and educators.

​

Sample Fictional Research-to-Practice Proposal:

Title: From Data to Dialogue: Implementing Equity-Focused Instructional Coaching in Title I Schools

​

Proposal:

This session highlights the application of research-based instructional coaching strategies to improve equity in teaching practices across three Title I elementary schools. Drawing on findings from a multi-year study of coaching models and teacher development, the session demonstrates how targeted coaching informed by classroom data can shift instructional mindsets and practices to better serve historically underserved students.

​

The research foundation for this work comes from a longitudinal study examining the effects of equity-focused coaching on teacher efficacy, cultural responsiveness, and student engagement. The study involved 24 instructional coaches and 78 teachers across urban districts, using a mixed-methods approach that included pre/post surveys, coaching logs, classroom observations, and focus group interviews. Key findings indicated that coaching grounded in real-time classroom data—such as student participation patterns, questioning strategies, and feedback equity—led to measurable improvements in culturally responsive teaching and student engagement.

​

In translating these findings into practice, our team developed a coaching framework that integrates three core components: (1) equity-centered data collection tools, (2) reflective dialogue protocols, and (3) collaborative goal-setting aligned with school improvement plans. Coaches were trained to use observation rubrics that highlight equity indicators (e.g., who gets called on, how feedback is distributed, whose voices are centered in instruction) and to facilitate structured conversations that help teachers interpret and act on this data.

​

During the session, we will showcase how this framework was implemented in three schools serving predominantly Black and Latinx students. We will share case examples illustrating how coaching led to shifts in instructional planning, classroom discourse, and teacher-student relationships. For instance, one teacher redesigned her questioning strategy after realizing she was unintentionally favoring high-achieving students in classroom discussions. Another used student voice surveys to co-create classroom norms that reflected shared values and expectations.

​

The session will also address challenges in implementation, including resistance to data transparency, time constraints, and the emotional labor of equity work. We will discuss how coaches navigated these challenges by building trust, modeling vulnerability, and aligning coaching goals with teachers’ personal values and professional growth.

​

Attendees will leave with practical tools and strategies for applying equity-focused coaching in their own contexts, including sample observation rubrics, dialogue prompts, and planning templates. We will also share lessons learned about scaling coaching efforts, sustaining momentum, and embedding equity into school culture.

​

This session is designed for educators, instructional leaders, and researchers interested in bridging the gap between equity research and everyday classroom practice. It promotes critical reflection, collaborative learning, and skill-building, offering a model for how research can drive meaningful change in instructional equity.

​

Sample Fictional Poster Proposal:

Title: Teaching with Machines: A Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications of Artificial Intelligence in K–12 Education

​

Proposal:

This poster presents a preliminary literature review examining the pedagogical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) integration in K–12 education. It is part of an ongoing dissertation project that seeks to understand how AI technologies are reshaping teaching practices, teacher roles, and classroom dynamics.

​

As AI tools—such as intelligent tutoring systems, automated feedback platforms, and generative language models—become increasingly embedded in educational settings, educators face new opportunities and challenges. While much of the existing discourse emphasizes technological innovation and student outcomes, fewer studies center the experiences and perspectives of teachers as they navigate this shifting landscape.

​

The literature review synthesizes findings from peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and policy reports published between 2018 and 2024. Key themes emerging from the review include:

• Pedagogical Shifts: Studies suggest that AI tools can support differentiated instruction and formative assessment, but may also lead to a de-skilling of teaching if educators are positioned as passive facilitators of algorithmic decisions.

• Teacher Agency: Research highlights tensions between automation and professional autonomy, with some educators expressing concern about losing control over instructional choices.

• Ethical Considerations: The literature raises questions about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the transparency of AI systems used in classrooms.

• Professional Development: There is a growing call for teacher training programs to address AI literacy, yet few frameworks exist to guide this work in practice.

​

The poster will visually map these themes, identify gaps in the literature, and propose directions for future research. In particular, it will highlight the need for more qualitative studies that center teacher voice and explore how educators interpret and adapt to AI technologies in context.

​

This work is situated within a broader dissertation project that aims to develop a conceptual framework for understanding teacher agency in AI-mediated learning environments. The poster will invite feedback from attendees on the scope of the review, potential theoretical lenses, and methodological approaches for the next phase of research.

By sharing this early-stage synthesis, the presenter hopes to contribute to a more nuanced and educator-centered conversation about AI in education—one that foregrounds pedagogy, ethics, and the lived realities of teaching with machines.