ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ

Rubric Categories

The Annual Meeting Program Committee will evaluate all submitted proposals using the following rubric:

• Relevance & Audience Need (10 PTS)
• Originality & Innovation (5 PTS)
• Practical Application (5 PTS)
• Audience Engagement (5 PTS)
• Clarity & Coherence (5 PTS)
• Connection to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (if applicable, additional 5 PTS)

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS:  35

During their initial evaluation of all submitted proposals, AMPC members will not see the names and institutions of any participants identified in the proposal. ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ strives to offer exceptional learning opportunities with knowledgeable and skilled presenters. Please note that if your program is accepted, ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ and the AMPC reserve the right to make adjustments to the program to ensure that the best program is delivered, from promotion to production. To facilitate this, a member of the AMPC will be assigned to each program as the program liaison and will work closely with the coordinator and presenters.

Rubric for Proposal Review

Criteria

1 – Does Not Meet Expectations
2 – Needs Improvement
3 – Average
4 – Good
5 – Excellent

Relevance and Audience Need

How relevant is the topic to the needs of law librarians and legal information professionals? (1–5 PTS)

1. The program topic is either oversaturated or not relevant to the needs of law librarians and legal information professionals. There is little demand for this content, and it does not effectively address current trends or needs.
2. The program topic has been presented often or recently, and relevance may be declining. While the topic remains somewhat applicable, it could benefit from adjustments to better align with current needs and trends.
3. The program topic may be relevant to law librarians and legal information professionals. It provides content that is generally applicable but may cover areas that are already well-established or frequently addressed.
4. The program topic is mostly relevant to law librarians and legal information professionals. It covers current trends and needs of the profession, though it may not be as forward-looking or innovative as the highest level.
5. The program topic is highly relevant to law librarians and legal information professionals. It addresses emerging trends and current needs within the profession, offering forward-looking content that is both innovative and impactful.

How well does the program fit into one of the identified “must have” topics? (1-5 PTS)      ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

1. The program proposal does not and can not fit into one of the identified “must have” topics.
2. The program proposal could fit into an identified “must have” topic but requires significant refinement to fit.
3. The program proposal somewhat fits into one of the identified “must have” topics but requires refinement to fit.
4. The program proposal mostly fits into one of the identified “must have” topics but could use a minimal amount of refinement to further fit.
5. The program proposal clearly fits into one of the identified “must have” topics.

Originality and Innovation

Does the proposal present innovative ideas, methodologies, or solutions? (1–5 PTS)

1. The proposal relies on conventional ideas and methods, presenting a common approach to a well-covered topic. The content is not original and has been extensively discussed or previously presented by the listed speakers.
2. The proposal lacks significant innovation or uniqueness but has potential with revisions. It may present one original idea or perspective, but overall, it does not offer a distinctive approach or solution.
3. The proposal includes some innovative or unique elements but may be limited. It presents one original approach or new perspective, though it may not be fully distinctive or transformative.
4. The proposal features innovative or unique ideas, methodologies, or solutions. The program topic or approach offers some originality and new perspectives, though it may not be as groundbreaking as the highest level.
5. The proposal introduces highly innovative or unique ideas, methodologies, or solutions. The program topic, approach, or perspective is original and provides significant new insights or contributions to the field.

Practical Application

Does the proposal include actionable takeaways or tools for attendees, and can they apply the knowledge or skills gained from the program in their professional roles?  (1–5 PTS)  

1. The proposal lists incomplete or vague takeaways, or the takeaways do not demonstrate practical application. Few or no participants will be able to apply the knowledge or skills gained from the program in their professional roles.
2. The proposal lists at least one actionable takeaway or tool. However, the takeaways do not clearly demonstrate practical application, and only a limited number of participants may be able to apply the knowledge, or skills gained from the program in their professional roles.
3. The program proposal lists at least two takeaways and tools. Some of these demonstrate practical application, allowing some participants to apply the knowledge or skills gained from the program in their professional roles.
4. The program proposal lists three takeaways or tools that mostly demonstrate practical application. Most participants will be able to apply the knowledge or skills gained from the program in their professional roles.
5. The program proposal lists three takeaways or tools that clearly demonstrate practical application. Participants will be able to confidently apply the knowledge or skills gained from the program in their professional roles.

Clarity and Coherence

Do the title and description clearly and accurately outline the program and expected outcomes? (1–5 PTS)

1. Title and description are unclear and difficult to understand.
2. Title and description lack detail and clarity. Significant revisions are needed for understanding.
3. Title and description offer some details, but the program’s content and outcomes are not entirely clear.
4. Title and description provide a mostly accurate idea of the program and outcomes. Some details may be missing or less clear.
5. Title and description clearly and accurately outline the program and expected outcomes. Participants can easily understand what will be presented.

Audience Engagement

Does the proposal include interactive elements or opportunities for attendee engagement? (1–5 PTS)

1. The proposal does not include a defined plan for audience engagement.
2. The plan for audience engagement is present but needs more clarity and detail.
3. The proposal includes one strategy for engagement, but it is not clearly defined or lacks sufficient detail.
4. The proposal includes at least one clearly explained strategy for audience engagement with sufficient detail.
5. The proposal includes multiple, clearly explained strategies for audience engagement, with detailed plans for implementation.

Connection to DEI

If applicable, does the proposal incorporate multiple perspectives, ensuring diverse voices and experiences are represented? (Additional 1–5 PTS)        

1. The program topic and/or proposed speakers do not include diverse perspectives, experiences, or communities.
2. The program topic and/or proposed speakers do not currently include diverse perspectives, experiences, or communities but could with revisions.
3. The program topic and/or proposed speakers may include one diverse perspective, experience, or community, but it is not clearly defined.
4. The program topic and/or proposed speakers include at least one diverse perspective, experience, or community, with clear representation.
5. The program topic and/or proposed speakers include multiple diverse perspectives, experiences, and communities, clearly representing a range of viewpoints.