Please prepare before you submit.
Click the link below to view the
questions that you will be asked.
Proposal Preparation Form

Submit Call for Proposal here
Submit Exhibitors Proposal here

Speaker Proposals Now CLOSED

Exhibitor Proposals OPEN until June 30, 2008

Conference Registration will open September 2008

27th Annual TRLD Conference – January 22-24, 2009

The mission of TRLD 2009 is “Opening Doors to Universal Learning.”  Universal Learning embodies the idea of equitable and flexible access to concepts and ideas for all students, all people. The digital age we live in creates a level playing field and multiple opportunities for all learners to achieve.  Teaching our students to be active participants and competitors in this global society is essential. TRLD’s think-tank environment leverages the collective intelligence of all its participants and embraces the technology of this new age.  Interactive sessions are carefully designed to address systematic change in education, the implementation of innovative technologies and the use of proven interventions and validated instructional models. 

Who is invited to submit a proposal?

Forward-Thinking Educators, Researchers, Literacy Leaders, Technology Developers, Authors, and Trainers who are successfully integrating technology to enhance literacy instruction and student outcomes.

TRLD is seeking presentation proposals for the 2009 conference…
  • Are you successfully integrating technology to enhance literacy instruction and student outcomes? 
  • Are you skilled at teaching and helping others apply new knowledge?
  • Do you have new research, teaching approaches or system-change strategies to share?
  • Can you design a presentation that includes multiple learning approaches?

Presentations that focus on practical applications are especially considered, as well as interactive sessions.
See Proposal Rubric below for details.

Be prepared before submitting your proposal. Click here to see a list of questions that may require preparation or research.

Benefits for speakers 
  • Great location ensures attendance draw
  • Nationwide exposure to an elite group of educators
  • Savings on conference registration
  • Satisfaction of sharing personal success with educational colleagues
  • In-session monitors for speaker assistance
  • Copies of session evaluations provided to speaker after conference

Speaker / Co-Speaker Registration

All session speakers and co-speakers are required to register for the conference and pay the registration fees by December 5, 2008. TRLD is pleased to offer a discounted registration fee for each accepted speaker / co-speaker up to that date. (see TRLD 2009 Fee Schedule) 

Exhibitor proposal 

We accept one hour presentations from companies who have reserved and paid for 2009 booth space by June 30, 2008. We also accept one 1 hour presentation from companies who commit to a TRLD sponsorship of $5,000 or more. Exhibitors click here to submit your presentation(s).

Topics

TRLD session topics focus on the most current issues and emerging trends related to the integration of technology into classroom instruction.  We are looking for presentations that align to the following topic areas and spotlight research, successful implementation, strategies for overcoming barriers and recipes for increasing student outcomes and performance:

 21st Century Skills

 English Language
 Learning (ELL)

 Professional
 Development

 Assessment/Accountability

 Funding and Grant Writing

 Response to
 Intervention (RtI)

 Brain-Based Learning and
 Neuroscience

 Multiple
 Intelligences/Modalities

 Technology to
 Support Instruction

 Bridging General and Special Ed

 Policy and Advocacy

 Universal Design for
 Learning (UDL)

 Differentiated Instruction

 Preparing Tomorrows Teachers
 


Writing Guide
  1. Review the topic strands and choose the one that your proposal addresses.
  2. Use the Proposal Rubric to guide your proposal development process.
  3. Title of the presentation is limited to ten words.
  4. List at least three learning objectives for your audience.
  5. Presentation summary should be 50 words or fewer.
  6. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms.
  7. Submit a 200 to 500 word description of your presentation including content, interactive activities, and times required for each.
  8. If there is more than one speaker, a primary speaker must be designated. (limit - 3 co-speakers)
  9. Contact information must be submitted for each co-presenter.
  10. Complete your proposal online and submit.
Selection Criteria

Selections are based on relevance of the topic to the conference and usefulness to the conference attendees, as well as the quality and clarity of the proposal. An overall program balance will be maintained in the range of topics and grade levels of the participants. Proposals need to be clear about specific materials, programs and how results were determined. Prospective speakers are encouraged to tell how technology has changed their teaching and/or their students' learning.

Proposal Review Process

We welcome proposals addressing all levels of technology experience, from novice to the advanced user.

Selections are based on:

  • Relevance of the topic to the conference
  • Usefulness to the conference attendees
  • Quality and clarity of the proposal
  • Balance of topic strands and attendees
  • Clarity of specific materials, programs and how results were determined
  • Degree to which technology influences teaching and learning

Proposal Rubric
1. Does the proposal deliver new and relevant information or research?

5. The proposal delivers very new and very relevant information or research and 3-5 citations or best practices with appropriate connections.

4. The proposal delivers somewhat new and somewhat relevant information or research and 1-2 citations or best practices with appropriate connections.

3. The proposal delivers average information or research and 0-1 citations or best practices with appropriate connections


2. The proposal delivers somewhat dated information or research and 0-1 citations or best practices with no appropriate connections.

 

1. The proposal delivers dated information or research and no citations or best practices and no appropriate connections.

 

2. Does the proposal address the conference strands and topics?
5. The proposal substantially addresses a conference strand and topic.
4. The proposal clearly addresses a conference strand and topic. 3. The proposal mostly addresses a conference strand and topic.2. The proposal marginally addresses a conference strand and topic.1. The proposal does not address a conference strand and topic. 

3. Does the proposal address strategies applicable to ALL learners; are the strategies replicable, and ready to implement Monday morning?

5. The proposal addresses strategies applicable to all learners of all ages; are replicable; and very easy to implement.

4. The proposal addresses strategies applicable to many types of learners of limited ages; are replicable and somewhat easy to implement.

3. The proposal addresses strategies applicable to some types of learners of limited ages; are replicable; and questionably easy to implement. 


2. The proposal addresses strategies applicable of a few types of learners of very limited ages; are not easily replicable; and difficult to implement. 

1. The proposal does not address the needs of any learners; are not replicable; and are very difficult to implement. 

 

4. Is the proposal interactive, relevant, and thought-provoking?

5. The proposal is highly interactive, highly relevant, and highly thought provoking to the intended participants.
4. The proposal is very interactive, very relevant, and very thought provoking to the intended participants.

3. The proposal is somewhat interactive, somewhat relevant, and somewhat thought provoking to the intended participants.
2. The proposal is not very interactive, a very relevant, and not very thought provoking to the intended participants. 1. The proposal is not at all interactive, not relevant, and not thought provoking to the intended participants.

 5. Is the proposal well-written, and does it have clear learner objectives?

5. The proposal is extremely well-written and the learner objectives are very clear.4. The proposal is well-written and the learner objectives are somewhat clear. 3. The proposal is averagely-written and the learner objectives are mediocrely-stated. 2. The proposal is marginally-written and the learner objectives are vague. 1. The proposal is poorly-written and the learner objectives are not submitted.