Submit a Proposal
2027 NMHEAR Conference
The Assessment Continuum: From Evidence to Impact
NMHEAR invites presenters to share their work through the conference track that best aligns with their proposal. The three tracks move from identifying meaningful evidence, to using it for improvement, to determining whether resulting actions made a difference.
Choose Your Conference Track
The tracks follow a connected progression: Evidence → Action → Impact. Select the track that best fits the work you plan to share.
Track 1: Building the Evidence Base
What evidence do we have, and what evidence do we need?
This track focuses on identifying, locating, organizing, and evaluating evidence.
Track 2: Turning Evidence into Action
What does the evidence tell us, and what should we do?
This track focuses on analyzing evidence collaboratively and translating findings into improvements.
Track 3: Demonstrating Meaningful Impact
Did our actions make a difference, and how do we know?
This track focuses on determining whether evidence-informed actions produced meaningful improvements and communicating the results.
What NMHEAR Is Looking For
Proposals are evaluated in part on how intentionally the session engages participants. An excellent proposal describes an interactive workshop with opportunities for activities such as:
- Collaborative problem-solving
- Data exploration
- Case analysis
- Guided application
- Peer feedback
- Development of a practical product
Proposals are also evaluated on their participant takeaway. A strong takeaway gives participants something specific, practical, and actionable to use after the conference. Examples in the evaluation rubric include an evidence map, assessment tool, improvement plan, framework, process, template, or impact-evaluation strategy.
Plenary Keynote Selection
Presenters submit a proposal for the track that best aligns with their work. From the accepted proposals within each track, the NMHEAR Planning Committee will select one presenter or presenting team to serve as that track’s plenary keynote.
Selected presenters will give a brief overview of their work to the full conference audience. The overview will highlight the purpose and value of their presentation, its connection to the track, and key ideas that frame the sessions that follow.
Keynote presenters will also deliver their full workshop during the track’s breakout sessions, where participants can explore the topic in greater depth and engage in the planned activities. The Planning Committee will work with each selected presenter or team to further define expectations.
Proposal Evaluation Rubric
The Planning Committee will evaluate proposals using the six areas below. Each area describes what a proposal rated Needs Work, Good, or Excellent demonstrates.
Conference Theme & Track Alignment
Needs Work: The proposal has limited connection to The Assessment Continuum: From Evidence to Impact or does not clearly align with the selected track.
Good: The proposal aligns with the conference theme and selected track, but the connection could be explained more clearly.
Excellent: The proposal strongly aligns with the conference theme and selected track and clearly demonstrates how the session advances building evidence, turning evidence into action, or demonstrating meaningful impact.
Participant Engagement
Needs Work: The session is primarily lecture- or presentation-based, with limited opportunity for participant engagement or application.
Good: The session includes participant interaction or application, but these activities are secondary to presentation of information.
Excellent: The session is intentionally designed as an interactive workshop, using activities such as collaborative problem-solving, data exploration, case analysis, guided application, peer feedback, or development of a practical product.
Audience Relevance & Applicability
Needs Work: The proposal is highly specialized or has limited relevance beyond a narrow audience or institutional setting.
Good: The proposal is relevant to NMHEAR participants but may primarily serve one functional area or institutional setting.
Excellent: The proposal has clear relevance and adaptability across academic programs, CTE/workforce education, student services, institutional research, assessment, administration, or cross-functional audiences and multiple institutional settings.
Connection to Student or Institutional Outcomes
Needs Work: The proposal does not clearly connect the topic or activity to improved student or institutional outcomes.
Good: The proposal identifies potential connections to student success or institutional improvement, but the relationship is general or not fully developed.
Excellent: The proposal clearly demonstrates how the work can contribute to improved learning, persistence, retention, credential completion, graduation, transfer, workforce outcomes, or institutional effectiveness.
Participant Takeaway
Needs Work: The proposal does not identify a clear takeaway, or participants primarily receive information rather than something they can use.
Good: The proposal identifies useful information, strategies, or resources participants can take back to their institutions.
Excellent: Participants will leave with a specific, practical, and actionable product or next step, such as an evidence map, assessment tool, improvement plan, framework, process, template, or impact-evaluation strategy.
Transferability to Other Institutions
Needs Work: The proposal depends heavily on one institution, program, technology, or circumstance and offers limited opportunity for adaptation.
Good: Other institutions could adapt elements of the approach with additional explanation or modification.
Excellent: The proposal clearly demonstrates how its approach, tools, lessons, or practices can be adapted and applied by other institutions, programs, or functional areas.