Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds

ESERA 2025

Call for Proposals

The ESERA 2025 Scientific Committee invites proposals for exploratory seminars, interactive posters, oral presentations, symposia, and workshops. Empirical and theoretical proposals are equally welcome. The submission platform opens on 25 September 2024.

The submission deadline is 31 January 2025 (wherever you are in the world). For authors who wish to ensure their submission complies with the Technical Criteria (see below), we offer a pre-deadline on 15 December 2024. See the timeline for the review process below for details.

Before submitting, we recommend carefully reading the following instructions and guidelines and identifying the strands, themes, and keywords relevant to your proposal.

Technical Criteria

To be considered for the ESERA 2025 Conference, all proposals must meet the following technical criteria for the double-blind peer-review process:

  1. Anonymity: Ensure the extended summary does not reveal author identities, including anonymising self-citations and host institutions.
  2. Deadline: Final submissions must be received by 31 January 2025.
  3. Submission Portal: Proposals will be submitted exclusively via the online submission website.
  4. Strands and Sub-themes: Choose one of the 20 ESERA Strands and, if applicable, a relevant sub-theme. Indicate additional suitable Strands and whether your proposal aligns with conference themes: sustainability or digital advances.
  5. Proposal Components: Submissions should include:
    • Author names and affiliations.
    • A brief abstract (2000 characters max).
    • An extended summary (12000 characters max) includes a title, three keywords from the ESERA 2025 list, relevant references, tables, and figures.
    • For exploratory seminars and workshops: A timetable using the ESERA 2025 Template (2000 characters max).
    • Optionally, a central figure with a caption (400 characters max) may be uploaded separately.

6. Symposia: Symposia proposals must include three oral presentation submissions and a summarising abstract.

7. Presenter Roles: Each attendee can assume up to four presenter roles, limited to one instance of each role:

    • Facilitator in an Exploratory Seminar
    • Presenting an Interactive Poster
    • Oral Presentation
    • Coordinator or Discussant of a Symposium
    • Workshop Facilitator


8. Symposia Specifics: The symposium coordinator may not act as a discussant

Style guidelines for preparing a proposal

  1. Language: Proposals must be written in English.
  2. Citation Format: Use APA7 (American Psychological Association) style for citations.
  3. Consider review criteria: Each format has unique review criteria. Make sure that your proposal considers all of them.

Conference Session Formats and Review Criteria

Below are detailed descriptions of each session format available for proposal submission, including specific review criteria and submission procedures for each format. Note that submission steps and criteria may vary by format.

Extended abstracts for all conference formats may be considered for inclusion in the conference proceedings and the book of selected papers. Guidelines for revising extended abstracts for these publications will be provided later.

Note: This format is new to ESERA 2025 but has been tested in other contexts.

An exploratory seminar poses a question or dilemma to be discussed during a 30-minute session and aims to open dialogues about research possibilities, innovative research areas, and creative research ideas. The purpose of an exploratory seminar may, for example, be to initiate research collaborations, test new research questions, methods, analyses, perspectives, and data material, or to investigate opportunities to arrange further seminars and conferences, write applications, and apply for funding, etc. The exploratory seminar thus serves as a structured networking forum around a theme, and the proposers can organise the session according to various models. The proposer will be the chair. 

A proposal for an exploratory seminar must include a description and problematisation of the question or dilemma on which the seminar will focus, together with the purpose of initiating the seminar and some expected outcomes. Note that the Exploratory Seminar is one of the two session formats for which a timetable must be submitted in addition to meeting the standard technical criteria.

Exploratory Seminars will be reviewed using the following criteria:

  1. Context and relevance to science education (importance of the study for research and/or practice)
  2. Possible theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, or pragmatic grounding
  3. Clarity and justification of the purpose, exploratory aim of the seminar and expected outcomes
  4. Feasibility of planned seminar activities to lead to fruitful discussions and constructive results
  5. Clarity and relevance of the expected outcomes of the seminar
  6. Feasibility of structure and the timetable to lead to the expected outcomes
  7. Plans to follow up on the seminar

The reviewer’s comments will explain the scoring and provide suggestions for the seminar.

Interactive posters allow researchers to present and discuss their work interactively with conference participants. They are grouped by strands into 90-minute sessions. Each session typically has up to 8 posters within one room. The format of the poster sessions begins with each author standing by their poster, giving a brief 1-minute introduction to their work. Next, those attending the session approach the posters and authors and engage in informal small-group conversations. The chair of the session will organise these conversations at their discretion. Towards the end of the session, and at the chair’s discretion, participants may be encouraged to provide brief written feedback on the work presented on the posters.

Interactive Posters will be reviewed using the following criteria:

  1. Context and relevance to science education (importance of the study for research and/or practice)
  2. Theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, or pragmatic grounding
  3. Aim(s) and/or Research question(s) (do they make sense, can they be answered?)
  4. Research method and design (Empirical proposals) / Use of relevant research literature (Theoretical proposals)
  5. Findings and coherence of argument (is the aim met/are the RQs answered?)
  6. Quality of questions for discussions to be had during the interactive poster session
  7. Plan for converting the extended abstract into a poster that is viable for discussions


The reviewer’s comments will explain the scoring and provide suggestions for the poster.

Oral presentations are grouped by strands and strand themes in 90-minute sessions. Each session has four presentations, allowing for individual presentations of 12 minutes plus an optional 3-minute activity for engaging participants, for example, peer discussion or individual reflections. The presentation is followed by a discussion of up to 7 minutes, moderated by the session chairperson. 

Oral Presentations will be reviewed using the following criteria:

  1. Context and relevance to science education (importance of the study for research and/or practice)
  2. Theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, or pragmatic grounding
  3. Aim(s) and/or Research question(s) (do they make sense; can they be answered?)
  4. Research method and design (Empirical proposals) / Use of relevant research literature (Theoretical proposals)
  5. Findings and coherence of argument (is the aim met/are the RQs answered?)
  6. Discussion of findings and implications
  7. Clarity of analysis and expression


The reviewer’s comments will explain the scoring and provide suggestions for the presentation.

A symposium consists of three related contributions (each dealt with as a paper proposal) and an introduction submitted together as one proposal. 

The symposium will be assigned a full 90-minute session at the conference, and the symposium organisers should also invite a discussant. The discussant steers a debate involving all symposium participants. The detailed structure of the symposium can be decided freely, and we encourage the organisation of symposia in ways that will encourage reflection and discussion. One way is for all contributors to present as they would in a typical paper presentation; after the presentations, the discussant would steer a discussion involving all participants. Another way could be to make shorter presentations followed by group discussions with the authors and the audience. 

A symposium proposal must include three extended abstracts for individual oral presentations and an additional extended abstract outlining the overall symposium.

Symposia will be reviewed using the following criteria:

  1. Context and relevance to science education (importance of the study for research and/or practice)
  2. Relevance of theoretical framework(s), conceptual rationale(s), or pragmatic grounding(s) for the symposium
  3. Overall coherence and quality of the symposium
  4. Clarity of contribution of each paper to the symposium
  5. Quality of questions to be discussed during the symposium
  6. Feasibility of the planned structure of the symposium
  7. Clarity of analysis and expression


The reviewer’s comments will explain the scoring and provide suggestions for the symposium.

Workshops enable presenters to facilitate the exploration of an innovative approach to a teaching or research tool, a teaching-learning sequence or some other aspect of research or teaching practice. The workshop may include a brief presentation of relevant research, such as a case to be explored during the workshop. Still, the emphasis is on participants’ active experiences with an innovation or a tool, not a one-way research presentation.  Adequate time and quality questions for reflective discussion are essential.

Note that the Workshop is one of the two session formats for which a timetable must be submitted in addition to meeting the standard technical criteria.

Workshops will be reviewed using the following criteria:

  1. Context and relevance to science education (importance of the study for research and/or practice)
  2. Theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, or pragmatic grounding
  3. Clarity and justification of the purpose and aim of the workshop
  4. Feasibility of planned workshop activities to lead to meaningful exploration and reflection by participants
  5. Quality of questions for reflective discussions
  6. Feasibility of structure presented in the timetable to fulfil the aims of the workshop
  7. Clarity of analysis and expression

Timeline for the review process

All proposals must be submitted by 31 January 2025. Subsequently, a technical review based on the established Technical Criteria will ensure proposal eligibility for the peer-review process. Proposals failing to meet these criteria will be promptly informed of rejection after the technical evaluation.

Acknowledging the rigorous nature of the Technical Criteria, we offer an optional early submission deadline of 15 December 2024. Proposals received by this date will undergo an initial technical check, and authors will be alerted to any deficiencies. This provides an opportunity for authors to revise and meet the Technical Criteria by the final deadline. It is important to note that proposals submitted for early review and passing the technical check will be considered final and cannot be modified after that. Proposals that do not pass the 15 December 2024 Pre-deadline may be adjusted and submitted by 31 January 2025 for complete review.

The review process is expected to conclude by April 2025. Authors will then be notified of the outcomes, and the conference programme will be assembled. Presenting authors are required to register within one month of the announcement to secure their session in the schedule. Failure to register will result in exclusion from the conference programme.

Please note that following the conference, authors of accepted proposals will have the opportunity to refine their work for submission to the conference proceedings. Further instructions regarding the submission of full papers will be provided during and following the conference.

Evaluation of proposals

Evaluation Scores:

At least two independent reviewers will evaluate each proposal. Given the 3-page summary format, reviewers will rank the quality of the paper based on the following criteria (maximum score of 28):

  • 4 – Excellent
  • 3 – Good, meets the criterion
  • 2 – Fair, some weaknesses
  • 1 – Poor, significant weaknesses or absent information


Based on their scores, proposals will fall into one of three categories per reviewer:

Review Outcomes:

  • High Quality: The proposal will be accepted directly if both reviewers rate it as high quality (at least ‘good’ for all criteria).
  • Poor Quality: The proposal will be rejected automatically if both reviewers rate it as poor quality.
  • Intermediate Quality: Proposals rated in the intermediate range will be reviewed by the Strand Chairs. The Scientific Committee will then make a final decision (Acceptance/Rejection/Change to Another Format) based on recommendations from the Strand Chairs.


The following table illustrates each scenario:

If one or more proposals within a symposium are rejected, the accepted proposals will be considered as individual oral presentations.