|
[Author name]
Affiliation
[Author name]
Affiliation
[Author name]
Affiliation
Author Name1, Author Name2 [Arial, 12-point, bold, centred]
1Author Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]
2Author Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]
Abstract [Times New Roman, 10-point, bold, centred]
The abstract should be maximum of 500 words. This template will assist you in formatting your paper. Please, insert the text keeping the format and styles. The parts of the paper (title, abstract, keywords, sections, text, etc.) are already defined on the style sheet, as illustrated by the portions given in this document. [Times New Roman, 10-point, justified alignment]
Keywords: Innovation, technology, research projects, etc. [Times New Roman,10-point, justified alignment].
1. INTRODUCTION [Times New Roman, 12-point, bold, upper case and left alig.]
The Introduction consists of the rationale of the article and the issues to be addressed. The final paper length should be between 5 to 10 pages (including references). All pages size should be A4 (21 x 29,7cm). The top, bottom, right, and left margins should be 2,5 cm. All the text must be in one column and Arial font, including figures and tables, with single-spaced 12-point interline spacing. [Times New Roman, 12 point, normal, justified alignment]
2. METHODOLOGY
A paper should contain the description of your study and should be structured in different sections such as: Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results, Conclusions, Acknowledgements (if applicable) and References. Please note that title and authors list should be coincident with the accepted abstract.
3. FINDINGS and discussion
The text included in the sections or subsections must begin one line after the section or subsection title. Do not use hard tabs and limit the use of hard returns to one return at the end of a paragraph. Use as many sections/subsections as you need.
3.1 Subsection [Times New Roman 12, bold, left alignment and capitalize the first letter]
Please, do not number manually the sections and subsections; the template will do it automatically.
3.1.1 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Abbreviations and Acronyms
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract. Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
3.1.2 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Figures and Tables
Tables and figures should be centred and are numbered independently, in the sequence in which you refer to them in the text. Use the abbreviation “Fig. 1”, even at the beginning of a sentence. Figure captions should be below figures and graphics should be accompanied by a legend; table heads should appear above tables.
Table 1. Caption for the table.
|
|
Heading 1
|
Heading 2
|
Heading 3
|
|
One
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
Two
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
The description of the figure should appear below the figure
Figure 1. Caption for the figure.
3.1.3 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Page numbers and Footnotes
Please, do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the paper. Avoid using headers and footnotes.
3.1.4 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for References
The list of the references should be given at the end of the paper. The references should be cited according to the American Psychological Association Style (APA Style) https://apastyle.apa.org/
4. CONCLUSION
The conclusion needs to be concise and coherent.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [Times New Roman, 12-point, bold, left alignment]
Optional statement to thank other contributors, assistance, or financial support.
REFERENCES [Times New Roman, 12-point, bold, left alignment]
References [Times New Roman, 12-point, left alignment, upper and lower case] should be cited according to the American Psychological Association Style (APA Style) https://apastyle.apa.org/
Avery, R. J., Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37
Boysen, G. A. (2015b). Significant interpretation of small mean differences in student evaluations of teaching despite explicit warning to avoid overinterpretation. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000017
Dewar, J. M. (2011). Helping stakeholders understand the limitations of SRT data: Are we doing enough? Journal of Faculty Development, 25(3), 40–44.
Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). College students’ attitudes toward methods of collecting teaching evaluations: In-class versus on-line. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098
Venette, S., Sellnow, D., & McIntyre, K. (2010). Charting new territory: Assessing the online frontier of student ratings of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618336
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social s
Download Paper Template (.docx)
|
