Evaluation

We look for workshops that offer hands-on experiences and actionable depth, ensuring participants walk away with learnings they can use immediately.

An ounce of practice is worth more than ton of preaching. — Mahatma Gandhi

The Practice Journey in the workshop submission we are looking for:

• Reality: Anchors the session in real-world, lived challenges or pressing questions rather than abstract theories.
• Outcomes: States what participants should be able to do or apply afterward.
• Navigation: Explains how you will guide participants through the working steps.
• Interactivity: Centres active doing and experimentation over passive listening.
• Application: Produces usable tools, methods, or artefacts during the session.
• Tradeoffs: Acknowledge limits and choices honestly, not just ideal paths.

Workshop Evaluation Rubric

Your proposal will be evaluated by our Editorial Team and a panel of experienced workshop facilitators. We aim to have a rough consensus amongst the multiple evaluators for each proposal. The evaluation rubric below is how each one of them will be looking at the proposal.

Criteria	Strong	Maybe	Weak
Reality Anchoring	Clearly rooted in real-world challenges or practitioner needs.	Some real-world grounding, but abstract in parts.	Largely theoretical or disconnected from practice.
Learning Outcomes	States clear, measurable skills or capabilities participants will gain.	Outcomes stated but broad or unclear.	No clear outcomes defined.
Facilitation Navigation	Thoughtful step-by-step flow explaining how participants move through the session.	General flow described but lacks clarity or pacing detail.	No clear structure; unclear how session will unfold.
Interactivity Design	Centres active doing, experimentation, and hands-on work.	Includes interactive elements but not core to session.	Primarily presentation-based with minimal doing.
Practical Application	Produces usable artefacts, tools, or techniques during the workshop.	Application implied but not fully embedded.	No clear practical output or usable learning.
Tradeoffs & Depth	Acknowledges constraints, limitations, and design choices honestly.	Mentions complexity but without depth.	Presents idealised approach without acknowledging real-world limits.