Teach What You Know

Proof required

Share: (1) your topic and a two-sentence statement of your credibility on it, (2) who attended (names or initials and their relationship to you), (3) the session duration, and (4) at least two pieces of specific feedback received immediately after.

What gets checked

• The topic is specific enough to teach in 20–30 minutes — 'programming' is not a topic for a single session; 'how to use Python list comprehensions to replace for-loops' is a topic with scope that fits one session
• At least 3 people attended who chose to be there voluntarily — a session where all attendees were required to attend (by job obligation, class assignment, or social obligation) is not voluntary participation; the GOVERNANCE standard requires that people came because they wanted to learn
• At least two feedback items are specific — 'it was helpful' is not feedback; 'I didn't follow the step where you set up the environment — you moved too fast' is feedback that can be acted on in M2

Common mistakes

• Preparing a complete lecture and leaving no time for questions — the questions reveal what did not land and are the raw material for M2; plan at least 5 minutes of Q&A for every 15 minutes of teaching, and write down every question you received
• Choosing a topic where you have theoretical knowledge from reading rather than practical experience from doing — practical knowledge produces more credible answers under questioning; a topic you have applied in real situations is more appropriate than a topic you have only read about

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask whether the audience chose to attend voluntarily — a session where all attendees were obligated to come does not meet the GOVERNANCE domain standard of voluntary participation
• Ask what the most unexpected question was during Q&A — a teacher who left time for questions will have a specific example; one who did not will have nothing concrete to say
• Read the feedback items: are they specific and varied? Uniformly positive feedback from 3 people with no critical element is likely social courtesy rather than genuine feedback

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share: (1) the specific M1 feedback item that prompted the change, (2) the one change you made, (3) who attended the second session and how long it was, and (4) whether the adjustment improved comprehension on that specific element — honest negative results are as valid as positive ones.

What gets checked

• The change is specific and directly addresses a named M1 feedback item — 'I made it clearer' is not a change; 'I added a worked example before the main concept because M1 attendees were confused without context' is a specific change traced to specific feedback
• The second session involves at least 2 people — a one-on-one conversation provides insufficient signal about whether the change generalises; at least 2 attendees is required
• The question of whether the adjustment worked is answered honestly — if the same confusion appeared in session 2, saying so is more credible than claiming the change worked; honest failure is more useful than claimed success

Common mistakes

• Making multiple changes between sessions — if three things change and the session improves, you cannot identify which change helped; one targeted change per iteration is the discipline that makes M2 informative
• Selecting a more knowledgeable audience for session 2 than for session 1 — if the same confusion disappears because session 2 attendees have more prior knowledge, the change did not work; the audience composition is a confound

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to trace the change directly to a specific M1 feedback item — if they cannot name the feedback item, the change was not evidence-based
• Ask whether the same confusion appeared in session 2 — if it did, ask what they would change for a hypothetical session 3; a thoughtful answer shows genuine reflection on the teaching process
• Note whether the session 2 audience was similar in prior knowledge to session 1 — if more knowledgeable, flag this as a confound when interpreting whether the change worked

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share: (1) your reusable artifact or a link to it, (2) confirmation that at least 2 people used it independently and what one of them said they specifically learned, and (3) a 150-word reflection naming something specific about your topic that became clearer to you through the process of teaching it.

What gets checked

• The artifact is self-contained — a set of personal notes is not a reusable artifact; a written guide, a video, or a slide deck with enough context that someone who was not in the live sessions could follow it meets the standard
• At least one person reports a specific thing they learned from the artifact independently — 'they said it was helpful' is not a learning report; 'she said she now understands why you initialise the variable outside the loop' is a specific learning report
• The reflection names something specific about the topic that became clearer through teaching — 'I understand it better now' is not specific; 'explaining why the order of operations matters forced me to articulate a reason I had been applying by habit without knowing why' is specific

Common mistakes

• Building the artifact as a transcript of the live session rather than a standalone resource — a transcript lacks the context cues that made the live session comprehensible; design the artifact for someone who was not in the room
• Writing the reflection about your effectiveness as a teacher rather than what you learned about the topic — the protégé effect is about what teaching reveals about your own knowledge; the reflection should address what the topic revealed, not how well you taught

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Evaluate the artifact for self-containedness — ask the submitter whether someone who was not in the live sessions could follow it without additional explanation; request confirmation they tested this
• Ask for the specific learning report from the person who used the artifact independently — the report should name something they learned, not just describe their impression of the artifact
• Ask what the submitter understood better about their topic after teaching it — the answer should describe a specific aspect of the topic, not teaching in general; if it is vague, ask for a single example

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.