Free Education Delivered (Documented Community Impact)

Proof required

Share: (1) your written workshop plan (learning objective, activity description, timing, and check-for-understanding method), (2) brief notes from the test session including what worked, what did not, and at least two specific pieces of feedback from participants, and (3) one change you will make to the session based on what you learned.

What gets checked

• Learning objective is specific and measurable — 'participants will understand budgeting' is not measurable; 'participants will be able to build a one-month budget using the template provided' is
• At least two pieces of participant feedback are documented and specific — 'they liked it' is not feedback; 'two people found the activity instructions confusing before the example was shown' is
• One concrete change to the session is named and justified — what will change, why, and what you expect it to improve

Common mistakes

• Writing a lecture instead of a workshop — a community education session should include at least one activity where participants do something, not just listen; passive sessions rarely produce lasting learning
• Running the test session with friends who will only say positive things — the test group needs to include people who will tell you honestly when something is confusing
• Writing a vague learning objective like 'raise awareness' — awareness is not a learnable skill; the objective should describe what participants will be able to do or decide differently after the session

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to read out their learning objective — if it cannot be evaluated at the end of a session (e.g. 'raise awareness'), ask them to revise it before M2
• Ask what specific feedback the test group gave — a genuine test session produces concrete observations; 'they found it useful' without specifics suggests the feedback was not probed
• Ask what the one change is and why — the quality of the change reveals whether the feedback was genuinely heard or just noted

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

Proof required

Share: (1) session dates, venue (or online platform), and participant counts for all 3 sessions, (2) your feedback form with the 3–5 questions used, (3) a summary of responses across all 3 sessions including one thing that improved and one thing that remains a challenge, and (4) a brief description of how participants were recruited — who they are and why they attended.

What gets checked

• Three distinct sessions on three different dates are documented — three sessions with the same group on the same day is one session delivered in parts
• Feedback form is consistent across all three sessions and includes at least one question about whether the learning objective was met — not just 'did you enjoy it?'
• Recruitment description confirms participants attended voluntarily for their own learning — captive audiences (e.g. a class that was required to attend) are valid but should be noted, as voluntary participants give more honest feedback

Common mistakes

• Using only informal verbal feedback — verbal feedback is easy to remember selectively; a written form produces comparable data across sessions and makes improvement visible
• Running all three sessions back-to-back in one week without changing anything between them — the value of multiple sessions is iteration; make at least one change between session 1 and session 3
• Counting sessions where fewer than 3 people attended — very small groups do not provide enough feedback variation to be meaningful; aim for at least 5 participants per session

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for session dates and participant counts — three sessions on the same date or with the same group is one session
• Review the feedback form: confirm it includes a question about whether the learning objective was met, not just satisfaction questions
• Ask how participants were recruited — voluntary attendance is the stronger signal; if attendance was required, ask whether the feedback form allowed for anonymous honest responses

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

Proof required

Share: (1) evidence that a measurable learning objective was met by participants — this could be a pre/post quiz comparison, participant work samples showing the skill applied, or direct quotes from feedback describing a behaviour or decision change, (2) a 300–500 word reflection on how your facilitation approach changed between your first and third session and what specifically drove each change, and (3) confirmation of total participants reached across all sessions.

What gets checked

• Participant outcome evidence is observable — 'participants said they learned a lot' is not observable; a pre/post quiz showing a 20% improvement in score, or participant work samples demonstrating the skill, are observable
• Reflection names specific changes to facilitation approach with the feedback or observation that drove each change — 'I got better at explaining things' is not a reflection; 'I added a worked example after session 1 because three participants said the instruction was unclear without one' is
• Total participant count across all sessions is documented — even if small, an honest count is more credible than a vague claim

Common mistakes

• Providing only satisfaction evidence — rating scales and enjoyment scores are not outcome evidence; at minimum, direct quotes describing a specific behaviour or decision change are needed
• Reflection that describes improvements without citing what caused them — each change in approach should be traceable to a specific piece of feedback or a specific moment in a session
• Claiming participant outcomes without any corroborating evidence — self-reported learning without a quiz, work sample, or observable behaviour change is the weakest form of evidence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for the participant outcome evidence — confirm it is observable and not just a satisfaction score; a pre/post quiz or a work sample is the gold standard
• Ask the submitter to describe the most significant change they made between session 1 and session 3 — a genuine educator can name a specific moment or feedback comment that drove a change
• Ask whether any session failed to meet its learning objective — a community educator who has never had a session fall short either has not run enough sessions or is not measuring outcomes honestly

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