Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 47/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Submit by July 15
This applied learning or working session in Unknown shows 31 visible agenda rows from asm.org and scores 47/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Future-of-Work Fit; the main limits are Follow Through and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent rather than... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and evidence maturity. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Evidence Maturity, and Problem Specificity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The extracted agenda preview includes 31 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Meal; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Wellbeing.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?77
Participation Architecture - 77/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?43
Problem Specificity - 43/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.Missing: Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Personalization?57
Personalization - 57/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?54
Network Design - 54/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.
Learning Transfer?61
Learning Transfer - 61/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?41
Evidence Maturity - 41/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?72
Future-of-Work Fit - 72/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Problem Specificity (43/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Network Design (54/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
48 percent of the 31 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventPre-Conference WorkshopsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop 1: Integrating an Immunology Storyline in Your Course with HHMI BioInteractiveWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWhat role can a storyline approach and rich instructional materials play in expanding students’ understanding of the immune system? In this workshop, participants will explore HHMI BioInteractive’s engaging immune system activities, including an illustrated story of smallpox, to introduce the cells of the immune system. Using the Immune System Interactive and case studies, pedagogical strategies, such as scaffolding, will be highlighted to support and assess students' conceptual connections between innate and adaptive responses. The workshop will culminate in a guided discussion on how to incorporate this storyline into their own classes. Participants should have a laptop to participate fully in the workshop.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventNo pre-requisites. Participants are encouraged to create a free educator account at the HHMIBioInteractive before attending the workshop.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop 2: Hands-On PCR: Integrating End Point, Quantitative and Digital PCR Technology for Undergraduate Teaching and ResearchWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis workshop is designed for educators seeking to enhance their understanding and teaching of PCR technologies. Participants will gain practical experience, explore their applications in undergraduate research and teaching and learn strategies for integrating these methods into their curricula. The session is designed to support participants of all experience levels, from those beginning their PCR journey to those exploring advanced applications. Participants will leave with increased confidence in teaching and applying PCR technologies, practical skills for laboratory instruction.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop 3: From Course to Publication: A Guide to Environmental Microbiome Analysis With StudentsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIf you are interested in incorporating bioinformatics or data science concepts into a course, or working with students on data that are immediately publishable, then this workshop is for you! This workshop focuses on collecting and analyzing environmental microbial data and metadata in the free, open source KBase platform, following a workflow that results in a publishable (meta)genomic dataset for an ASM Microbiology Resource Announcement.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis workshop will provide examples of how educators use National Microbiome Data Collaborative (NMDC) and KBase resources with their students, in a variety of courses ranging from CUREs to independent research. Together, we will go through steps to analyze a genomic dataset and identify the importance of collecting and processing good sample metadata along the way. Participants will be introduced to resources for collecting environmental sample metadata through MICROnet (NSF #2418285) and KBase Educators Program, which provide teaching materials and template workflows to analyze raw sequence data and prepare students for their first data publication. Everyone will have access to these tools and resources after the workshop to use with their students and adapt for future use!WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSaturday’s track-based programming will be curated by the ASMCUE Planning Committee and include a mix of content formats: expert-led plenary, mini-workshops to develop skill, ideation short talks and roundtable discussions. Attendees will pick a single topic and track for each time slot. After attending the track, attendees have the opportunity to claim a microcredential, which signifies a deeper understanding of a topic important to today’s educators.RoundtableDeliberation+
Format · Participant workRoundtableSmall-group discussion where attendees contribute directly rather than only listening.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event5. Design new high-impact practices to recruit, retain and prepare students to use their training to solve real-world problems.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
6 p.mDate and Time: Thursday, Nov. 19, 2026, . PTUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4 p.mDate and Time: Saturday, Nov. 21, . PTUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThere are some common themes that exist between teaching students in a course and in an experimental research lab. Both require an effort to foster good communication skills related to the presentation of findings and scientific discovery. Teaching and mentoring skills evolve in both environments through a willingness to change, whether that change come from a self-desire to improve, a roadblock that must be overcome or an unexpected opportunity that presents itself. Both types of teaching are strengthened by building connections between related pieces of information and through establishing cooperative and collaborative professional relationships. Balancing a career between teaching and research is a challenging, but important and rewarding endeavor. Demonstrating to your students that you care is vital for successful outcomes.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventNetworking with creative educators who think deeply about teaching, teach the same classes you do and are genuinely passionate about helping students.NetworkingRelationship Building+
Format · LogisticsNetworkingUnstructured mixing. Can carry incidental connection, but is not scored as designed network work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event2026 ASMCUE in Seattle features the same supportive community and energy, with a refreshed format and schedule to meet the needs of today’s biology educators, classrooms and institutions. their training to solve real-world problems.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:30 to 4:30 p.mPre-Conference Workshops (Advanced Sign-Up Required)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:30 to 6 p.mBreak & Affinity DinnersMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7 p.mASMCUE Opening Comments & PlenaryUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9 p.mFriday, Nov. 20: “Grow Your Community Day”UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:30 to 9:30 a.mJoint Keynote With ABRCMSKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:40 to 10:30 a.mFirst-timer’s Orientation or Returning Attendee NetworkingNetworkingRelationship Building+
Format · LogisticsNetworkingUnstructured mixing. Can carry incidental connection, but is not scored as designed network work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.mLunch Break, On Your OwnMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:30 to 2:15 p.mRoundtable DiscussionsRoundtableDeliberation+
Format · Participant workRoundtableSmall-group discussion where attendees contribute directly rather than only listening.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:15 to 4 p.mBreak. Opportunity to Sample Seattle and Affinity DinnersMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:15 to 9:30 p.mJoint Faculty Reception with ABRCMSReceptionRelationship Building+
Format · LogisticsReceptionA social or hospitality block. Pacing and informal connection, not participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.mTrack-Based Programming #1UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:15 to 1:30 p.mLunch On Your OwnMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:30 to 3:45 p.mTrack-Based Programming #2UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:15 p.mASMCUE Plenary & Closing CommentsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:30 to 8 p.mAffinity DinnersMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 52/100 and verified 45/100, then capped for no visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and evidence maturity. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Evidence Maturity, and Problem Specificity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
- Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from asm.org. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- 42: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Review flags
- Fourth-loop score cap: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2026_asm_org_events_asm_microbe_program_submit_by_july_15_asm_org_2ea56e"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Unknown events scored on the same eight pillars.