Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 46/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
EDUtech Asia 2026 - View workshops
This applied learning or working session in Technology / AI / Startup shows 30 visible agenda rows from terrapinn.com and scores 46/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Learning Transfer; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. 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... 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 learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. 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, Learning Transfer, and Problem Specificity; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The extracted agenda preview includes 40 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Keynote, and Unknown; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Participant Work, and Expert Framing.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?93
Participation Architecture - 93/100. 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?48
Problem Specificity - 48/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?47
Personalization - 47/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?16
Network Design - 16/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?63
Learning Transfer - 63/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?29
Evidence Maturity - 29/100. 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?38
Future-of-Work Fit - 38/100. 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
Network Design (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Personalization (47/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Journey Mapping • WorkshopBank · Group Energiser & Perspective-Changing Exercise - Paradigm... · Photo Storytelling
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
92 percent of the 40 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventMeet our keynotesKeynoteExpert framing+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventWorkshopsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all event3 November 2026 - WORKSHOPSWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventPractical WorkshopsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventGet hands-on in these practical workshops on 3 November, ahead of the main conference on 4 and 5 November 2026WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventMorning workshopsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop LeadersWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop LeaderWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventYou will leave with a live prototype and the confidence to continue building and iterating beyond the workshop.WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventAfternoon workshopsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventConference agendaUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventMeet our keynotesKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshopsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event3 November 2026 - WORKSHOPSWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPractical WorkshopsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventGet hands-on in these practical workshops on 3 November, ahead of the main conference on 4 and 5 November 2026WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMORNING WORKSHOPSWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop Leaders:WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event"As artificial intelligence moves from novelty to necessity, educators face a triple challenge: How do we use it, how do we teach it and how do we evolve alongside it? This immersive, hands on workshop invites participants to view the AI revolution through three distinct lenses designed to provide both immediate utility and long-term strategic clarity.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDesigned for secondary educators and school leaders, this workshop balances high-energy practical application with strategic foresight. Attendees will not just ""see"" AI; they will build a personal AI roadmap. You will leave with a curated toolkit of strategies and a clear vision for maintaining the human heart of the classroom in an AI-saturated world."WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop Leader: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 is designed for educators who are interested in implementing an active and authentic approach to teaching and learning within their courses. In the course, participants will be introduced to a dynamic pedagogical approach that weaves together active learning, authentic assessments and peer learning through Contextualised Learning via Enquiring, Answering, and Reflecting (CLEAR) to increase student agency.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIn this workshop, Assoc. Prof. Stephen Tay will share results from a six year journey in the implementation of CLEAR across courses, Departments, Colleges and Institutions with triangulated measurements (i.e. assessment scores, student feedback, sample of students’ work and feedback from lecturers). Briefly, CLEAR was developed from the existing student generated questions (SGQ) approach in literature through the following three improvements: 1) utilisation of higher orders of Bloom’s taxonomy, 2) development of answers to the questions developed and 3) employing industry as contexts for the questions for authentic assessments.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDrawing inspiration from the experience and case studies shared during the workshop, participants will create personalised lesson/assessment plans and collaborate with peers to share innovative ideas for achievement of the desired learning outcomes.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventBy the end of this workshop, participants will be empowered with practical strategies to create an engaging learning environment with CLEAR to foster teaching and learning in their respective classes.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIt can often feel like AI is happening to us and that we have little control. The reality is that AI can be easy to steer, within the right platform, and with thoughtful pedagogical intent. In this workshop, we will explore ways that educators can take control of AI to build their own learning experiences for students. From custom agents to specialised mini apps, we will see how to start with an educational context and goal, turn this into instructions for AI, and build interactive learning experiences for students.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis session reframes the educator's relationship with AI from passive consumer to active creator. We will unpack the surprisingly accessible architecture behind custom AI tools, demystifying what once seemed like the domain of developers and tech specialists. Through guided experimentation, participants will discover how clear pedagogical thinking translates directly into powerful AI behaviour and outputs, putting educator expertise at the centre of the design process. Whether you want to build a writing coach that asks better questions, a maths tutor that adapts to student misconceptions, or a history simulation that brings primary sources to life, this workshop provides an ideal starting point.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 focuses on the “culture engine” behind sustainable AI adoption. Drawing from our school’s experience, we will share a practical, field-tested approach to shifting mindsets and behaviours - from cautious curiosity to confident, purposeful use. Participants will explore how we build trust and psychological safety, reduce friction in teachers’ workflows, and create shared language for what “good” AI use looks like. We will also unpack the systems that make change stick: leadership signals, professional learning structures, peer champions, quick-win pilots, feedback loops and lightweight governance that protects quality without slowing innovation.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWhile examples will include Google Workspace integrations, the workshop is open to all participants regardless of platform or technical background. The focus is on transferable concepts and approaches that can be adapted to different school environments.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventYou will leave with a live prototype and the confidence to continue building and iterating beyond 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 eventAFTERNOON WORKSHOPSWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIn this intensive 2 hour workshop, we move beyond generic prompting advice to apply four evidence-based strategies derived from this "Human-in-the-Loop" research. First, participants will adopt the "Critical Curator" stance, engaging in a "Pedagogical Turing Test" to diagnose hidden bias in AI output. Next, they will practice "Pre-loading" (injecting pedagogical context before the prompt) and "Iterative Dialogue" (treating AI as a thought-partner rather than a vending machine) to restructure their planning workflows. Finally, the session culminates in "Transformative Design," where attendees flip the script to design student-facing AI tools that drive inquiry rather than just delivering content.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventGenerative AI is rapidly entering university classrooms, yet many educators remain uncertain about how to move beyond using AI as a general-purpose chatbot or productivity aid. When AI is introduced without pedagogical design, it can unintentionally reduce student thinking, over-scaffold learning, or undermine intended outcomes. This hands-on workshop addresses this challenge by guiding educators through a pedagogy-first process for both designing and building AI learning agents.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCrucially, the workshop goes beyond design. Participants will translate their completed templates into actual system prompts and use them to build and test a working AI agent during the session. Through guided testing, participants will observe how different design choices affect agent behaviour, including when the agent should probe, redirect, summarise, or end an interaction. Common pitfalls - such as over-helping, answer dumping and dependency - are surfaced and corrected through live iteration.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis practical workshop will equip schools with a holistic framework to implement AI responsibly and confidently. Participants will explore real cases from K-12 settings, unpack risks such as hallucination, bias, deepfakes, dependency and data exposure, and examine emerging global trends in AI regulation and educational policy.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSchools will leave with practical templates, checklists and action ready guidelines that can be adapted locally. The workshop ultimately reframes AI not as a threat, but as a strategic opportunity; requiring thoughtful leadership, ethical foundations, and a shared commitment to preparing students for a world where AI is widespread, collaborative and human centred.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAs generative AI becomes ubiquitous in education, how can we transform it from an answer generator to a genuine pedagogical instrument? This workshop presents three innovative approaches where prompt coding - systematically designing prompts to generate functional code - enhances STEM education.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventFacilitators will demonstrate how prompt-coding enables educators to: (1) design educational games reinforcing key concepts, (2) create simulations and generate code controlling hardware for mini-experiments and (3) empower students to solve authentic problems by creating their own computational solutions. Through classroom implementation reflections, facilitators will share successes, challenges, and student responses.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThrough guided diagnostics, real-world scenarios and structured discussion, attendees will identify where gaps exist in their own institutions and explore how to move from reactive adoption to disciplined design. This workshop also includes a practical vendor brief exercise to strengthen procurement clarity and a collaborative declaration task that sharpens institutional stance on what AI is for and what must always be protected.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventGrounded in classroom reality and systems thinking, this workshop equips participants with sharper language, clearer criteria and greater strategic confidence. Rather than adding another tool, it offers a framework for ensuring that innovation strengthens, rather than fragments, human-centred learning.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 43/100 and verified 42/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
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 learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Problem Specificity. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
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 terrapinn.com. 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
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- High cleanup rate: many extracted rows were hidden or merged as fragments.
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_edutech_asia_2026_view_workshops_terrapinn_com"><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 Technology / AI / Startup events scored on the same eight pillars.