Documented Examples of Session Adaptations Based on Evaluation Results¶

The first week of the intensive consisted of 4 days of programming and 3 days of an excursion to Dream Village.

The 4 programming days consisted of a thematic focus per day and a variety of exercises that were used to induct participants into an immersive, co-creative, hands-on process of deliberating upon and developing their product ideas.

The trip to Dream Village - an Indigenous Technological Regenerative project was undertaken to expose participants to real-world applications of the thinking and solutioning frameworks that we were sharing with them.

Sessions were adapted based on the results of the following data-sources:

A Facilitation Effectiveness Questionnaire administered at the end of the first week of programming mentioning specific tools and themes.
Entries from the Timelining technology - which consisted of some raw, some prompted, primarily voice based, reflections from participants in the flow of events.
Subjective reflections shared by participants at the end of each day of programming as part of informal check-out chats.

A. Summary of Facilitation Effectiveness Form Results

Effective Facilitation Elements

Participants highlighted facilitation elements such as self-organizing activities, circle sharing, and engaging everyone in conversations as key factors that helped them shift perspectives or engage more deeply. Small-group breakouts were frequently mentioned, with people valuing the space to freely express themselves and contribute to problem-solving. Elements like providing feedback after presentations, the use of the “5 whys” technique to get to root issues, and fostering environments where everyone’s voice mattered were repeatedly cited as effective for engagement and learning.

Applying Learnings to Personal Life

Many respondents shared that tools and frameworks from the sessions helped them in their daily life. Some described changes in the way they approach problems, emphasizing the importance of defining the issue first and asking “why” to uncover root causes. The increased willingness to reflect in circles has led to more open voicing of opinions at home and in their communities. There were also personal examples like adopting new mindsets, setting roles for tasks, and using learned structures to tackle everyday challenges more methodically.

Applying Learnings to Team Work

Respondents described applying the learnings to their team projects, such as switching to more long-term planning approaches after team discussions, insisting on shared understanding with developers, and allowing all members to pick roles to speed up group progress. Teams became more intentional and open, integrating feedback loops and collaborative approaches like brainstorming and circle sharing. The “5 whys” technique was specifically mentioned in solving group problems such as understanding the causes of traffic jams. Others spoke about their commitment to ensuring every member contributed, enabling more detailed and intentional team work.

Visualizations

B. What the Evidence Showed

The Week 1 Facilitation Effectiveness Evaluation revealed insights from both quantitative rankings and open response data:

Session Themes Rated Highest for Learning and Acting:

The Root Issue Process scored highest overall (Learning total score: 49; Acting/Building total score: 48).
The Seeing Value and Leadership themes also received consistently high scores (Learning: 47 and 43; Acting: 46 and 42 respectively).
The Dream Village Excursion scored moderately high (Learning: 38; Acting: 36).

Scores attributed to different sessions attended in the first week

Session Themes Consistently Rated Highly:

Leadership, Emergent Learning Table, Recording Value, and Seeing Value themes were all rated consistently well, with total learning scores ranging approximately between 37 and 49 points across themes and formats.

Facilitation Elements Frequently Cited as Most Impactful in Open Responses:

Circle sharing, feedback after presentations, self-organizing activities, and small group breakouts were repeatedly mentioned as key experiences aiding participant engagement and perspective shifts.

Engagement level with different formats used

Scores Attributed to Different Session Formats in Learning and Action:

Small Group Breakouts (Learning: 49; Acting: 47), Self-Organizing Activities (Learning: 47; Acting: 48), and Sharing Circles (Learning: 46; Acting: 48) scored consistently higher than Lecture Sessions (Learning: 45; Acting: 40), Post-Lunch Shake-Off (Learning: 40; Acting: 48), Big Group Presentations (Learning: 48; Acting: 44), and Shared Brainstorming (Learning: 47; Acting: 0).

Narrative Feedback and Recurrent Insights from Participant Responses:

“Circle sharing made me more open and able to voice my perspective.”
“Presentation feedback and circle talks helped us shift how we prototype and collaborate.”
“Small group breakouts allowed me to express myself freely and contributed more to the problem at hand.”
“Self organizing is hard but bit by bit we’re getting there.”
“The ‘5 whys’ root cause analysis changed my approach to solving team conflicts.”

B. What Was Adapted in Response (Session/Agenda Adjustments Week 2)¶

Based on these results and reviewing timelining entries and team feedback, several key session adaptations were implemented entering Week 2:

ADAPTATION 1: Increased Emphasis on Participatory, Small-Group Methods¶

Evidence:

Small Group Breakouts and Sharing Circles were the highest-rated formats.
Several timelining entries described “aha” moments, breakthroughs, and peer recognition during small group/collective dialogue.

Adaptation:

Agenda for Week 2 doubled the use of small group breakouts and added more time for open sharing circles.
Example from adapted agenda: Each morning opened with an extended Wake Up Circle including all participants, and the team-specific hacking sessions were designed to have intermittent small quick group check-ins in the midst of independent work.

ADAPTATION 2: Prioritization of Leaderfulness & Action-based Learning¶

Evidence:

Lectures scored the lowest in terms of preferred format
Multiple participants mentioned feedback and iterative presentation as major sources of growth.

Adaptation:

Explicit “Emergent Learning” slots were added after each main session in Week 2.
Participants co-created the next day’s agenda based on what was emerging in timelining entries and feedback forms.
“One participant’s suggestion for more ‘live peer feedback’ led to the creation of structured rapid-feedback blocks after each team report-out.”

ADAPTATION 3: Less Lecture, More Action-Oriented and Relational Activities¶

Evidence:

Lecture sessions and “Post-Lunch Shake Off” scored notably lower.
Timeline entries show less engagement and fewer quotes/detailed narratives after lectures.

Adaptation:

Most mini-lectures were replaced by “lighting shares” or short, front-loaded wisdom snippets from facilitators (10 min max), quickly moving into activity or participant-led demos.
Post-lunch time blocks changed from unstructured “shake off” to short, energizing group games, with a focus on building serendipity and relational capital.

ADAPTATION 4: Root Issue and “Five Whys” Process Incorporated Across Teams¶

Evidence:

Several participants specifically cited “the five whys” and root cause analysis as changing how they approached both the ALJ and their own lives/communities.

Adaptation:

Root issue mapping was formalized in the mid-week session as a must-do process for any team facing a challenge—each group scheduled a dedicated “Root Issue Table” and applied the "five whys" as a group facilitation step.

C. Timeline Entries Supporting Adaptive Change¶

Participant: “Small group breakout allowed me to express myself freely and contributed more to problem at hand.”
Facilitator Note: “Circles became our go-to for surfacing hidden challenges; the group adopted the 5-whys for both technical and social logjams.”
Participant: “After sharing in the circle I felt more confident to pitch my team’s idea.”

D. Documentation and Agenda Artifacts¶

Revised Week 2 Agenda: Highlights more breakouts, peer-run sharing circles, rapid reflection blocks, and “Emergent Learning” harvests.
Facilitator Debrief Notes: Show documented transitions from lecture-led to participant-facilitated formats.

E. Funder-Ready Summary Statement¶

Session adaptations were directly driven by first-week participant evaluations and timelined feedback. By the start of Week 2, we doubled the use of small group breakouts and reflection circles, added real-time feedback and “emergent learning” slots in every daily agenda, and shifted away from traditional lectures toward participatory and peer-delivered formats. Root-cause analysis, specifically the “five whys,” became a core group activity. This tight feedback-to-adaptation cycle demonstrably increased participant engagement, learning, and satisfaction as evidenced in both subsequent forms and timetable entries.