(20 points)
| Questions | 1 = Not at all |
2 = Poorly |
3 = Somewhat |
4 = Very well |
5 = Extremely well |
| How well does the submission demonstrate that the content is timely, relevant and has high scientific merit? | No clear question or methods. Methods or analysis described do not address the questions asked. | Somewhat unclear research question(s). Methodology or analysis is weak in relation to question asked; missing many important details. | Clear question. Methodology or analysis is reasonable but missing some key information. | Clear question with appropriate methodology and analysis. Some identifiable limitations. | Clear question with appropriately designed methods and analysis. Few identifiable limitations. |
| Does the workshop submission incorporate information that is relevant to the public/ health professionals/multi-disciplinary teams that could change surgical, clinical and/or prevention strategies? | The workshop submission did not follow an implementable educational lesson plan. | Information presented in this workshop submission supports current practice or science in an area of controversy. | Information presented in this workshop submission may change practice or encourage further research in a particular area of science. | Information presented in this workshop submission will likely change some practices and / or is likely to encourage fundamental science research in a new area. | Information will widely change practice or open a new branch of fundamental science research. |
| How well does the submitter present a well-written, concise, lesson plan without spelling or grammatical errors? | Significant spelling or grammatical errors. | Writing is unclear. Difficult to follow path for lesson plan. Some spelling or grammatical errors. | Fairly well written. Lesson plan can be followed but with effort. No spelling or grammatical errors. | Well written but contains unclear terms or jargon. Path for lesson plan is fairly easy to follow. No spelling or grammatical errors. | Well-written, concise, clear path for lesson plan. No spelling or grammatical errors. This submission is the "gold standard" of a well-designed and presented workshop submission. |
| How measurable are the workshop submission’s learning objectives? | The learning objectives are unclear or unachievable. | The learning objectives are not supported by the lesson plan. | The learning objectives are supported by the lesson plan. | The learning objectives are clear and supported by the lesson plan. | Learning objectives are very clear and supported by the lesson plan. |
(10 points)
| Questions | 1 = Not at all |
2 = Poorly |
3 = Somewhat |
4 = Very well |
5 = Extremely well |
| How well does the workshop submission demonstrate an innovative approach to workshop facilitation or an innovative use of old methodology? | No clear question or methods. Methods or analysis described do not address the questions asked. | Somewhat unclear research question(s). Methodology or analysis is weak in relation to question asked; missing many important details. | Clear question. Methodology or analysis is reasonable but missing some key information. | Clear question with appropriate methodology and analysis. Some identifiable limitations. | Clear question with appropriately designed methods and analysis. Few identifiable limitations. |
| Does the workshop submission promote strong interaction with workshop participants through the use strategies such as Q&A, live polling, panels, break out groups, debate and Think, Pair, Share, etc.? | Lacking emphasis on group participation and interaction between workshop attendees and presenters. Little to no use of interactive strategies. | Group participation and interaction between workshop attendees is not strongly emphasized. Little and likely ineffective use of interactive strategies. | A moderate amount of interactivity displayed in program design, but not significant. Some effective use and incorporation of interactive strategies. | Group participation and interactivity is strongly considered in lesson plan development. The workshop submission incorporates good and meaningful use of interactive strategies. | Group participation and interactivity is presented in an innovative and creative way. The workshop submission incorporates very effective and excellent interactive strategies. |
(20 points)
| Questions | 1 = Not at all |
2 = Poorly |
3 = Somewhat |
4 = Very well |
5 = Extremely well |
| Is the panel composed of no more than 50% + 1 of one gender? If not, does the submission adequately and clearly explain why it is not. | Presenters are less then 50% of one gender with no explanation as to why. | The workshop submission may not achieve gender balance and only partially explains the reasons why. | The workshop submission may not achieve gender balance but effectively explains the reasons why. | The workshop submission may not achieve gender balance but effectively explains the reasons why, and it is appropriate and by design. | The workshop submission achieves Gender diversity. |
| Does the planning committee include an individual at different career phases, including early career? If not, does the submission adequately and clearly explain why. | The planning committee does not include an individual early in their career, without an adequate explanation. | The workshop submission may not include an individual early in their career on the planning committee and partially explains why. | The workshop submission may not include an individual early in their career on the planning committee but effectively explains why. | N/A | The workshop submission includes an individual early in their career on the planning committee. |
| How well does this workshop submission demonstrate collaboration from multi-disciplinary teams and/or from different geographic regions, as well as the incorporation of community-based professionals. | Collaboration between multiple disciplines, educational partners, sub-specialties and/other public is not demonstrated in program design. | Collaboration between multiple disciplines, educational partners, sub-specialties and/the public is not demonstrated in program design. | A moderate amount of collaboration between multiple disciplines, educational partners, sub-specialties and/other public, but could be greater. | Collaboration from multi-disciplinary teams is considered and demonstrated. | Collaboration from multi-disciplinary teams is strongly and creatively demonstrated |
| Does the planning committee embrace Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion best practices by aiming to ensure representation of racialized (persons of colour) CCS members on the panels. | Faculty do not represent equity, diversity and inclusion best practices and does not include representation for racialized CCS members. | Faculty do not represent equity, diversity and inclusion best practices and does not include representation for racialized CCS members, and only partially explains the reason why. | Faculty do not represent diversity and inclusion best practices and does not include representation for racialized CCS members, but effectively explains the efforts taken to include racialized members and why they were not successful. | N/A | The workshop submission achieves EDI best practicing by including representation of racialized CCS members on the panel. |