The international Jury

Jury members

The GJC jury reflects the global nature of the Challenge. The Jury members have also been chosen to reflect the different skills and sectors involved in the use of new technologies in education.

The jury will be divided into Work Groups made up of a minimum of 3 jurors each. Each work group will have a leader whose task is to co-ordinate the evaluation process for his/her work group and to act as a point of reference for the members of the work group, the leaders of other work groups, and the chairman of the jury.

To read the list of jurors of the Global Junior Challenge click here.

Evaluation criteria

General criteria

Eligible projects will be judged for their innovative use of ICTs to contribute to the development of the education of children and young people. Judges will look for the most innovative, inspirational and effective approaches to enhancing the use of new technologies for the benefit of future generations and within the specific infrastructural, economic, social, educational and environmental conditions of the respective local contexts. In short, evaluation will be made with reference to context and educational content not just technology.

Examples of impact areas include:

  • Developing the use of new technologies by children and young people
  • Improving the quality, scope and efficiency of education through the use of new technologies, both inside and outside the classroom
  • Enhancing quality of life, empowerment, e-inclusion and participatory opportunities for younger generations
  • Closing the gap between offer and demand on the job market by introducing new training and recruitment programmes
  • Reducing gender inequalities and ethnic segregation
  • Improving access for disadvantaged children living in rural areas or suffering from disabilities
  • Improving international communication and co-operation between young people
  • Ensuring equal access for all children world-wide and closing the technological gap between the technologically rich and the have-nots
  • General inspirational and motivational content and practical results
  • Technical superiority per se is not determinant in this approach. The overall combination is what matters

Specific criteria

The Jurors will be asked to give a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 10 points for each of the following areas:


Here jurors are asked to evaluate the innovative qualities of the projects in their societal context. This does not only regard the technical innovation of the project. Other questions jurors must ask themselves on innovation are:

  • Is the project innovative in the way in which it USES new technologies to reach educational, didactic or learning aims?
  • Is the idea of the project highly innovative for its societal context? Does it advance educational e-inclusion?
  • Is the project innovative in the way it involves its stakeholders and create success?
  • Are the results of the projects innovative?
  • Does the project innovate in using new technologies to do things in areas in which these technologies are not usually used?

User needs

Here the juror is asked to evaluate the strength of the project according to its users. Questions jurors must ask themselves on user needs are:

  • Is the project truly useful for its users?
  • How far does it fulfil their needs?
  • Does the project offer easy-to-use or user-friendly access to its services or results?
  • What does it do to enhance, empower and educate the users?

Impact on Education

Here jurors are asked to evaluate the impact that the project has on the world of education (both inside and outside the classroom). Questions jurors must ask themselves on impact on education are:

  • Does the project provide new opportunities for the education and training for young people? If yes, to what extent in terms of both (a) the quantity of beneficiaries and (b) the quality of the benefits?
  • Does it improve participation by professionals, children, youth and other educational stakeholders? If yes, to what extent?
  • Does the project stimulate the use of new technologies for educational and cultural development by professionals, children and youth? If so, to what extent?
  • Does the project contribute to change the way in which children, young people and other educational stakeholders look at the didactics, knowledge and learning activities of the project's subject? If so, to what extent?


Here the Jurors are asked to evaluate how the project can serve to build or illuminate new opportunities elsewhere. Questions jurors must ask themselves on transferability are:

  • What potential does the project have for "replication" elsewhere?
  • Does the project provide a basis for further development and adaptation to other circumstances?
  • Are there transferable lessons that others can learn from the project and how valuable are these lessons?
  • How inspirational is the project? Has it got aspects that can strongly inspire other people to follow a similar path?
  • Has the project been "transferred" and implemented by others? What have the project's participants done to transfer/share their project with others?