Intervention Facilitator Training
Embedded Files
This experience offers a rehearsal for new intervention facilitators who will lead a team of educators in protocol-based intervention meetings. During these meetings, asset-based dialogue about students is a core working agreement whose violation has historically limited intervention outcomes and team effectiveness.
The facilitator must operate within a complex set of considerations for student needs, teacher capacities, and caseload-wide academic success. This training provides a learner with considerations for moderating in the face of counterproductive dialogue.
Outlining the Branching Scenario
Outlining the Branching Scenario
I created a list of the problem dialogues that have a presence at these team meetings, then drafted an outline of some facilitator approaches and their probable outcomes. This culminated to produce a branching scenario where a learner gets exposure to productive sentence frames they might implement in these nuanced confrontations—as well as a consideration for some of the consequences that could unfold with a less intentional facilitation approach.
There are 5 possible outcomes to this branching scenario. Whether Good, Okay, Net Nothing, Unideal, or downright Gone Wrong, a learner is presented with a debriefing summary of the likely educator and student outcomes based on their facilitation choices. Then the learner can choose to replay the scene, or move on to the coaching closure.
The coach provides feedback between each dialogue scene—suggesting the strengths and weaknesses of the facilitator's choice—before they move on to continue navigating that outcome.
Ultimately, this experience exposes a learner to productive sentence-starters for responding when working agreements are violated, alongside a go-to formula to keep in mind during spontaneous problem-solving.
At the eLearning conclusion, the user can access (and save) an interactive facilitation aid to support their protocol efficiency.
A Design Consideration
A Design Consideration
While finalizing the scenario storyboard, I chose to allow dialogue selections that may be considered text-heavy. My rationale...
I deemed it appropriate that the dialogue prompts take a few moments to digest and consider. A primary takeaway of this training is for a learner to prepare some thoughtful consideration for the spontaneous approaches they must take during their work. And ultimately, the nature of these responses are complex. I didn't want dialogue choices to present as one-dimensionally "good" or "bad" facilitator responses.
This choice was also justifiable with my specific audience in mind. Strong literacy and identification of nuanced meaning in heavy texts are common expectations of these educator leaders. Having optimized the visual accessibility of these text-heavy slides, I did not have concerns about the literary accessibility.
This concept project was designed in service of techniques that are championed by the Center for High School Success. This national consulting organization works with districts to implement research-backed protocols and best-practices for Tier II student interventions.
Google Sites
Report abuse