Documentation talk:Design Your Life and Career/Prototype Workshop for Facilitators

Because this was a prototype workshop designed to gather feedback from our CTLT colleagues (experienced facilitators) we built in several opportunities to open discussion or allow for written feedback on some of the methods and approaches we introduced from the DYL curriculum.

We have summarized this feedback below related to specific themes. We have also noted where changes/adaptations would be helpful - directly into the slide notes for some sections.

We hope this will be helpful for others who may be considering workshopping these activities for different audiences (TAs, faculty, etc).

• potential impact on students: tools to address life and career problems, facing obstacles, promoting constructive action, building confidence, increase sense of agency, linking coursework what it can offer to build meaning and purpose in students' lives; use the framework to help reframe thoughts that are limiting in my career; self movement. Process/mindset wheel (on whiteboard as reference point)very helpful. Intentional lack of definition of design thinking was challenging for a few.

• history was useful/interesting to this group - (and likely faculty) - not useful for students. Took a bit too much time. More co-construction would help. Perhaps detail as pre-reading? Could this be aligned with educational context/themes? Audience really matters for this component. Loved the information. Concept maps or infographics for historical info suggested as a resource.

• intentionssome loved the invitation to 'focus on yourself' for the workshop - others felt that the emphasis on the individual could be alienating: quote: "when thinking about designing your life, acknowledging that, for many, its not just about you and what you see for yourself but also family/community may be an inherent part of what your life/career is accountable to."

• building a compass - metaphor is useful - might also need structure to connect insights gained (in this activity) to future action.

• personal reflection from facilitator was important. (facilitators note: we did these activities and shared our responses to them).
• need more time for synthesis and reflection and perhaps more structure.
• the less time you have - the more structure you need.
• a revising of the "pre-work" on start of session - would have been helpful.

• triad activity helpful because of specific instructions just to listen and observe without judgement.

Facilitator's note: may be helpful to build a resource for how to use insights gained from these activities going forward. Focus on building coherence (see last slide from deck for session 1).

• reframing: some participants worked with examples for this activity, some worked with their own limiting beliefs or challenges and others reflected on the process and what it raised for them. Note that the facilitators have mixed feelings about reframing as a workshop activity (vs on your own or with a trusted advisor).

• power/agency/ identity are important aspects to reframing activity.
• how might reframing increase risk and decrease agency?
• appreciated being able to reduce risk by focusing on examples - easier to reframe for someone else.

Facilitator reflection: If the goal is to build awareness/ intentionality around how you frame your circumstances - may benefit from focus on understanding current frames/ beliefs first and what might be gained/lost in the reframing. This makes space to bring in concerns about obligations beyond self as an important part of reframing. Also requires personal time outside of workshop.

To address risk, it may be helpful to foreground the reframing activity with:

• This activity may make you feel vulnerable if you are working with your own beliefs or challenges.
• If you are uncomfortable with that, feel free to work with examples or approach reframing in a more surface way here and then use some of the strategies we suggest on your own later to dig more deeply to ensure that the framing and reframing is really meaningful to you.

• for new participants - this was helpful in lowering barrier for participation
• centered our "thinking" for the day - process and mindsets
• collaborative review allowed for processing of design thinking framework from week before.
• visuals helpful for some (several people mentioned the "wheel graphic" - mindsets and process together).

• helpful for letting go of the "outcome focus" shift to process "what can I do".
• took time to find something tangible to focus on - helps to reframe.
• initially felt totally wild but then saw how a small bit could be integrated.
• once I had the wild on paper - didn't feel so wild - seemed coherent.

• Prototyping: some found the language jargony - needed more clarity between testing and prototyping.
• Coming up with questions takes time (Facilitator's note: we walked through one participant example but could have done one or two more before they developed their own).
• A little more detail on what makes a good generative prototype question and what elements need to be there.
• more time and ways to process responses from silent brainstorm (bias to action). What's a suggestion that elicited...? or made you feel...?
• time to develop ideas for people and resources we might access to test prototypes (prototype experiences).

• two stage creativity really important ( note: opportunity to add to or change schemas).
• open endedness - can cause stress/anxiety (note: this was an important self awareness piece).
• not all iterations feel good (sometimes idea vs. skill clash and lead to failure) - another opportunity.
• music highlights the environmental impacts on creativity.