Protocols

Here are are some of the protocols we have used in the affinity group.  Many great protocols can be found in The Power of Protocols:  An Educator's Guide to Practice.

Tuning Protocol.  Source The Power of Protocols by Joseph P. McDonald, Nancy Mohr, Alan Dichter, and Elizabeth C. McDonald. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003.  Purpose Useful tool for problem solving.
Overview 45-60 minutes.
6-12 participants.
Room is often organized with chairs in a circle; one presenter who has prepared documents or evidence for distribution beforehand (if appropriate); a facilitator will move the process along and monitor its effectiveness.  Presenter has to frame the problem carefully and collect evidence to illustrate the issues.  Presenter receives direct feedback from colleagues who can stand outside of the problem and offer dispassionate and respectful comments.  Presenter sees the problem from others’ eyes and reflects on their comments.  All participants have the opportunity to collaborate in addressing an authentic  problem

1. Introduction – Facilitator introduces protocol and group norms and distributes the steps of the protocol to all participants.
2. Presentation – Presenter shares the problem and the efforts to date to address the problem. The presenter may highlight a couple of questions that he or she wishes the respondents to address. The presenter may share relevant documents to clarify the problem. Respondents may not speak during this time (10-15 minutes).
3. Response (warm and cool feedback) – Respondents offer warm and cool feedback to what the presenter has said, commenting on the strength of the presenter’s understanding of all aspects of the problem and his or her approaches to solving the problem. Cool feedback may be couched in terms of a question.  The facilitator may ask the group to offer warm feedback one-by-one and then go around the circle again with cool feedback, or the facilitator may ask the group to go around once with each respondent offering both warm and cool feedback. The presenter sits back from the circle at this point, offering no reaction to the comments, but taking notes on the ideas that resonate (10 minutes).
4. Reaction – The presenter reacts to the comments of the respondents, not answering questions that were posed, but thinking out loud about what he or she heard and how it connects to the problem at hand (10 minutes). Respondents do not speak.
5. Conversation – Presenter and respondents engage in conversation (10-15 minutes). 
6. Debriefing – Participants reflect on the process. The facilitator may ask “How did it feel to be hearing warm and cool feedback? How can you apply this protocol to your regular work?

2 Rounds Protocol:  Finding A Little More of the Truth.  Source: This protocol is a variation on the descriptive review of a child by Pat Carini at the Prospect Center in Bennington, Vermont, for reflecting on students and their work, as described by Kelly (1996).  

Number of Participants: 8–10 participants and there must be a presenter, and a facilitator. This protocol can also be done with multiple concurrent groups, each with its own presenter and facilitator, or with one presenter and multiple concurrent groups.  

Time: 30 minutes

1. Step 1: Introduction (first time only, 5 minutes) of protocol. 
2. Step 2: Presentation of Context (less than 5).  Presenter sets the context, describing the situation, while participants remain quiet and take notes.  Presenter should try to give as much of the background knowledge the participants need to know.
3. Step 3: Clarifying Questions (less than 5 minutes).  Participants ask nonevaluative questions about the presentation (e.g., "What happened before X? What did you do next? What did Y say?").  Facilitator guards against questions that approach evaluation (e.g., "Why didn't you try X?"). Participants who ask evaluative questions may be invited to rephrase the questions as clarifying, or to save the questions for the participant discussion step.  It is entirely possible that the group will not get all its questions answered—there is never enough time!—but participants should have enough information at this stage for the protocol to be productive.
4. Step 4: Individual Writing (less than 5 minutes). Both the presenter and the participants write thoughts about the challenge addressing key points made.
5. Step 5: Participant Discussion (10 minutes). The participants move through the following rounds. If possible, a recorder writes what participants say on chart paper. The presenter remains silent and takes notes throughout.
1. Round 1: Description (5 minutes). In round-robin style, participants describe what they do (or do not) see in the challenge.  Participants can pass if they have nothing to add.
2. Round 2:  Recommendations (5 minutes). In round-robin style, participants have a discussion of the descriptions making recommendations to refine the challenges.   Participants can pass if they have nothing to add. The group should make every effort to offer warm and cool recommendations; warm recommendations indicate what works and should be continued, and cool recommendations indicate what needs improvement. The group should also make every effort to address the presenter's key questions about the work.
6. Step 6: Presenter Reflection (less than 5)The presenter reflects aloud on the participants' discussion, using the issues the participants raised to deepen understanding and reflecting on possible answers to the challenge posed.  The presenter can also suggestions dilemmas, and so forth, and may correct any
7. Step 7: Final Thoughts.  The presenter discusses how well the protocol worked and thanks the participants for their work.  Participants discuss how well they think the protocol worked and thank the presenter for bringing the work to them to be tuned.  The presenter and participants engage in more general discussion of both the situation examined and the protocol process itself.  The facilitator engages participants in discussion of the three rounds and why they are important.

Rough and Ready Protocol:  Breaking Through.  Source: This protocol was created by the Hack Affinity Group.  It is especially useful in uncovering the underlying issue or problem of a challenge.    The protocol is best used when design teams from schools participate.  The members of the group should have built a level of trust with each other and have some knowledge of the challenge design teams are facing as well as some expertise in the area.  It is also very important to have a few insider/outsiders (people who are not on the design team but have experienced similar issues) as well as an outsider (people from outside the field).  The protocol is used to help a group help design team members break through to the core issue.  
Number of Participants: 6–12 participants and there must be a design team presenting, other design teams, a facilitator and others who are not attached to any design team.  The facilitator must also participate in the conversation.  
Time: 90 minutes

1. Introduction (5 minutes) of protocol and purpose.
2. Design team presentation of challenge and problem being addressed (less than 5 minutes).  Presenting team sets the context, describing the situation, while participants remain quiet and take notes.  Presenter should try to give as much of the background knowledge the participants need to know to help problem-solve.  
3. Clarifying and Probing Questions (5 to 15 minutes based on quality of the conversation).  Participants ask evaluative and non evaluative questions about the challenge.  presentation (e.g., "What do you think the problem is? What are you thinking about solutions?  Is the real issue this?").  Design team members answer questions right away.   
4. Group discussion of clarification flows from Step 3.  The group tries to dig into the depth of the issue.  The conversation needs to help the presenting design team uncover the core issue by discovering contradictions and complexities.  Every person in the group needs to share ideas but there is no structured flow as members are encouraged to share insights, thoughts and questions as they arise.  This step ends when the group feels they have achieved some break thought clarity about issue.  
5. Design Team Processing (as long as it takes). The presenting design team members are asked to leave the group and make sense of what has been said in the conversation.  They return to the group only when they feel like they have had a breakthrough on their challenge uncovering the core problem they wish to address.  
6. Another design team goes through the process with remaining group members who are still at the table until all the design teams have presented.
7. Design team presenter reflection (last 15 minutes).  Each design team returns to report back to their group their thoughts and conclusions.