All playbooks
Conversation Playbook
Student Work Groups — Colleges & Universities
Better Conversations | Stronger Relationships | Better Outcomes
Use this when students are working in teams — course projects, capstones, labs, or online group work — when success depends on how well the group actually works together.
Before the check-in
- Frame it for the group: this is a normal part of how the team checks in, not a performance review — the goal is making sure everyone's actually being heard, not just whoever talks most in the room.
- Keep it short and regular. A five- to ten-minute check-in at the start of a work session catches problems while they're still small.
- Name real-life constraints when they come up — course load, jobs, or anything else competing for a student's time — without turning every check-in into a conversation about bandwidth.
- Review your Clarion CI Report from the last check-in for 10–15 min beforehand to see what's shifted and which commitments are still open.
Run this at the start of each session
A five- to ten-minute check-in before the group starts its work for the day — not mid-task, and not saved for the end.
Self-Awareness
- "Where did you notice yourself checking out of the group discussion this week? What led to that?"
- "What's a moment you realized your approach to this project wasn't working?"
Self-Management
- "How did you handle it when the group's plan didn't match how you wanted to do the work?"
- "What's one thing you did to stay engaged even when this project felt overwhelming?"
Social Awareness
- "Where do you think someone in this group is carrying more than their share, even if they haven't said so?"
- "Was there a moment you noticed a teammate saw this project differently than you did?"
Relationship Management
- "What's one piece of feedback you gave or received this week, and how did it land?"
- "What do we need from each other to finish this without anyone quietly resenting the rest of the group?"
Connecting to how higher ed group work actually works
Clarion's four domains are built to sit alongside the frameworks already used to teach and study group work in higher ed — not to replace them:
Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Most team friction is the "storming" stage — a normal, predictable part of a group finding its footing, not a sign it has failed. Reflected in Relationship Management as the group moves toward norming and performing.
Social Interdependence Theory — Johnson & Johnson
The foundation behind most structured group work in higher ed: positive interdependence and individual accountability. Reflected in Relationship Management and Self-Management — whether the group's success genuinely depends on everyone's contribution, or just tolerates a few people carrying it.
Structured Peer Evaluation
Captured in Relationship Management and commitment tracking — a running, informal read on contribution and engagement that sits alongside formal peer evaluation scores at the end of the term, not instead of them.
What you'll be able to see afterward
- A read on who's actually contributing, not just who's most vocal in a live session — useful context alongside, not instead of, formal peer evaluations.
- Whether the group is stuck in a normal storming phase or heading toward a real breakdown — a distinction that changes whether an instructor needs to step in.
- Use LCD (Likeable, Credible, Dependable) as a lens on how teammates are actually experiencing each other, not just how the group presents itself in class.
Facilitator reminders
- Don't mistake quiet for disengagement — some of the most thoughtful students contribute least in live discussion and most in written work.
- Revisit the group's working agreement partway through the project, not just at the start — plans made in week one rarely survive contact with the rest of the semester.
- Loop the instructor in early if the same pattern repeats across multiple check-ins — most programs would rather step in early than referee a grade dispute at the end of the term.
