Workplace Practice: Four Guided Sessions · Session 1 of 4 · Facilitator sheet
Asking for clarity and getting started
Unclear instructions, new routines and the moment when checking is better than guessing. About 30–45 minutes.
Learners can carry this session into their Spark learning guide without enrolling.
Learning outcomes (observable)
By the end, a learner can be seen or heard doing the following. These guide discussion; they are not assessed.
- Identifies at least one piece of missing information in a workplace instruction.
- Phrases a clarifying question that names what is unclear and why it matters.
- Explains when checking would cost less than guessing, using an example from the scenario.
Choose one activity
Teaching What You Weren't Taught · Rise & Co
Unwritten rules and how much uncertainty to share with a new hire.
The Ninety-Second Handover · Fenmore Line 4
Acting on a vague handover warning without guessing.
Nobody Said No · BrightSpark Digital
When silence on a hybrid team is not the same as agreement.
Session plan
| 0–5 min | Welcome, how the session works, opening prompt (spoken or written; passing is fine). |
|---|---|
| 5–20 min | Play one workday. Pause at the first decision and ask what is unknown. |
| 20–35 min | Discussion questions in pairs, then a few ideas shared with the group. |
| 35–45 min | Learners may draft, say or silently think of one clarifying question they could reuse; passing is fine. Introduce the optional real-world step. |
Delivery options
- Individual
- Learner plays one workday alone, notices the moment they wanted more information, and may draft a clarifying question on the learner sheet or think it through privately.
- Paired
- Two learners share one screen and talk through each choice; they can choose differently and don't need to agree. One reads; the other notes what is still unknown.
- Group
- Project the workday. At each decision, take a show of hands or written votes, then ask volunteers what they would check first.
Opening prompt
“Think of an instruction — at work, school or anywhere — that seemed clear until you tried to follow it. You don't need to share the details.”
Discussion questions
- What did the character not know at the moment of decision? How could they have found out quickly?
- What makes asking a question feel risky in a new job, and what would make it easier?
- Who would carry the cost if the instruction were misunderstood?
Optional real-world practice step
This week, when you get an instruction that is not fully clear, try one question that names the specific gap ("Do you mean X or Y?").
Next-session follow-up
Next time, start with: did anyone try asking a clarifying question? What happened? (Sharing is optional.)
Optional “Try it your way” companions
Use these only if there is time. They print with the facilitator sheet.
Teach three checks, then find out if it was clear
Companion · optional “Try it your way” practice
Teach three checks, then find out if it was clear
Purpose. Discuss explaining, supporting others and checking understanding using a verified source.
Durable skills explored: Explaining, Supporting others, Checking understanding.
This is a separate practice situation. It's about returns, not the damaged-stock write-off from your workday, and the new hire isn't Toby. The store policy below is fictional and used only for this practice. It isn't a statement of anyone's legal rights.
Source material (as learners see it)
Verified training card · returns
- 1. Check the receipt date and the item's condition.
- 2. Work out whether staff or a manager can authorize it.
- 3. Record the approved action.
- For this practice situation, use the fictional policy below.
- Fictional store policy: within 30 days, unused items with a receipt can be refunded by staff.
- Later returns need manager review.
- Staff can't guarantee an exception.
The new hire says they learn best from seeing an example.
Discussion prompts
- Why teach from the card rather than from memory?
- What do the 20-day and 35-day examples show side by side?
- What would tell you the new hire understood, other than a nod?
One possible response
“First, check the date and condition. Then, who can approve. Then, record what was approved.”
“A 20-day unused item with a receipt: staff can refund it. A 35-day one: that needs the manager to review it, and we can't promise the outcome.”
“Can you tell me what you'd do with a 20-day unused item and a receipt?”
The example is one possible response. The policy is fictional and makes no claim about legal rights. Look for the three checks in order, contrasting examples and a teach-back question. Don't treat viewing the example or ticking a box as evidence that anyone understood.
What changes if…?
The new hire says, “So all receipts mean refunds.”
- A receipt is only part of it. The date and the item's condition matter too.
- Compare 20 days (staff can refund an unused item) with 35 days (manager review, no guarantee).
- Then ask them to work through a new example themselves. Seeing an example or nodding along doesn't show it was understood.
Participation options
- Individual:
- Learners write an explanation or rehearse it privately. Nothing is recorded as audio, and no partner is required.
- Paired:
- One partner teaches; the other plays the new hire, then says “all receipts mean refunds” for the changed condition.
- Group:
- Show the training card. Volunteers offer unused-item examples near the 30-day line; the group decides who can authorize each.
Writing is optional; learners may think privately, discuss, or skip. Nothing is graded or collected. Source: Blueprint v3.0 · Section 30 · R3 Teaching What You Weren't Taught · p. 92 (policy from R1 The Return · p. 90).
Clarify the scope before you build
Companion · optional “Try it your way” practice
Clarify the scope before you build
Purpose. Discuss initiative, judgment and clarifying expectations when a brief is vague and nobody has answered.
Durable skills explored: Initiative, Judgment, Clarifying expectations.
This is a separate practice situation, not the Larkview calendar from your workday. It's a different BrightSpark brief on a different week. Denise is still the one who approves work. Everything here is simulated. Nothing gets published or sent.
Source material (as learners see it)
Thursday brief · landing page
- “Make the landing page more accessible before Friday review.”
- The brief lists no budget, no scope and no approver.
- You proposed a complete redesign. Nobody has replied.
- The current page has unlabeled form fields and low-contrast helper text.
- Denise owns approval.
Discussion prompts
- What's the difference between no reply and approval?
- Which page problems are clear, and which changes need a decision?
- When the approver is away, what's still safe to do?
One possible response
“May I fix the field labels and check the helper-text contrast for Friday, while holding layout changes for approval?”
First step: list every affected field, or prepare an annotated internal draft. Publish nothing.
The example is one possible response. Look for a specific question, a step that's easy to undo and nothing published. No backup approver is named in the source, so learners shouldn't invent one.
What changes if…?
Denise is unavailable. The team procedure allows internal drafts, but nothing can be deployed without approval.
- You could still prepare an annotated internal draft. The procedure allows that.
- Write down the unanswered scope question so it's waiting when someone with approval is available.
- Nothing is deployed. Nobody else has been given Denise's authority here, so don't assume someone has. If you're unsure, ask how approval works while she's away.
Participation options
- Individual:
- Learners sort known and undecided items, then draft one question or just think it through. Writing is optional.
- Paired:
- One partner plays Denise and answers only what the brief supports; the other asks the scope question.
- Group:
- Display the brief. List “known” and “not decided” together, then introduce Denise's absence and discuss what's still allowed.
Writing is optional; learners may think privately, discuss, or skip. Nothing is graded or collected. Source: Blueprint v3.0 · Section 30 · B2 Nobody Said No · p. 76.
Companion · optional “Try it your way” practice
Teach three checks, then find out if it was clear
Purpose. Discuss explaining, supporting others and checking understanding using a verified source.
Durable skills explored: Explaining, Supporting others, Checking understanding.
This is a separate practice situation. It's about returns, not the damaged-stock write-off from your workday, and the new hire isn't Toby. The store policy below is fictional and used only for this practice. It isn't a statement of anyone's legal rights.
Source material (as learners see it)
Verified training card · returns
- 1. Check the receipt date and the item's condition.
- 2. Work out whether staff or a manager can authorize it.
- 3. Record the approved action.
- For this practice situation, use the fictional policy below.
- Fictional store policy: within 30 days, unused items with a receipt can be refunded by staff.
- Later returns need manager review.
- Staff can't guarantee an exception.
The new hire says they learn best from seeing an example.
Discussion prompts
- Why teach from the card rather than from memory?
- What do the 20-day and 35-day examples show side by side?
- What would tell you the new hire understood, other than a nod?
One possible response
“First, check the date and condition. Then, who can approve. Then, record what was approved.”
“A 20-day unused item with a receipt: staff can refund it. A 35-day one: that needs the manager to review it, and we can't promise the outcome.”
“Can you tell me what you'd do with a 20-day unused item and a receipt?”
The example is one possible response. The policy is fictional and makes no claim about legal rights. Look for the three checks in order, contrasting examples and a teach-back question. Don't treat viewing the example or ticking a box as evidence that anyone understood.
What changes if…?
The new hire says, “So all receipts mean refunds.”
- A receipt is only part of it. The date and the item's condition matter too.
- Compare 20 days (staff can refund an unused item) with 35 days (manager review, no guarantee).
- Then ask them to work through a new example themselves. Seeing an example or nodding along doesn't show it was understood.
Participation options
- Individual:
- Learners write an explanation or rehearse it privately. Nothing is recorded as audio, and no partner is required.
- Paired:
- One partner teaches; the other plays the new hire, then says “all receipts mean refunds” for the changed condition.
- Group:
- Show the training card. Volunteers offer unused-item examples near the 30-day line; the group decides who can authorize each.
Writing is optional; learners may think privately, discuss, or skip. Nothing is graded or collected. Source: Blueprint v3.0 · Section 30 · R3 Teaching What You Weren't Taught · p. 92 (policy from R1 The Return · p. 90).
Companion · optional “Try it your way” practice
Clarify the scope before you build
Purpose. Discuss initiative, judgment and clarifying expectations when a brief is vague and nobody has answered.
Durable skills explored: Initiative, Judgment, Clarifying expectations.
This is a separate practice situation, not the Larkview calendar from your workday. It's a different BrightSpark brief on a different week. Denise is still the one who approves work. Everything here is simulated. Nothing gets published or sent.
Source material (as learners see it)
Thursday brief · landing page
- “Make the landing page more accessible before Friday review.”
- The brief lists no budget, no scope and no approver.
- You proposed a complete redesign. Nobody has replied.
- The current page has unlabeled form fields and low-contrast helper text.
- Denise owns approval.
Discussion prompts
- What's the difference between no reply and approval?
- Which page problems are clear, and which changes need a decision?
- When the approver is away, what's still safe to do?
One possible response
“May I fix the field labels and check the helper-text contrast for Friday, while holding layout changes for approval?”
First step: list every affected field, or prepare an annotated internal draft. Publish nothing.
The example is one possible response. Look for a specific question, a step that's easy to undo and nothing published. No backup approver is named in the source, so learners shouldn't invent one.
What changes if…?
Denise is unavailable. The team procedure allows internal drafts, but nothing can be deployed without approval.
- You could still prepare an annotated internal draft. The procedure allows that.
- Write down the unanswered scope question so it's waiting when someone with approval is available.
- Nothing is deployed. Nobody else has been given Denise's authority here, so don't assume someone has. If you're unsure, ask how approval works while she's away.
Participation options
- Individual:
- Learners sort known and undecided items, then draft one question or just think it through. Writing is optional.
- Paired:
- One partner plays Denise and answers only what the brief supports; the other asks the scope question.
- Group:
- Display the brief. List “known” and “not decided” together, then introduce Denise's absence and discuss what's still allowed.
Writing is optional; learners may think privately, discuss, or skip. Nothing is graded or collected. Source: Blueprint v3.0 · Section 30 · B2 Nobody Said No · p. 76.
Facilitator reminders
- Invite reasoning, not disclosure. Ask what the character could do and why. Never require learners to share personal experiences; offer 'think about it privately' as a normal option.
- Allow disagreement and silence. Different choices are expected. Silent participation, written answers and passing are all legitimate ways to take part.
- Separate judgment from personality. Talk about actions and reasons, not character traits. 'You checked before promising' rather than 'you're cautious'.
- Ask who bears the consequences. For each option, ask who gains, who waits and who carries the risk — customers, coworkers, the business or the worker.
- State safety boundaries clearly. Some lines are not matters of style: allergens, machine guards, privacy and unsafe lifting. Name the boundary plainly before or after play. Never demonstrate an unsafe workaround.
- Not an employment screening tool. Do not use choices, reflections or evidence cards to select, rank or assess people for jobs or placements. The scenarios are fictional practice.
- Describe evidence cards accurately. An evidence card records the choices a learner made and anything they wrote in a fictional scenario. It is not a grade, credential or proof of workplace competence, and it is saved only in that learner's browser.
Full orientation and adaptation notes: program overview.
Workplace Practice: Four Guided Sessions · Session 1 · Learner sheet
Asking for clarity and getting started
Writing is optional. There are no grades and nobody will check this sheet. Use words, notes or drawings.
To think about: Think of an instruction — at work, school or anywhere — that seemed clear until you tried to follow it. You don't need to share the details.
One moment in the scenario where information was missing:
A question I could ask in a similar situation:
What checking would protect, and what it might cost:
Optional, this week: This week, when you get an instruction that is not fully clear, try one question that names the specific gap ("Do you mean X or Y?").
Scenarios are fictional practice. What you do here is not a record of employment or a credential.