What Was Actually Broken
The MATTERS CBE programme needed to build facilitation capacity across Kenya — but the organisation had tried this before. Previous training had produced trainers who could recite programme content, but couldn't adapt it when the room stopped responding. The training was about the programme. It wasn't about how to train.
My job wasn't to write better content. It was to redesign what the training was for.
The Transfer Gap
Trainers left certification workshops with knowledge they couldn't activate in the field. Content recall ≠ facilitation competence.
Context Diversity
Trainer cohorts spanned multiple countries, languages, and professional backgrounds. A single delivery model couldn't serve all of them.
Infrastructure Reality
Digital content had to function on intermittent connectivity and low-end mobile devices. "Upload to LMS" was not a delivery strategy.
Literacy Range
Materials needed to work for a Nairobi programme officer and a rural field facilitator without requiring parallel versions.
"What should a trainer be able to do differently after this programme that they cannot do today — and what's stopping them from doing it now?"
How I Approached It
I used Cathy Moore's Action Mapping framework as the design spine. Every module decision started with a performance gap, not a content gap. If I couldn't identify the moment of failure — the specific situation where a trainer was making the wrong call — the content didn't belong in the programme.
Performance Discovery
Structured interviews with programme coordinators, field supervisors, and previous trainer cohorts. I was looking for the failure moments — not what trainers didn't know, but what they couldn't do when it mattered. This took three weeks and produced a map of 11 distinct performance gaps across facilitation, content adaptation, and group dynamics management.
Action Map Construction
Each performance gap became a training objective stated as a visible action, not a knowledge state. "Understand group dynamics" became "Redirect a disengaged group within 10 minutes without losing facilitation momentum." The specificity forced the curriculum to be practical rather than informational.
Format Architecture
I designed a multi-format system: core facilitation guides built with low-text-dependency visual layouts, field practice activities mapped to real delivery scenarios, peer observation frameworks for between-session accountability, and digital supplements compressed for mobile-first offline access. No single format carried the whole load.
Scenario-Based Practice Activities
Every module's core skill was practised through a scenario drawn from real field situations — not hypotheticals. Scenarios were reviewed with field supervisors for authenticity before inclusion. This is the same behaviour-change architecture I use in my Articulate Storyline simulations, adapted for facilitated group delivery.
Pilot, Observe, Revise
First cohort delivery was treated as a live design test. I observed facilitation sessions, tracked which activities produced the strongest performance transfer, and ran a structured revision cycle before second cohort rollout. The materials that survived were the ones that worked under real conditions.
If a content element couldn't be connected to a specific failure moment in the field, it was cut — regardless of how important it felt to the subject matter experts. This was the hardest negotiation in the design process, and the most important one.
What Was Actually Built
The programme comprised five interdependent modules delivered across a blended residential + field practice + digital support structure. The residential component was designed to be facilitation-intensive, not lecture-intensive — trainers practised by training each other.
| Module | Core Focus | Format | Key Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundations of Facilitation | What facilitation is vs. what presenting is — and why the distinction matters for adult learners | ResidentialPeer Practice | Personal facilitation style assessment + live micro-facilitation with structured feedback |
| Adapting Content for Context | How to read an audience and adjust pacing, language, and examples in real time | ResidentialScenario Activities | Context adaptation toolkit — field-usable decision framework |
| Group Dynamics Management | Handling disengagement, dominant voices, cultural dynamics, and conflict in the training room | ResidentialRole Play | Facilitation troubleshooting guide — observable indicators + response options |
| Low-Resource Delivery | Facilitating effectively with minimal infrastructure — no projector, no reliable power, no internet | Field PracticePeer Observation | Low-tech facilitation kit — printed tools designed to function without digital support |
| Continuous Improvement Cycle | How trainers reflect on their own delivery, gather structured learner feedback, and iterate | Field PracticeDigital Support | Self-review protocol + peer feedback form + reflection journal template |
Digital supplements were published as compressed HTML bundles and PDF toolkits — not as LMS-hosted content requiring login. Trainers could download once on Wi-Fi and use offline indefinitely. This was a deliberate architectural choice, not a technical compromise.
What It Produced
Two cohorts completed the full programme. Here is what I can honestly claim — and what I'm still measuring.
What I Don't Claim
I don't have 12-month follow-up data on field delivery quality. I know from facilitator feedback that trainers felt more prepared than after previous iterations. I know the materials were used without significant adaptation — which means the format architecture worked. What I can't confirm yet is downstream learner impact from those trainers' subsequent delivery. That's the next measurement priority, and it's why I'm building an M&E framework based on this programme.
What I'd Do Differently
"The hardest part wasn't designing the curriculum — it was convincing stakeholders to cut content they'd spent years developing. Action mapping makes that negotiation possible because the framework, not the designer, becomes the decision-maker."
If I were starting this project today, I'd build the observation protocol into the programme from week one rather than adding it post-pilot. The richest design insights came from watching trainers facilitate — not from asking them how they felt about the training. Behaviour is the evidence.
I'd also invest more in the peer feedback infrastructure. The self-review protocol worked, but peer observation without a structured calibration process produced inconsistent feedback quality across cohorts. That's now a design standard in everything I build.