methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Paper illustration for Peer Instruction.
Knowledge Modeling
Peer Instruction
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover.Peer Instruction uses group thinking to clarify difficult terms or concepts faster. The method combines individual reflection with social correction and shared precision.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min10-20 min je Frage60-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
8-806-505-123-20
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up QuestionsConcept Questions, Vote Results, Learning NotesRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tags1 shared
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
LearningDialogueFacilitation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods