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
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
Paper illustration for Peer Instruction.
Knowledge Modeling
Peer Instruction
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Purposedifferent
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.Peer Instruction uses group thinking to clarify difficult terms or concepts faster. The method combines individual reflection with social correction and shared precision.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min5-15 min10-20 min je Frage45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
5-123-206-508-80
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConcept Questions, Vote Results, Learning NotesDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tags1 shared
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
LearningDialogueFacilitation
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods