Teaching Activities

• Opinions made visible — fast, judgement-free

• Opens discussion, surfaces assumptions

• Start of a topic: explore standpoints

• After the material: see shifted opinions

• As an energizer with substance
  
  WHAT YOU NEED

• Prepared statements in advance (verbal or on slides — enter when setting up the form)

• A space where participants can stand up without getting in each other's way (let them know beforehand)

• Suitable for all ages — adapt the wording of the statements to the level of the group

• Standard variant: stand up = agree, stay seated = disagree

• Raise or lower your hand (instead of standing up and sitting down)

• With gradation using the hand: high up / halfway / down — three positions to express nuance

• Blind variant: eyes closed → react → open eyes → see how the group is divided

• With cards: show a green or red card simultaneously — prevents participants from copying each other. Give each participant two cards: one red and one green

• Social studies: «Social media has more disadvantages than advantages»

• History: «We cannot judge the actions of people in the past by today's standards»

• Language and literature: «Loanwords from other languages damage the native language»

• Biology: «Animals in captivity can never be happy»

• Economics: «Higher taxes for the wealthy are fair»

• Training and teams: «Making mistakes is part of doing good work»

Activity based on the values clarification technique, developed in the 1970s in the United States. Applied in cooperative learning as an activating conversation starter that makes opinions visible without judgment.

• Listening and taking turns, no interruptions or dominance

• Equal space for every participant

• Processing the material or as a warm-up

• Calm discussion in small groups

• Prepared questions or tasks — enter them into the system, one question per line.

• A set time per answer — configure this in the settings (default 45 seconds).

• Group size from 2 people — optimally 2–4 participants.

• Duo: two participants taking turns — the simplest structure for partner work.

• Small groups (3–4): more perspectives, but keep an eye on the time.

• Without a timer: for open-ended tasks where the answer is not time-limited.

• With repeated rounds: the same question — new answers in the next round.

• Languages: name as many words as possible from a given category.

• Natural sciences: list examples of phenomena or concepts from the topic.

• Any subject: revision of terms, dates or facts before a test.

• Training and teams: everyone names one idea, one observation or one answer.

The structure is based on the principle of equal participation from Spencer Kagan's cooperative learning. Simple to implement and effective for creating a safe atmosphere in the group.

• Concise, clear speaking within a time limit

• Equal speaking time, no dominance or silence

• Check understanding or practise speaking skills

• Quick exchange of ideas in the group

• Prepared questions or topics — enter them into the system, one per line.

• Speaking time per participant — configure this in the settings (default 30 seconds).

• Groups of 4 participants — decide in advance who is A, B, C and D. Print and hand out the letter cards — available to download on our platform. With a card in hand, participants won't get confused about the order.

• More time: for more complex topics that require a longer answer.

• With preparation: give participants a minute to think before starting.

• Random order: not A→B→C→D, but random — adds an element of unpredictability.

• Second round: after the first round — a new topic, or the same question from a different perspective.

• Any subject: «Tell us what you know about...» — quick comprehension check.

• Languages: oral retelling of a text or description of an image within the time limit.

• History: each participant talks about one event, person or consequence.

• Training and teams: everyone shares their experience or opinion on the topic.

The structure is based on the principle of equal time from cooperative learning. Develops skills in concise speaking and trains the group in attentive listening.

• Attentive listening in order to retell

• Interviews in pairs, shared with the four

• Summarising in your own words, concise and accurate

• Getting acquainted or deeper topic discussion

• Everyone is heard and represented by another

• Prepared questions — enter them into the system, one per line.

• Interview time (phases 1 and 2) and sharing time with the group (phase 3) — configure these separately in the settings (default 60 and 90 seconds).

• Groups of 4 participants — decide in advance who is A, B, C and D. Print and hand out the letter cards — available to download on our platform.

• More interview time: for deeper or more personal questions.

• With notes: the interviewer writes down the partner's answers to retell them more accurately in phase 3.

• One question for all rounds: deeper exploration of one topic instead of several.

• Without the third phase: if time is limited — stop after the mutual interview.

• Getting to know each other: favourite book, a special memory, a dream or a hobby.

• Social studies: personal attitude towards a social or ethical issue.

• Literature: personal interpretation of a text or character.

• Training and teams: experiences, expectations or values of participants.

The Three-Step Interview structure was developed by Spencer Kagan as a cooperative learning tool. Develops skills in active listening, empathy and oral summarising.

• Movement plus repetition or knowledge check

• Changing pairs, taking turns asking questions

• Processing after instruction or revision before a test

• Energizer with real substance

• Cards with questions and answers (one per participant) — quickly generated as a printable PDF using the card generator on our platform.

• It is recommended to have more cards than participants; cards can have unique questions, but duplicates are also fine.

• Enough space to move around freely.

• Questions must have one clear answer.

• Without card exchange: each participant keeps their own card and asks the same question to new partners.

• With teams: participants move only within their own team.

• Mathematics: definitions, formulas, multiplication tables.

• History: dates, events, historical figures.

• Languages: word translation, grammar rules, conjugations.

• Biology: names of organs, cell functions, classification.

• Training and teams: concepts and definitions from the topic.

Based on the Quiz-Quiz-Trade structure by Spencer Kagan — a cooperative learning format in which participants teach each other through structured interaction in constantly changing pairs.

• Everyone accountable for the shared result

• No one knows which number will be called

• Real participation instead of waiting it out

• Check understanding or process the material

• Thinking together, not leaning on one person

• Prepared questions — enter them into the system, one per line.

• Group size — configure this in the settings (default 4; numbers from 1 to the specified number). Print and hand out the number cards — available to download on our platform.

• Discussion time per question — configure this in the settings (default 60 seconds).

• Questions should be open-ended — requiring explanation, not just a one-word answer.

• More discussion time: for more complex or multi-part questions.

• With notes: each participant writes an individual answer before the group discussion — reduces the influence of stronger participants.

• Larger groups: group size from 2 to 6 — a larger group offers more perspectives but requires clearer facilitation.

• History: «Name three causes of the First World War».

• Natural sciences: «What is the difference between a plant cell and an animal cell?»

• Literature: «What drove the main character to make this decision?»

• Training and teams: open questions for reflection or situation analysis.

The Numbered Heads Together structure was developed by Spencer Kagan. It increases individual accountability within group work — everyone must be ready to present the shared answer.

• Individual thinking plus group comparison

• Write alone first, then combine the lists

• One participant shares the joint result

• Activating prior knowledge or brainstorming

• Thinking independently before the group discussion

• Prepared open questions — enter them into the system, one per line.

• Group size — configure this in the settings (default 4; numbers from 1 to the specified number). Print and hand out the number cards — available to download on our platform.

• Time for phase 1 (individual writing) and time for phase 2 (group comparison) — configure these separately in the settings (default 60 and 90 seconds).

• Paper or a notebook for individually writing down ideas.

• More time for phase 1: for more complex questions or if participants are not used to thinking independently before discussion.

• With prioritisation: in phase 2 the group not only compares but also selects the 3–5 most important ideas from the list.

• Without the plenary phase: stop after the group comparison if time is limited.

• Natural sciences: «Name as many forms of renewable energy as possible».

• Geography: «Which countries are members of the EU?»

• Biology: «Give examples of mammals».

• Training and teams: «What helps a team work effectively?»

The structure is based on Write-Around and Roundrobin from Spencer Kagan's cooperative learning. Combines individual accountability with group synergy.

• Giving clear instructions and following them precisely

• Extra relevant in the AI era: precise wording shapes the outcome

• Precise language skills or reflection after a task

• A task or material that can be reproduced based on instructions: a drawing, diagram, sequence of actions, mathematical notation, and so on.

• Number of rounds — configure this in the settings (use an even number so that A and B have the same number of rounds).

• Time per round — configure this in the settings (default 90 seconds; includes both execution and instructions together).

• More time per round: for more complex tasks or if participants are not yet used to formulating instructions.

• With a debrief: the pair analyses what was unclear in the instructions and how it could have been expressed more precisely.

• With drawing: A draws a figure or diagram and describes it — B reproduces it based on words alone.

• With mathematics: A solves a problem and explains each step — B writes it down based on the instructions.

• Mathematics: explain the steps of solving a problem or constructing a figure.

• Technology / craft: describe a sequence of actions in a production process.

• Geography: describe the location of objects on a map.

• Training and teams: an exercise in communication precision and active listening.

The activity is based on the classic communication training exercise — «describe without showing». Develops metacognitive skills: awareness of how precisely we formulate our thoughts.

• Thinking aloud and giving supportive feedback

• The partner guides, without giving away the answer

• Known in IT as pairing: fewer mistakes, better results

• For tasks where the thinking matters more than the answer

• Prepared tasks or exercises — enter them into the system, one per line. Use an even number so that A and B have the same number of turns.

• Time per task — configure this in the settings (default 90 seconds; includes both solving and thinking aloud together).

• More time: for more complex tasks or more detailed explanations.

• With written commentary: the coach writes down observations before giving feedback.

• Without role switching: if one participant needs more practice — A solves several tasks in a row.

• Mathematics: solving equations or problems with an explanation at each step.

• Languages: constructing sentences or grammatical structures with commentary.

• History: explaining the causes and consequences of an event out loud.

• Training and teams: practising algorithms or situation analysis.

The structure is based on Pair Problem Solving from cooperative learning. Develops metacognitive skills — awareness of one's own thinking process — and a culture of constructive feedback within a pair.

This activity collects ideas from the whole group — quietly, simultaneously and without pressure. Everyone writes their thoughts on separate sheets, places them in the centre of the table, and then the group sorts and discusses the result together. Choose it for a brainstorm, activating prior knowledge, or when it is important to hear everyone — including those who normally stay silent during group discussions.

• Separate sheets of paper or sticky notes — enough for all participants.

• Pens for each group member.

• One sheet — one idea: this makes them easier to sort.

• Writing time per question — configure this in the settings (default 120 seconds).

• Discussion time per question — configure this in the settings (default 120 seconds).

• Optional: category titles for sorting — prepare in advance or determine together with the group.

• With categories: the facilitator determines sorting themes in advance — the group distributes the sheets across categories.

• Without sorting: simply read all ideas aloud and discuss — for shorter sessions.

• With prioritisation: after sorting, each participant places a dot or mark on the most important idea.

• Anonymous: sheets without names — reduces social pressure and encourages more honest responses.

• Natural sciences: «Name as many forms of renewable energy as possible».

• Social studies: «What arguments are there in favour of nuclear energy?»

• Citizenship education: «What are the characteristics of democracy?»

• Training and teams: collecting ideas, expectations or challenges at the start of a session.

The activity is known as Brainwriting or Written Round Robin. Unlike a classic brainstorm, the written format gives equal space to everyone — both extroverts and those who think more slowly or feel uncomfortable speaking aloud.

This activity creates conditions for short, sequential conversations in pairs — each participant meets many different partners in a short time. Choose it for discussing open questions, gathering a range of opinions, or as a structure for peer feedback.

• An even number of participants — otherwise someone is left without a partner.

• Space for two concentric circles (standing or on chairs).

• Questions or discussion topics prepared in advance — enter them into the system, one question per line.

• If there are no prepared questions — simply enter the number of rounds (rotations).

• The rotation signal and timer — are available in the system.

• Standard: the inner circle stays still, the outer circle rotates after the signal.

• With roles: one person asks a question, the other answers — then they swap.

• With notes: after each conversation, the participant writes down a key idea.

• Two rows of chairs facing each other — for smaller spaces or when there is no room for circles.

• Social studies: exchanging arguments for and against a statement.

• Literature: each participant shares their interpretation of a text.

• Foreign languages: conversational practice on a given topic.

• Training and teams: sharing experiences or giving feedback to colleagues.

• Start of a course or introduction: a structured way to get to know everyone.

The structure comes from cooperative learning and is known as Inside-Outside Circle (Spencer Kagan). It is also widely used in facilitation as a tool for structured dialogue within a group.

This is the most flexible activity: you bring the assignment, the structure does the rest. Choose it when you want students to work on a concrete task — alone or together — without designing a whole interaction scenario yourself. Suited to practice tasks, mini-projects, processing assignments, and design tasks. With the three formats (alone, by group size, or a fixed number of groups) and the ways to form groups, you match the social structure to your goal: focused individual work, or collaboration in the right composition.

- A clear assignment — describe it in the settings. Put each step on a new line if the task has phases.

- A choice of format: alone, by group size, or a fixed number of groups.

- For group work: how to form the groups — voluntary (with people you feel comfortable with), random (counting off or colour cards), or mixed (diversity in each group). Each choice gives a different dynamic.

- Work time — set this in the settings (default 300 seconds / 5 min). Estimate generously and adjust as needed.

- Alone → together: let everyone think alone first, then run the same task in groups to compare answers and build on each other.

- Step-by-step assignment: put each step on a new line so the task unfolds in phases.

- Switch the group formation: voluntary for safety on sensitive tasks, random to break up fixed groups, mixed for diversity and equal opportunity.

- Vary the group size: pairs for depth, threes or fours for more perspectives — smaller groups give everyone more airtime.

- Time as pressure or as space: short work time brings energy and focus, longer time allows depth.

- Languages: a writing or reading task, alone or with peer feedback in pairs.

- Mathematics: solve problems alone first, then compare approaches in threes.

- Geography / content subjects: a mini-investigation or map task in mixed groups.

- Technology / crafts: a design or making task in small groups.

- Mentoring: a reflection or planning task, alone first and then shared.

This flexible activity builds on insights from cooperative learning: the way you shape a task socially — alone, or in voluntary, random, or deliberately mixed groups — partly determines what is learned. It develops both independent work and collaboration, depending on the chosen format.

This activity guides a group step by step through a series of statements or questions — one at a time, so attention stays on a single point before the next one appears. The pacing keeps focus and stops the group from racing ahead or talking over each other. Choose it for discussion statements (agree/disagree), reflection prompts, review questions, or any list you want worked through deliberately rather than all at once. Works alone or in groups; the per-statement timer keeps the pace even.

- A series of statements or questions — put each on a new line in the settings. Phrase statements so there is room to react (a clear position to agree or disagree with), or questions that invite thinking.

- A choice of format: alone, by group size, or a fixed number of groups.

- For group work: how to form the groups — voluntary, random, or mixed.

- Time per statement — set this in the settings (0 = no timer; otherwise the timer counts per statement). Use a timer for an even pace, or 0 to give the discussion room.

- Statements or questions: statements (a position to react to) spark discussion; questions invite reflection or recall — choose what fits your goal.

- Timer on or off: timer for energy and an even pace; no timer (0) for open, deeper conversation.

- Take a position: have everyone visibly choose a side per statement before the conversation starts.

- Alone → together: have everyone answer each statement alone first, then compare in the group.

- Build difficulty: order the statements from easy or safe to more challenging or sensitive.

- Citizenship / social studies: statements about a social theme to explore positions.

- Languages: statements about a text that was read, or comprehension questions one by one.

- History: statements about cause and effect, or "true or false" questions.

- Mentoring: reflection statements about collaboration, learning, or class climate.

- Any subject: a series of review questions to activate prior knowledge.

This flexible activity builds on the classic "statement game" and the principle of active processing: one question or statement at a time keeps attention focused and gives everyone the chance to respond. It develops forming and supporting a position, and listening to someone else's.

What you need

Cards with questions or concepts — one set per group of four participants.

Examples

• Language lesson: quiz concepts, definitions or grammar rules
• Exact subject: practise formulas, steps or calculation rules through questions and answers
• Content lesson: review key concepts, place names or historical facts

Sources

Based on Kagan's Fan-N-Pick — roles (fan, pick, ask, answer) ensure active involvement from everyone (Spencer Kagan, 2009).

What you need

Flashcards: question on the front, answer on the back — one set per pair of participants.

Examples

• Language lesson: review words, translations or word meanings
• Exact subject: study formulas, definitions or calculations through active repetition
• Content lesson: practise key concepts, dates or cause-and-effect relationships

Sources

Based on Kagan's Flashcard Game — active pair repetition with immediate feedback through flashcards (Spencer Kagan, 2009).

What you need

Bookmarks or post-its per pair — to mark the correct passage in the text when an answer is wrong

Variants

• Have the questioner briefly write down their question before asking it aloud — encourages sharper questions
• Work with longer passages and multiple rounds: a new text section after each role swap

Examples

• Language lesson: read texts and ask comprehension questions about content, style or word choice
• Content lesson: process source material through targeted questions about facts, causes or concepts
• Practical subject: read instructional texts and ask questions about steps, sequence or materials

Sources

Based on Keith Topping's Paired Reading method (1987) — reading aloud in pairs with targeted questions as a comprehension check mechanism.

What you need

Texts or task sheet per team; pens and paper to note collected information

Variants

• Send two informants per team for more exchange — the rest of the team stays
• Let informants visit multiple teams for a more complete picture

Examples

• Content lesson: each team studies a different aspect of a topic and shares knowledge via informants
• Language lesson: each team analyses a different text and informants relay findings
• Practical subject: teams each work on a different step of a process and share via informants

Sources

Based on Kagan's One Stray structure — one participant leaves the group to gather information from other groups and brings it back (Spencer Kagan, 1994).

What you need

Texts or task descriptions per expert (one per role); pens and paper for note-taking

Variants

• Use visual materials or diagrams instead of texts — have experts create a poster
• Have experts write down their findings before returning to the base group
• Add a closing whole-class discussion: each base group shares one insight

Examples

• Content lesson: divide four aspects of a historical event or scientific concept
• Language lesson: analyse and summarise four texts or text types
• Practical subject: divide four steps of a process or procedure among experts

Sources

Based on Elliot Aronson's Jigsaw method (1971) — cooperative learning in which each student becomes an expert in one part of the material and shares it with their base group.

What you need

Feedback form (one per team) — the guardian fills in page 1 during the rotations (what works / what can improve / other ideas); page 2 is filled in together during the team reflection. Pens for the guardians.

Variants

• Let the guardian briefly explain the assignment at the start of each visitor round
• Design your own feedback form with custom columns — e.g. specific criteria or questions tailored to the assignment
• Use the form also as preparation: have teams write down in advance which aspects they want feedback on

Examples

• Project work: teams present their design or plan; the guardian notes feedback per visiting team in the form
• Language lesson: display writing assignments; visitors give verbal feedback on content and style via the three columns
• Practical subject: evaluate finished products via a tour; guardian collects feedback in the form per visiting team

Sources

Based on the Gallery Walk methodology — teams present their work and receive verbal feedback from participants circulating around the room, which the guardian notes in three columns: what works well, what can improve, other ideas.

This activity combines individual thinking with finding a shared position. Each participant first writes their answer in their own section of the sheet, then shares it with the group — and together they formulate a shared conclusion in the centre. Choose it for an in-depth discussion of a topic, exploring different points of view, or when it is important to reach consensus without losing individual thoughts.

• A sheet of paper in A3 format or larger — divided into sections for each participant with an empty centre for the shared conclusion. Print our template — available to download on our platform.

• Pens for each group member.

• Prepared questions — enter them into the system, one per line.

• Time for individual writing, time for sharing answers and time for writing the consensus — configure these separately in the settings (default 3, 2 and 2 minutes).

• Optional: a plenary closing question for the whole class.

• With one question: deeper exploration of one topic instead of several.

• Without consensus: stop after sharing answers — if the goal is simply to hear different perspectives.

• With presentation: one group shares their consensus with the class.

• As an assessment tool: questions such as «What do you already know about this topic?» / «What would you still like to know?» at the start or end of a topic.

• Any subject: «What do you already know about this topic?» / «What do you think is most important?» / «What question do you still have?»

• Social studies: discussion of an ethical dilemma or social issue.

• Literature: different interpretations of a text or a character's actions.

• Training and teams: mapping out the group's expectations, values or priorities.

Placemat is a widely used structure within cooperative learning. The physical sheet makes every voice visible and equal — individual thinking and shared result exist simultaneously on the same page.

This activity combines taking a stance with movement and dialogue. Participants physically choose a corner that represents their opinion, explain why — and may switch corners if they are convinced by others. This makes abstract thinking visible and open for discussion. Choose this activity for activating prior knowledge, exploring opinions, or closing a topic with reflection.

• Four corners in the room with labels — for example: Strongly agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly disagree, or simply the letters A / B / C / D. Labels can be customised within the activity itself.

• A set of statements about the topic — at least 3, preferably 5 to 8.

• Enough space to move freely between corners.

• Statements should spark discussion — avoid questions with one clearly correct answer.

• Without switching: participants stay in their corner and discuss only within their own group.

• Silent choice first: participants choose their position on paper individually — and only then walk to their corner.

• Social studies: "Social media does more harm than good."

• History: "Colonisation was inevitable."

• Biology: "Humans are responsible for the extinction of animals."

• Training and teams: statements about ways of working, values, or team agreements.

Based on the Four Corners strategy — a discussion format where participants make their stance physically visible and engage in dialogue with those who think differently.

This activity helps gather ideas from the whole group — from individual reflection to a shared result. Each participant first thinks independently, then shares in a pair, then in a group of four — so ideas are gradually built up and enriched. Choose it for a brainstorm, finding and solving problems in the class, team or group, identifying the strengths of a project or community, setting priorities — or when it is important that every voice is heard before the plenary discussion.

• Paper or sticky notes for individually writing down ideas.

• Enough space to work in pairs and groups of four.

• A prepared question or task — clear and open-ended; enter it into the system so it remains visible on the screen throughout.

• A timer for each phase — available in the system.

• Stop at the groups-of-four stage — without clustering, if time is limited.

• With prioritisation: each group of four chooses one key idea before the plenary discussion.

• With posters: groups of four write their clusters on a large sheet and present to the group.

• Digital variant: ideas are entered into a shared document or whiteboard instead of sticky notes.

• Social studies: «What can we do to reduce inequality?»

• Literature: «Which character traits of the main character are most important?»

• Natural sciences: «What factors influence climate change?»

• Training and teams: identifying shared values or priorities within the team.

• Start of a new topic: gathering participants' prior knowledge and associations.

The activity is also known as Pyramiding or Think-Pair-Share in its extended form. Used in cooperative learning and facilitation as a structure for gradually building shared knowledge.

This activity turns revision of the material into a team competition. Teams take turns answering questions, and the facilitator reveals the correct answer after each round. This is a familiar format, close to traditional teaching — attention is directed at the screen and the facilitator. But the team format adds energy: competition motivates, especially children and teenagers. Choose it for consolidating or revising a topic, checking knowledge before a test, or as an energizer with meaningful content.

• Prepared questions with correct answers or answer options — enter them into the system when setting up.

• Number of teams: 2, 3 or 4 — choose this in the settings.

• Time per question — configure this in the settings (default 30 seconds).

• Questions must have one clear correct answer.

• With answer options: enable multiple choice — participants choose from several options.

• Without a timer: for more difficult questions that require more thinking time.

• With a bonus question: add one challenging question at the end to decide a tie.

• Mixed teams: combine participants of different levels for better balance.

• Any subject: terms, dates, definitions, formulas.

• Languages: word translation, grammar rules, idioms.

• History: events, years, names, causes and consequences.

• Training and teams: concepts and definitions from the topic.

The team quiz format is a classic active learning tool. The competitive element increases engagement and motivation without reducing the learning value.

This activity develops the ability to think beyond the first, obvious answer and find the real cause of a problem. By asking "why?" five times, participants move past symptoms and quick explanations and learn to separate cause from effect. Choose this activity when a group keeps getting stuck in fast conclusions or blame, for reflecting on a situation that went wrong (or right), or as a stepping stone toward a targeted solution. It works best with a concrete, recognisable problem phrased as a factual observation rather than a reproach.

- One or more concrete problems — set these in the settings, each on a new line. Phrase them as an observable situation ("The assignment is handed in late"), not as a judgement.

- Time per "why" — set this in the settings (default 90 seconds per round, discussed together in pairs).

- A way to record the five answers: on paper, on the board, or digitally. Writing them down makes the chain of causes visible.

- Shorter or longer: stop before five times if the root cause is already clear, or keep going if there is another layer underneath.

- With debrief: have pairs compare their root cause. Different pairs often arrive at a different point — showing that one problem can have several causes.

- Branching: sometimes one "why" has two answers. Let the pair choose which trail to follow, or briefly explore both.

- Appreciative: apply the same question to something that went well ("why did this work?") to uncover success factors.

- Mentoring / reflection: why work keeps being handed in late, why collaboration runs stiffly.

- History: tracing the causes behind an event step by step.

- Citizenship / social studies: reading a social issue back to its underlying cause.

- Physics / chemistry: why an experiment turned out differently than expected.

- Economics: why a company or decision did not produce the intended result.

This activity is based on the "five whys" method by Sakichi Toyoda, developed within the Toyota Production System to address the root cause of breakdowns rather than the symptoms. It develops analytical and causal thinking: the distinction between what you see happening and why it happens.

This activity helps a group discover the deeper, shared purpose behind their work. By repeatedly asking "why is this important?", the conversation moves from practical, obvious answers toward what truly drives participants. Choose it at the start of a project or collaboration, when motivation has faded, when a team wants to reconnect with the meaning of its work, or before a choice where a shared purpose helps. It works best in a safe atmosphere: the question goes deep, and that calls for openness and attentive listening.

- A shared theme (optional) — set this in the settings, or leave it empty so each pair chooses their own work. E.g. "our joint project" or "why we teach this subject".

- Time per direction (A→B and B→A) — set this in the settings (default 240 seconds per direction).

- Pairs in which both participants get a turn: A asks B first, then you switch roles.

- The agreement that whoever asks only listens and keeps repeating "why is this important?" — without judging, adding, or steering.

- More or less time: more room for depth, or shorter as a warm-up.

- Shared closing: collect the purposes that surfaced and look for the common thread together.

- Without a shared theme: each pair takes their own work — suited to a mixed group.

- As decision prep: run this before a choice, so the group decides from a shared purpose.

- Team / department: why we do this work — at the start of a school year or project.

- Mentoring / reflection: why a goal or choice matters to a student.

- Career orientation: why a student is drawn to a direction or study.

- Citizenship / social studies: why a value or social theme matters.

- Philosophy / worldview: exploring what gives someone meaning.

This activity is one of the Liberating Structures by Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz ("Nine Whys"). Unlike the "five whys", it does not seek the cause of a problem but the deeper, shared purpose behind what a group does. It develops self-insight, meaningful conversation, and shared motivation.

Conversation Café creates a calm, reflective conversation in one small fixed group, where a talking stone makes sure everyone has an equal voice and no one dominates. The structure — two go-around rounds, free dialogue, a closing round — slows the conversation down, so people listen before they react. Choose it for a complex, sensitive, or charged theme where there is no single right answer and being heard matters more than reaching a conclusion: a difficult incident in class, a values question, processing an event, or a tension in the team. It works best with 4–8 people who stay at one table, an openly phrased theme, and a willingness to follow the six agreements.

- One open theme — set it in the settings (e.g. "How do we deal with…?" or a sensitive issue). Phrase it as an invitation to reflect, not a problem to solve.

- One group of 4–8 at a single table; nobody changes places.

- A talking stone (any object): whoever holds it speaks, the rest listen. Pass it on after speaking.

- The six agreements visible to everyone (open, accept, curious, discover, sincere, concise).

- Time per step — set in the settings (default ≈ 30 min: first round 6, second round 6, free dialogue 12, closing round 6).

- More or less time: a longer free dialogue for heavier themes; shorter for a quick check-in.

- Talking stone in the free dialogue too: if the group starts talking over each other, keep using the stone in the open phase as well.

- Written closing: have everyone write their "what I take away" before sharing it.

- Small theme, regular ritual: use it as a recurring reflective moment (e.g. a weekly mentor check-in).

- Facilitator joins or stays out: take part as an equal voice, or just hold the space and guard the agreements.

- Mentoring / class: a sensitive incident, group dynamics, or "how are we actually doing together?"

- Citizenship / worldview: a values or ethical question with no single answer.

- Team: a tension or change that needs to be talked through calmly.

- Languages / literature: a personal, open response to a theme in a text.

- After an event: processing something that affected the group.

Conversation Café is a Liberating Structure, originally developed by Vicki Robin. It rests on the idea that some themes do not need a solution but room to be heard: a talking stone and a few simple agreements give everyone an equal voice. It develops attentive listening, tolerating difference, and reflecting on a complex or sensitive subject.

World Café brings a large group into one shared conversation by spreading it across small tables. After each round, people move to a new table and carry their ideas with them, while a host stays put and briefly passes on what was said — so ideas cross-pollinate and a shared picture grows. Choose it for a question that concerns the whole group and benefits from many voices: a team day, a class theme, a school-wide issue, or building a vision. It works best with enough people for several tables (roughly 12 or more), a genuinely open question, and time for the closing harvest where common patterns are gathered.

- One central, open question — set it in the settings (e.g. "What makes our class stronger?"). Open enough to invite many answers, focused enough to stay on topic.

- Tables of 4–5, with a sheet in the middle to jot ideas on. Set the number of rounds and the time per round (default 3 rounds × 8 min).

- A host (table guardian) per table who stays each round and briefly recaps for newcomers.

- Time for the harvest at the end — set it in the settings (default 10 min) — to gather the common patterns as a whole group.

- One question or a theme per table: keep one central question across all tables, or give each table its own sub-theme (write it on the sheet).

- More or fewer rounds: more rounds deepen the cross-pollination; fewer keep it short.

- Rotating hosts: let a different person host each round instead of one fixed host.

- Visual harvest: collect the patterns on a wall or board rather than only out loud.

- Smaller setting: with one or two tables it becomes a layered group conversation rather than a full café.

- Team / staff day: "What makes our team strong?" — building a shared vision.

- Mentoring / class: "What do we need to work well together?"

- Citizenship / social studies: a societal question explored from many angles.

- Languages / literature: interpretations of a theme or text across tables.

- Project kick-off: gathering ideas and directions before deciding.

World Café is a Liberating Structure by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs. It rests on the idea that knowledge and good ideas already live within a group, and that moving between small conversations lets them cross-pollinate into a shared picture. It develops collective thinking, listening across viewpoints, and building on each other's ideas.

This activity turns a goal on its head: instead of asking how to reach it, you ask how you would guarantee to ruin it. Laughing at the worst-case scenario feels safe — you blame no one — and then that wild list turns out surprisingly close to what the group sometimes really does. Choose it when a group is stuck, when there is resistance to change, or when honest self-reflection feels too confronting head-on: improving lessons, team habits, or a project that isn't working. The humour makes room to name uncomfortable truths — and, crucially, to choose what to STOP rather than what to add.

- A clear, positive goal — set it in the settings (e.g. "Students participate actively in the lesson"). Phrase it as the result you actually want.

- A choice of format: alone or in groups (groups share and bundle their lists).

- Three steps with time per step — set in the settings (default ≈ 18 min: the worst plan 6, the mirror 6, what do we stop 6).

- A light, safe atmosphere: the first step is meant to be exaggerated and funny.

- Alone → together: make a list alone first, then bundle into one shared list.

- More time on the mirror: the honest comparison is the heart of it; give it room if the group goes deep.

- Visual list: write the "worst plan" on the board, so everyone sees how absurd — and familiar — it is.

- End with a promise: have each person or group name their one "stop" out loud as a small commitment.

- Repeat later: revisit the "stop" after a few weeks — did we actually stop it?

- Team / department: "How do we make sure a meeting goes nowhere?" before improving meetings.

- Mentoring / class: "How do we guarantee group work fails?" to surface unspoken habits.

- Lesson design: "How do we guarantee students switch off?" to sharpen a lesson.

- Project: "How do we guarantee this project flops?" at the start.

- Citizenship: a playful angle on a behaviour or norm (e.g. "how to guarantee no one feels heard").

This activity is based on "Making Space with TRIZ" by Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz, one of the Liberating Structures. By first imagining how you would guarantee failure, what you unconsciously already do becomes visible — safely, because you criticise the worst scenario and no one personally. It develops honest self-reflection, letting go of counterproductive habits, and the courage to stop something rather than do more.