Faced with a catalogue of tools, the reflex is to pick the one you know best. That is the surest way to run the same workshop three times in a day, under three different names.
Preparing a session rarely starts with the right question. You open your favourite tool, look at what it can do, and bend the content until it fits. The result stands up, but it bears the mark of the tool rather than of the objective.
The symptom is easy to spot: a day in which you ran three sticky-note walls. One to collect expectations, one to analyse a case, one to wrap up. Three very different teaching moments, reduced to the same gesture — because that is the gesture you have mastered.
The right question comes first: what do I want to happen in the group's minds during these twenty minutes? The answer determines the form, and the form determines the tool. In that order.
Sorting hundreds of training workshops, you keep landing on the same five intents. They are not a theory: they are the moments that recur in any session, whatever the subject.
A well-built day passes through nearly all of them, in roughly that order. And each calls for a different form: you do not bring out ideas with the same device you use to organise an action plan.
The opening is not a polite preliminary. It is the moment when each person decides, without putting it into words, whether they will be an actor or a spectator. A group that has produced nothing in the first half hour settles into the posture of an audience, and pulling it out costs far more energy later.
What you are really after at that point is twofold: get everyone to speak once, and collect information you will actually use. Both matter. A round of introductions that produces nothing usable passes the time without building anything.
The most effective form is short and anonymous: everyone sends a word, everyone watches the result appear. A word cloud does exactly that — and anonymity lifts the self-censorship of the person who dares not say they do not know why they are there. Kept on screen, that cloud becomes a reference to come back to at the end of the day.
This is the most frequent confusion, and the costliest. Analysing narrows; finding ideas opens. Mixing them in one sequence produces a discussion where proposals are criticised before they are even formulated — and where nobody proposes anything any more.
To analyse, you need a frame that imposes angles: strengths and weaknesses, causes and effects, before and after. The frame does the work. A matrix drawn on the board, a tree branching out from a central problem, a case pulled apart in small groups: the form constrains the gaze, and that is what you ask of it.
To find ideas, you must on the contrary remove constraints, except one: time. A short, judgement-free production followed by a break yields more material than an hour of open discussion. Sorting comes afterwards — that is already the next intent.
One simple rule avoids most failures: never run the two back to back without a visible break. A pause, a change of medium, a change of seat. The group must feel that the mode has changed.
A session that stops without ordering anything leaves a pleasant memory and no follow-up. The organising phase turns what has been produced into something people can take away: priorities, a plan, an allocation.
This is where a column board comes into its own — not as a project-management tool, but as a device for collective decision. Moving a card from « to discuss » to « we are doing it » is a teaching act: the group commits in front of itself.
As for the final check, it is not the same as satisfaction. Measuring what the group retained and asking what they thought of the day are two distinct questions calling for two devices. The first happens during the session, not after — a quick quiz, an open question, a vote. The second is collected later, and mainly serves to improve the next time.
Once the intent is set and the form chosen, the practical preparation remains — and that is what discourages people. Writing six retrospective questions, drawing the four quadrants of a matrix, preparing a starting list: half an hour each time, redone every session.
That is exactly what a ready-made template removes. Not the thinking about intent, which is yours: the setting up. The EduTools templates are in fact sorted by these five intents — you start from what you want to achieve, the tool comes second.
Two cautions, though. A template is never good as it is: you must at least replace the vocabulary with that of your field, otherwise the group senses a generic document. And a template does not replace an instruction: the way you introduce it, in one sentence, decides whether the group seizes it or endures it.
Good practice comes in three steps: choose by intent, open a matching template, spend ten minutes adapting it to your group. The time you save, put it where it counts — in the facilitation itself.
The plan written for a file and the one kept in front of you in class do not contain the same things. Here is how to write the second.
FacilitationTen short activities to start a remote training session by creating immediate engagement and group cohesion.
Getting startedAn exercise written once should serve ten times. Here is how to build a bank you can actually find things in, without spending more time than you save.
Create your first interactive room in under 5 minutes. Free plan, no credit card.
Get started for free