How to Use This Prompt

Prompt Anatomy (TRACI Framework):

Placeholders to Replace:

Example Input:

Change Management | Mid-level managers leading teams through a company-wide restructure | 1. Apply the ADKAR model to diagnose resistance patterns 2. Facilitate a team readiness conversation 3. Create a 30-day communication plan for their department

Tip: The energy arc across two days is critical — place your most demanding cognitive work (case studies, scenario practice) in morning sessions when attention is highest. Use post-lunch slots for collaborative activities that keep energy up through social interaction.

Prompt

You are an expert in adult learning, instructor-led training design, and structured curriculum planning. Your role is to generate a complete, logistically sound two-day workshop agenda that balances content delivery, skill practice, reflection, and social learning.

Workshop Topic:
<topic>
[INSERT WORKSHOP TOPIC — e.g., Project Management Fundamentals, Inclusive Leadership, Change Management]
</topic>

Target Audience:
<audience>
[INSERT LEARNER GROUP AND CONTEXT — e.g., mid-level managers, new employees, HR professionals, sales team]
</audience>

Learning Objectives:
<learning_objectives>
[INSERT 3–5 LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE WORKSHOP]
</learning_objectives>

Before generating the agenda, analyze the workshop design inside <workshop_analysis> tags:
1. Identify the 3–5 most critical learning moments across two days — where must the instruction absolutely land?
2. Map each learning objective to a Bloom's Taxonomy level (Remember → Create) and note whether it requires knowledge transfer (Apply/Analyze/Create) or comprehension (Remember/Understand).
3. Consider the energy arc of a two-day workshop: when are learners freshest (morning Day 1), when do they flag (post-lunch Day 2), and how should activity types shift accordingly?
4. Plan the energy arc: how do session lengths and activity types support attention and engagement at different points in the day?
5. Identify where hands-on exercises, group activities, and scenario practice should be placed for maximum transfer of learning.

After your analysis, produce the following:

## Two-Day Workshop Agenda: [Workshop Topic]
**Format:** Instructor-Led Training (ILT)
**Total Duration:** 2 Days (9:00 AM – 4:30 PM each day)

---

Present the agenda in a two-column table format:

| Time | Day 1 | Day 2 |
|------|-------|-------|
| 9:00 AM | [Session title + brief description] | [Session title + brief description] |
| 10:15 AM | ☕ 15-Minute Break | ☕ 15-Minute Break |
| 10:30 AM | [Session title + brief description] | [Session title + brief description] |
| 12:00 PM | 🍽️ 30-Minute Lunch | 🍽️ 30-Minute Lunch |
| 12:30 PM | [Session title + brief description] | [Session title + brief description] |
| 2:30 PM | ☕ 15-Minute Break | ☕ 15-Minute Break |
| 2:45 PM | [Session title + brief description] | [Session title + brief description] |
| 4:00 PM | Day 1 Wrap-Up and Reflection | Day 2 Awards Ceremony (4:00–4:30 PM) |
| 4:30 PM | End of Day 1 | End of Workshop |

---

### Facilitation Notes

**Day 1 Design Priorities:**
- Opening session: community building, agenda overview, learning contract
- Introduce core concepts early; save application for afternoon
- Hands-on exercise placement and rationale

**Day 2 Design Priorities:**
- Begin with a recap or retrieval activity to activate Day 1 learning
- Deepen application: scenario practice, peer coaching, or group problem-solving
- Build toward synthesis and transfer in the final session

**Day 2 Awards Ceremony (4:00–4:30 PM)**
- Recognition format (individual, team, or both)
- Award categories (e.g., Most Collaborative, Best Application, Creative Insight)
- Closing reflection: What will you do differently on Monday?

### Materials and Room Setup
- Recommended room configuration
- Required materials per session
- Technology requirements (slides, polling tools, breakout rooms if virtual)

### Post-Workshop Transfer Support
Recommend at least one post-workshop activity that supports transfer of learning:
- Job aid, action planning sheet, or peer accountability pairing
- 30-day check-in recommendation

---

## Evaluation
After generating the agenda, evaluate it inside <workshop_evaluation> tags:

### 1. Learning Objective-to-Session Alignment
Verify that every learning objective maps to at least one specific session in the agenda — and that every session serves at least one objective. An agenda where sessions drift into "nice to know" content without objective anchoring wastes limited workshop time. Check that the most critical objectives receive the most substantial sessions (not just a 30-minute overview) and that no objective is addressed only through passive content delivery.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Every objective maps to a specific session; critical objectives receive substantial time with active practice; no session exists without a clear objective connection |
| **Adequate** | Most objectives are addressed in specific sessions; one or two sessions may lack clear objective connection; time allocation is reasonable |
| **Needs Revision** | Sessions are organized by topic rather than objective; multiple objectives lack dedicated sessions; agenda could cover any topic without modification |

### 2. Bloom's Taxonomy Distribution and Cognitive Progression
Assess whether the agenda progresses from foundational levels (Remember/Understand) to higher-order application (Apply/Analyze/Evaluate/Create) across the two days — rather than front-loading all content delivery and compressing practice into final sessions. Check that Day 1 builds conceptual foundation while Day 2 emphasizes application and synthesis, and that at least 40% of total agenda time involves activities at Apply level or above.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Clear progression from foundation to application across two days; 40%+ of time at Apply or above; Day 2 deepens rather than repeats Day 1; activities match the Bloom's level of their objectives |
| **Adequate** | Some progression is visible; 30-40% of time involves application; Day 2 builds on Day 1 but may repeat some foundational content |
| **Needs Revision** | Both days are primarily content delivery; application is compressed into final sessions; less than 30% of time at Apply level or above |

### 3. Energy Arc Management and Session Variety
Evaluate whether the agenda manages learner energy across two full days through strategic session variety, break placement, and activity type rotation. Post-lunch slots should feature collaborative or movement-based activities, not passive lectures. Morning sessions can handle higher cognitive load. Check that no more than 60 consecutive minutes of any single modality occurs, and that the agenda acknowledges the natural energy dip on Day 2 afternoon.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Activity types rotate every 30–60 minutes; post-lunch sessions feature collaborative or active formats; breaks are strategically placed; Day 2 afternoon uses high-engagement formats; no consecutive lecture blocks exceed 60 minutes |
| **Adequate** | Some variety in session types; breaks are present; post-lunch sessions have some active elements; one or two long passive blocks exist |
| **Needs Revision** | Sessions are uniformly lecture-based; breaks are perfunctory; post-lunch sessions are passive; no evidence of energy management design |

### 4. Hands-On Exercise Placement and Practice Realism
Verify that hands-on exercises and practice activities are placed at strategic points in the agenda — not clustered at the end or treated as optional. Practice should follow each major concept introduction (not be deferred to "if we have time"), and exercises should mirror real workplace tasks rather than artificial classroom activities. Check that practice activities produce observable output that can be debriefed.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Practice follows each major concept; exercises mirror real workplace tasks; activities produce observable output for debrief; practice is distributed across both days, not clustered |
| **Adequate** | Some practice activities follow concept introduction; exercises are relevant but may be somewhat simplified; practice occurs on both days |
| **Needs Revision** | Practice is clustered at the end or limited to one session; exercises are artificial classroom activities; no observable output; practice could be cut without redesigning the agenda |

### 5. Day 2 Opening Retrieval and Day 1 Integration
Assess whether Day 2 opens with a genuine retrieval activity that activates Day 1 learning — not just a summary or agenda review. Effective Day 2 openings require learners to actively recall and reconstruct what they learned, creating stronger memory consolidation and readiness for deeper application. Check that the Day 2 opening connects Day 1 concepts to Day 2 activities, creating a learning arc rather than two disconnected days.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Day 2 opens with active retrieval (not passive review); learners reconstruct Day 1 concepts from memory; opening bridges Day 1 foundation to Day 2 application; two days feel like a connected arc |
| **Adequate** | Day 2 opening references Day 1 content; some active recall is involved; connection between days exists but may not be deeply designed |
| **Needs Revision** | Day 2 opens with an agenda review or summary slide; no active retrieval; Day 1 and Day 2 feel like separate events |

### 6. Transfer Design and Post-Workshop Sustainability
Evaluate whether the agenda includes deliberate transfer design — not just a closing reflection but a structured commitment to on-the-job application with accountability. Effective transfer design means learners leave with a specific action plan, a peer accountability partner, and a post-workshop follow-up mechanism. Check that the awards ceremony and closing session reinforce transfer rather than just celebrating completion.

| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **Excellent** | Closing session produces specific action plans; peer accountability partnerships are formed; post-workshop follow-up (30-day check-in, manager brief) is designed; awards ceremony reinforces application, not just participation |
| **Adequate** | Some transfer planning occurs in closing; action commitments are general; one follow-up mechanism is mentioned |
| **Needs Revision** | Closing is celebratory only with no transfer planning; no action commitments; no post-workshop follow-up; awards recognize participation rather than application intent |