Fishbowl
What is it?
The fishbowl method promotes active listening, discussion and critical/divergent thinking. It involves two groups of students: one ‘inner’ group, surrounded by a circle of the ‘outer group’. After being assigned questions to discuss, or a role-play to enact, the inner group engage in discussion or a simulated role play and are silently observed by the outer group who afterwards, ask questions and give feedback to the inner group as part of a debriefing process. The setup can then be repeated in the same or a following session, with the inner and outer group students changing places. Originally designed for in person teaching, fishbowl activities can also be conducted online.
How does it work?
In clinical/medical education, the fishbowl strategy can be used to allow the outer group to observe an individual interviewing a simulated patient (e.g. Sutherland et al., 2012). In this context, the simulated patient typically stays in character until they come to give feedback to the student, usually after the observing students have given their feedback.
Both Pearson et al. (2018) and Tricio et al. (2018) used the fishbowl method in combination with case-based learning, in infectious disease and dentistry, respectively.
In a business school communication course, Leslie and Johnson-Leslie (2023) describe their use of a fishbowl method with a few small groups of students surrounding the randomly selected fishbowl group in the middle, thus allowing a larger number of students to observe. The authors drew on Gibbs’ (1988) reflective cycle to reflect on their own experiences of running the fishbowl session; however, this structure would also serve to scaffold student learning and reflection.
In the online context, Han & Hamilton (2023) note that in an online format, the inner group can participate in discussion in a webinar, which is recorded for the outer group to critique and discuss via forums later. Alternatively, the inner and outer group can attend synchronously, with the outer observers taking notes and contributing to discussions in the webinar.
Does it work?
In their study of the online fishbowl in educational courses, Han & Hamilton (2023) reported that students were engaged in rich discussions of course content, that it promoted peer to peer learning, and co-construction of knowledge by students was enabled by bringing their own experiences and perspectives into the discussions. In their reflections on a business communications course, Leslie and Johnson-Leslie (2023) reflected that students were actively engaged and collaborated with each other, and some students reported better preparation for class and increased confidence.
Pearson et al. (2018) performed a pre-post test survey incorporating the Complex Postformal Thought questionnaire, which indicated an increase in postformal thought, defined as recognising alternative legitimate perspectives; in this case, different pharmacological treatment options. Most students also appreciated the method for helping them prepare for exams, though the amount of preparation for class was no different to a traditional lecture.
Tricio et al. (2018) concluded, on the basis of a comparison study of dental students’ experiences of fishbowl versus seminars, that third year students found the fishbowl method preferable to seminars, and performed better in a post-quiz as a result, while there was no performative difference among fifth year students between the two methods, who preferred the seminar format.
What do I need?
Clear instructions need to be given before the class, in terms of student preparation, the fishbowl process, and what questions will be asked during the session. As the facilitator, you can decide whether to assign questions to promote discussion, or whether students identify questions for themselves, perhaps based on reading or other resources which can be assigned in advance (e.g. in a flipped classroom context).
In the absence of pre-defined questions, Leslie and Johnson-Leslie (2023, p. 69) suggest the following conversation starters:
- “What did you observe while discussing the issues/topics in the “Fishbowl?”
- What is one thing you heard that is similar to your point of view?
- What was one thing with which you disagreed or were unclear about?
- How did you feel while on the outside of the “Fishbowl?”
- What helped you understand the shared information (context or non-verbal cues, body language, etc.)
- How did it feel to share your feelings/thinking about the issues discussed, knowing that your peers were listening closely?”
The roleplay or discussion in the inner group can last several to ten minutes, with the same amount of time for feedback and discussion with the outer group.
References
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Further Education Unit.
Han, M., & Hamilton, E. R. (2023). Promoting engagement and learning: Using the fishbowl strategy in online and hybrid college courses. College Teaching, 71(4), 281-289.
Leslie, H. S., & Johnson-Leslie, N. (2023). Reflection on Business Communication in a" Fishbowl": Increasing Active Learning and Course Effectiveness While Lowering Disconnection. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(18), 60-71.
Pearson, S. C., Eddlemon, T., Kirkwood, M., & Pate, A. (2018). Are fishbowl activities effective for teaching pharmacotherapy and developing postformal thought in pharmacy students? A pilot study. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(8), 1070-1075. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.05.009
Sutherland, R., Reid, K., Kok, D., & Collins, M. (2012). Teaching a fishbowl tutorial: sink or swim? The Clinical Teacher, 9(2), 80-84. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1743-498X.2011.00519.x