Adapting the Fishbowl Discussion: Reducing the Hot Seat, Elevating Content, Including More Voices

My use of the fishbowl discussion format often elicits a noticeable reaction from colleagues due to its reputation for putting students on the spot to discuss readings in front of their peers. Indeed, when I first learned the method, the recommendation was to randomly select students to engage in the discussion. In theory, I appreciated the idea of holding students responsible for the reading and promoting small group dialogue for the class to witness and learn from. However, given the anxiety this approach can induce and growing awareness of the rising levels of anxiety that Generation Z faces—I adapted the traditional fishbowl format using principles from Reflective Structured Dialogue to create a more supportive and effective experience, which has proven successful for me in multiple classrooms. 

This adaptation is driven by four main objectives. First, I want to ensure students are prepared for their discussion, boosting their confidence and reducing anxiety when engaging in discussions. Second, I want to ensure that the discussion stays rooted in the readings and content for the day rather than drifting into tangential topics. Third, I strive to maintain a “container” for the discussion, a concept from Essential Partners, the nonprofit organization through which I received training in Reflective Structured Dialogue. By “container,” I mean creating and maintaining a space where students could engage deeply in topics they may otherwise feel prone to keep at surface level because of their hesitation to discuss across potentially different or opposing viewpoints. Fourth, I wanted to promote inclusivity by ensuring all voices are heard rather than allowing the discussion to be dominated by a few. 

To achieve these goals, I allow students to sign up for a discussion date, employ preparatory assignments, and carefully structure the discussion experience using rounds and timers.

The preparatory phase involves three assignments due by midnight the night before the discussion. First, students submit a detailed outline or notes to demonstrate they have closely read the assigned text. Second, they write a 150-200 word opening statement summarizing the author’s main argument, outlining the author’s supporting evidence, and including crucial quotes that will further communicate the author’s argument. They are to write this using full sentences, knowing that they will read it aloud during the first round of the discussion. In other words, the opening statement is one where they must effectively capture and communicate the author’s argument. The final preparatory assignment is to submit three thoughtfully crafted discussion questions. These questions are to be based on curiosity derived from the reading, and quality questions are accompanied by a statement or two explaining their thought process and connection to the reading. 

The discussion itself follows a structured format with three initial rounds, which I facilitate by keeping time for the group. In the first round, each student has up to two minutes to read their opening statement, introducing the argument of their assigned reading in a way that allows the rest of the class and their discussion group peers to gain accessibility to the content introduced through the reading. In the second round, each student—having presented from the author's perspective—now has up to a minute to foreground their voice and share their initial takeaways, curiosities, perspectives, and wonderings concerning their reading. In the third round, each student has up to a minute to introduce their prepared discussion questions. Then, there is a minute for everyone to reflect on all these introductory rounds before a timer is set for the pre-determined discussion, for example, 10 minutes. During this time, the group is free to pick up questions raised by one another, discuss ideas, and converse about the topic at hand. Then, there is another minute to reflect on the discussion before one final go-around, allowing each student to give their summative or concluding thoughts. 

The “audience” plays a crucial role as well. To ensure engagement and participation, they complete a reflection and evaluation worksheet. The first part is meant to offer notes demonstrating their learning about the nuances of the author’s arguments in the discussed readings. Lastly, they assess the discussion with a peer evaluation, considering how the members demonstrated preparedness, engagement, full-spectrum listening, and inclusion.

The “fishbowl” name is further emulated in how the classroom is physically set up—it is rearranged to literally place the circle of fishbowl participants in the middle of the classroom in a small circle formation with the rest of the class surrounding them in a larger circle. This setup then allows the fishbowl participants to turn their chairs/desks outward to face the rest of the class at the end of the discussion. This facilitates a transition to whole-class participation as the audience can engage and ask further questions of their peer “expert” for the day.  

I would be delighted to present this adaptive fishbowl method as a teaching strategy for the Teaching Religion Unit. In such a presentation, I would include an overview of the objectives and structures of this adaptive fishbowl discussion format, present examples from two different classes, and provide handouts of the assignments and rubrics that I use.