First of all, the students in the middle of the fishbowl are obviously engaged if they are being forced to discuss amongst a smaller group of people. Secondly, the notes/observations that we were to keep track of really helped the "outsiders" stay in the loop and what not.
The first question on "Discourse - What was being said?" was beneficial because as I took notes from the outside, I felt as if I were in a mini-lecture. I don't know how others feel about this statement, but I actually like the "teacher lectures and the student takes notes" model. So for me to sit on the outside and observe what was being said on the inside, actually engaged me as I took notes on relevant information. Furthermore, I know that when I was in the inside of the circle, it felt good to be one of those contributing and answering questions. I think that for students who are good note-takers, this is a very easy way of learning. Some examples of the information I took away from the outside are: 1) One group discussed a study which involved observing Latino children/teenagers in and out of the classroom. Those in the inside talked about how Latinos may interact with one another as well as others in a public setting (i.e. - the scenario in the mall). Furthermore, they discussed several research methods and how to infer data from observations. 2) The other group I observed talked about the Fishbowl itself and whether or not it brought advantages/disadvantages to our ways of learning/discussing during discussion section. Some commonly held views held were against the Fishbowl because of the awkwardness that may have arisen, as well as the disconnect that some students felt from the outside. Some felt severely disconnected and disadvantaged from not being able to contribute while not in the inner circle. However, as I stated earlier, I do not believe this to be a severe negative. Overall, I believe the inner circle can help because it engages those who are otherwise quiet throughout the entire discussion section.
Furthermore, not to knock anyone, but while observing we were asked to observe "Positionality/Identities - Who are the people you are observing?" While jotting down thoughts on this question, I found that their were certain peoples thoughts that I really appreciated and trusted while others may have been less thought out. I definitely gained a sense of who was knowledgeable on the subject.
Lastly, we were asked to observe "Space and Time - What type of space have we created today" as well as any other additional observations. While writing down comments on these criteria, I observed the different sectors that the fishbowl created and I judged whether or not I was in favor of the fishbowl discussion. My thoughts on this were: By putting people in the middle, they were definitely on the spot. They were responsible for answering all the questions on their topic. For me, this definitely made me feel more comfortable, despite the fact that people were observing us and taking notes. This is definitely different for our class setting as we usually only a select few are engaged in the discussion. Although I was in favor of the fishbowl, I definitely won't disregard the fact that it may not be as beneficial to all as it was to myself The different setup may have connected some people while disconnecting others.
Just in case you couldn't tell my stance on the Fishbowl, I enjoyed it and felt very comfortable in the inner circle, participating quite a lot. Although I had no previous experience, I was very engaged as I enjoy responding to questions in group discussions.
4 comments:
I was also in favor of the fishbowl discussion. If it had been introduced at the beginning of the semester, I think it could have turned out to be beneficial/enjoyable to more students in the class. However, since it was introduced as a trial thing towards the end, I still think it was beneficial to us in the sense that those in the class who may be more shy when it comes to sharing opinions to the entire class can gain self-confidence by basically being forced to share their opinions. (Sorry long sentence). Yes, it does put individuals on the spotlight, but if we did this more often people would not feel as isolated or uncomfortable as they speak more and more. I also think it stresses the importance of doing the readings outside of class, and if we did a fishbowl discussion in every section, I think more people would do the readings and we would ultimately have a more productive discussion.
I'm one of those people who rarely talk in class, but I liked the fishbowl experiment. However, it was hard for me to stay in the loop, because I couldn't catch most of what the people were saying. It's not that I wasn't interested, it was more of the fact that I couldn't hear. Hearing things in fragmented segments did not help me understand what was going on. And it's not like we were allowed to ask to repeat what was being said.
I felt like it did give people more of chance to speak out and interact in the discussion, and it seemed less awkward to discuss things with a smaller group.
One of my main concerns with the fishbowl style of discussion was the way that it put people in the inner circle on the spot. You said that the inner circle forces quiet people to speak up but I think that the added pressure makes people feel like they have less margin of error because they have an audience as well as a group instead of just a group.
Comment #1 (Hibba Malik)
I understand what Michael is saying, and while I agree that some students may like the fishbowl discussion format more than others, I think it is less risky to stick with our usual, open circle, all inclusive format. From a teaching perspective, it is important to ensure that the pedagogical approach used reaches to the maximum number of students. Although you are never sure how all your students learn best to be able to achieve this goal, you can opt for the style that does not actively inhibit learning.
I disagree with Katie that the quiet students in section would be encouraged to speak up in a fishbowl setup and therefore cause a more productive discussion. These students would be forced to speak up – this is where all the awkwardness comes into play. With the rest of the class staring at you and acknowledging that you have not spoken is a lot of pressure. More importantly, students should not be forced to talk if they do not have an opinion on the matter at hand. Now, given that most facilitators ask content-based questions, these students could give an answer if they did the readings, but this still does not compensate for the fact that they must participate. That sort of compulsion does not even happen in lectures; you take notes in class if that helps you learn so you can do well in the class, but no one mandates that you must take notes. It is up to you. That should be the case here too because, just as Danny stated, there are students who do not appreciate the attention and scrutiny that are associated with being in the inner circle. Michael mentioned that a large majority of the class does not participate in our usual format, but that is not because they are lazy and know that others will so they do not have to; it is because they do not want to.
Also, I disagree with Katie’s statement that the fishbowl setup creates productive discussions. It does not because the few students that are supposed to be discussing are whispering, which affects the students in the outer circle because they can not hear anything. More importantly, however, they can not contribute to the discussion. In our usual format, at least this opportunity is there. Michael said that he enjoyed being in the outer circle because he could take notes on what was going on in the discussion – it was like lecture for him. But, section is not lecture – it is discussion. The majority of the class is excluded from participating in discussion so I am not sure how this would affect a more productive discussion than usual. I agree that there are about as many students who participate in our usual format that were sitting in the inner circle of the fishbowl, but occasionally, there are one or two students who do not regularly participate that speak up and say what they are thinking when they have an opinion. Even during lectures, students are not prohibited from asking questions or commenting, so why should this be the case when students are supposed to be able to talk more freely?
Lastly, Katie stated that people would be encouraged to do the readings if they were constantly put “on the spot” if we adopted the fishbowl format. But, I do not feel that this is true, as majority of the class is not involved in the discussion for a particular reading; students could simply plan which readings they would do for the inner fishbowl circle they would be forced to sit in and disregard the other readings. Given these reasons, it is much more beneficial to use our current strategy for stimulating discussion – there are more pros that we have seen and more pros that could hypothetically play out than are seen with the fishbowl format.
Post a Comment