Creating a classroom environment conducive to discussions is the key to successful discussions, regardless of whether the discussions are face-to-face or online, whether synchronous or asynchronous. Many practices for creating an inclusive learning environment also create a learning environment conducive to discussions. Instructors can improve the likelihood that their class environment will be conducive to student discussions by establishing trust and community with and among their students (UW KnowledgeBase, 2020). This point aligns with the ISTE Standards for Students, particularly as a digital citizen (point 2) (ISTE, 2022). This point highlights that students recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning, and working in an interconnected digital world. They act and model in safe, legal, and ethical ways. As digital citizens, students are expected to:

a. Students cultivate and manage their digital identity and reputation and are aware of the permanence of their actions in the digital world.

b. Students engage in positive, safe, legal, and ethical behavior when using technology, including social interactions online or networked devices.

c.  Students demonstrate an understanding of and respect for using and sharing intellectual property rights and obligations.

d. Students manage their data to maintain digital privacy and security and know data-collection technology to navigate online.

Ensuring that students also have access to their discussions is a crucial element to the overall success of the discussion. Before a course start date, careful thought around technology, tools, bandwidth, and accommodations for discussion tools can help to ensure that all students will be able to participate in discussions throughout the course. Once an accessible discussion tool has been selected, how-to guides and technical support can help to remove barriers to engaging with the device that students who do not have prior experience with the device may face.

What is active learning?

University students are expected to do Higher Order Thinking (HOT) (See  Boosting Students’ Innovative Design and Computational Thinking Through Project-Based Learning in Higher Education). Wiggins and McTighe (2005) have developed a multifaceted view of what makes up a mature understanding, a six-sided view of the concept. When students truly understand, students can explain, interpret, effectively apply and adapt, have perspective, emphasize, and have self-knowledge. This mature understanding aligns with the active learning approaches that promote skill development and higher-order thinking through activities that might include reading, writing, and discussion. Metacognition — thinking about one’s thinking — can also be an essential element, helping students connect course activities to their learning (Brame, 2016).

Cited from Ghilay and Ghilay (2015), active learning involves providing opportunities for students to meaningfully talk and listen, write, read, and reflect on the content, ideas, issues, and concerns of an academic subject (Meyers & Jones, 1993). Bonwell and Eison (1991) similarly define active learning as any strategy involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing. To actively study, learning should include any technique involving students in the learning process and holding them responsible for their learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005).

McKeachie and Svinicki (2014, cited in Ghilay & Ghilay, 2015) claim that active learning has many benefits:

• Students are more likely to access their prior knowledge, which is a key to learning.
• Students are more likely to find personally meaningful problem solutions or interpretations.
• Students receive more frequent and immediate feedback.
• The need to produce forces learners to retrieve information from memory rather than simply recognizing a correct statement.
• Students increase their self-confidence and self-reliance.
• For most learners, it is more motivating to be active than passive.
• A task that one has done themselves or as part of a group is more highly valued.
• Student conceptions of knowledge change, which has implications for cognitive development.
• Students who work together on active learning tasks learn to work with people of different backgrounds and attitudes.
• Students learn strategies for learning themselves by observing others.

What is a fishbowl discussion?

The Fishbowl Discussion is an example of active learning; this teaching strategy encourages full student participation, reflection, and depth of knowledge. A small group of students is selected to be the fish (in the Fishbowl), the Inner Group. Meanwhile, the rest of the class will be observers (out of the Fishbowl), hereafter called the Outer Group. The Inner Group participates in a discussion responding to an instructor prompt. The Outer Group outside of the bowl listens and reflects on the alternative viewpoints. In online learning, this fishbowl discussion is done synchronously (2 hours via Zoom) and asynchronously (1 week via LMS forum discussion).

Students will read the shared eBook and resources related to the topic assigned by the lecturer in my Curriculum and Technology Design course. After reading the references, they worked in a group (inner or outer groups) to discuss critical points in the given topic. The Inner Group starts the online discussion, and the Outer Group observes and responds to the discussion. The audience is also involved in responding to the discussion. This way, students will actively and ethically engage in online forum discussions and share online sources through online discussion. Throughout this unit, students will: 1) read book chapters, 2) discuss the book chapters in both inner group and outer group, and 3) engage in online forum discussion. The unit addresses Learning and Communication in Technology Enhanced Language Learning (which covers reading, criticizing, discussing, and engaging) taken from Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connective Theory and Practice by Walker and White (2013). Besides, this activity addressed the ISTE Student Standard point 2 b (engaging in positive, safe, legal, and ethical behavior in social interactions online) and 2c (respecting intellectual property online). The unit is appropriate for senior undergraduate students.

Lesson Plan for Synchronous and Asynchronous Fishbowl Discussion

This lesson plan is intended for undergraduate students using a virtual teleconference platform like Zoom, Teams, Google Meet (synchronous), and Learning Management Systems such as Moodle, Canvas, Google Classroom (asynchronous).

Synchronous Fishbowl Discussion (2 hours)

---

Introduction 5 mins

1. Teacher talk: inform the purpose of the Fishbowl Discussion activity regarding the topic and explain the mechanism of Fishbowl Discussion activity.

Inner Group 30 minutes

Outer Group 15 minutes

1. Each member asks questions to clarify or argue the Inner Group discussion.
2. The Inner Group responds to the questions from the Outer Group.

Audience Participation 15 minutes

1. Other students ask questions to clarify or argue the Inner Group discussion.
2. The Inner Group responds to the questions from the audience.

Self-Assessment and Self-Reflection (1  day)

1. After the session, the Inner Group members complete the Individual Self-Assessment and Group Self-Assessment.

Participation Assessment (during the class session)

1. The lecturer and teaching assistant monitor and observe the student’s participation during the discussion.

Asynchronous Fishbowl Discussion (1 Week)

---

Introduction (Day 1)

1. Teacher announcement: inform the purpose of the Fishbowl Discussion activity regarding the topic and explain the mechanism of Fishbowl Discussion activity.

Inner Group (Day 1 and 2)

1. Introduce the topic to the audience.
2. Each member delivers critical points on the topic.
3. Each member responds to critical points and exchanges opinions one to another.
4. This discussion is being monitored and observed by Outer Group. In this time, the Outer Group complete the Self-Monitor Sheet.

Outer Group (Day 2 and 3)

1. Each member asks questions to clarify or argue the Inner Group discussion.
2. The Inner Group responds to the questions from the Outer Group.

Audience Participation (Day 4, 5, 6)

1. Other students ask questions to clarify or argue the Inner Group discussion.
2. The Inner Group responds to the questions from the audience.

Self-Assessment and Self-Reflection (Day 7)

1. After the session, the Inner Group members complete the Individual Self-Assessment and Group Self-Assessment.

Participation Assessment (during the whole week)

1. The lecturer and teaching assistant monitor and observe the student’s participation during the discussion.

---

Throughout this session, students had the opportunity to engage in online forum discussion using the fishbowl technique, use online tools to collect and annotate online sources, use the rubric of self-assessment individually and in the group, and effectively summarize the chapter. The learning analytics in LMS can be seen here. 

Reflection

I learned a lot from analyzing this lesson plan by implementing the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework. I have taught this lesson five times previously through offline learning, but I did not have a chance to apply this framework in this lesson planning. Notably, using the UbD framework in my first online learning lesson was interesting as this was my first experience. Shifting the offline to online learning is another challenge to experience. This way, I was forced to modify the Fishbowl discussion in an online context, including asynchronous and synchronous ones. A well-planned and carried-out discussion offers students the opportunity to engage actively in their learning. The format of discussions itself is best suited to higher-level Learning Outcomes, such as applying, analyzing, and evaluating. When panels are designed to be low-stakes opportunities to construct knowledge in learning teams or the broader learning community, students can actively demonstrate their understanding of the targeted learning outcome for the discussion activity.

Moreover, I found some potential tools to integrate online synchronous and asynchronous Fishbowl discussions, such as Learning Management System (LMS) and videoconferencing. These two tools support me in engaging students in online discussion. Again, a well-planned discussion format should be prepared to engage students.

In summary, this particular project was excellent practice in designing active learning and instruction in online learning. Teachers can incorporate asynchronous and synchronous activities to engage students. Leveraging digital tools assists us in creating more interactive activities and fosters us to be more creative in designing various online activities, mainly to engage students actively. Hopefully, I can explore more exciting and engaging activities to promote student engagement in online learning as a digital citizen in this interconnected digital world. Fighting!

References:

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. 

Brame, C. (2016). Active learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/active-learning/

Ghilay, Y., & Ghilay, R. (2015). TBAL: Technology-Based Active Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n4p10

ISTE. (2022). ISTE Standards: Students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

UW KnowledgeBase. (2020, July 15). Using Online Asynchronous Discussions to Increase Student Engagement & Active Learning. Retrieved on 2021, March 20 from https://kb.wisc.edu/instructional-resources/104034

UW KnowledgeBase. (2020, December 18). Fishbowl Discussion (classroom). [online]. Retrieved on 2021, March 20 from  https://kb.wisc.edu/instructional-resources/107982

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). The Six Facets of Understanding. In Understanding by Design (Issue November, pp. 82–104). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/ubd_intro/wiggins98chapter4.htm

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2