Jemds.

com Original Article

FISH BOWL TEACHING TECHNIQUE FOR IIND YEAR MBBS STUDENTS IN AIMSR
Gandham Pavani1
1Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Many students are not attentive and active during lecture classes in a Medical College. There are a variety of ways to engage
students in the classroom that complement the lecture material by initiating, supplementing and/or reinforcing the content of the
day. One such method is Fish Bowl discussion. The present study was conducted to analyse the use of fish bowl technique of teaching
along with lecture in a medical college.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS
Lecture with Fish Bowl discussions stimulated interest in the class in 95% of the students; 90% of the students were able to
retain information better with ‘Lecture with Fish Bowl’ and 10% students felt that lecture alone was better; 95% of the students
were more satisfied with ‘Lecture along with Fish Bowl’ when compared to lecture alone. Combination of teaching methods (Lecture
with Fish Bowl) was liked by 90% of our students rather than a single method of teaching (Lecture alone) which was liked by only
10% of the students.

CONCLUSION
Lecture with Fish Bowl is more effective than lecture alone. Combination of lecture and Fish Bowl is a better satisfying teaching
technique for the students when compared to lecture alone.

KEYWORDS
Lecture, Fish Bowl Teaching Technique.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Pavani G. Fish bowl teaching technique for IInd year MBBS students in AIMSR. J. Evolution Med. Dent.
Sci. 2016;5(32):1713-1715, DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2016/404
INTRODUCTION Moreover, several research studies confirmed that such
Medical education is an important factor in the progress of any small group teaching methods should be an important
country. Across the world, increasing attention is being given component of undergraduate medical education.[3,4] So the
to the quality of teaching and learning in the Medical present study was conducted to analyse the utility of Fish Bowl
Colleges.[1] But many students are not attentive and active technique of teaching along with lecture in a Medical College.
during lecture classes in a Medical College. There are many
reasons for the same. Some feel that they can read from books, METHODS
others are busy with electronic gadgets, some are exhausted This study was conducted as a part of the group discussion
after their clinical postings. So we need to do something for class in Microbiology Department of AIMSR in January 2015.
improving listening activity and active participation of Initially, a teacher conducted a 20-minute lecture class on
students in classes in a Medical College. The “Fish Bowl” is a candidiasis and cryptococcosis. Following the teachers’ class,
teaching strategy that aids in active participation of students. the chairs in the class were arranged in two circles, an inner
This is a cooperative-learning structure.[2] Spending time on circle and an outer circle; 20 students in the class were divided
this method is an investment, which will yield a more into two groups according to their roll numbers. The first
productive, efficient and engaging classroom environment. group of 10 students [Group I] were made to sit in the inner
circle, who were called fish were given a topic for discussion
Financial or Other, Competing Interest: None. based on the teachers’ lecture. They were instructed to hold a
Submission 04-03-2016, Peer Review 31-03-2016,
Acceptance 05-04-2016, Published 20-04-2016.
discussion with the representative members of their group.
Corresponding Author: The students were acquainted with the rules of the fish before
Dr. Gandham Pavani, the Fish Bowl discussion, i.e. each speaker’s idea should be
Associate Professor, stated and supported with evidence from the lecture if others
Department of Microbiology,
in the group agree with the speaker; then they shall offer
Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research,
Jubilee Hills, additional evidence to support the idea and if others disagree
Hyderabad-500096. with the speaker they should offer evidence to support their
E-mail: [email protected] point.
DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2016/404

J. Evolution Med. Dent. Sci./ eISSN- 2278-4802, pISSN- 2278-4748/ Vol. 5/ Issue 32/ Apr. 21, 2016 Page 1713
Jemds.com Original Article
The other group of another 10 students [Group II] were study, 90% students were able to retain information better
made to sit in the outer circle and were asked to observe the with ‘lecture with Fish Bowl’ compared to only 10% students
Group I and were called the fish watchers. Fish watchers were who felt that lecture alone was better. This was also
instructed to listen carefully to their fish and take notes on appreciated by Gibbs et al.[10] who found that interactive
their fish’s contribution to the discussion. Later the places of discussions before or after a lecture always led to retaining
Group I and GROUP II were reversed and Group II students information better. Moreover, the retention in memory is the
were given another topic based on the teachers’ lecture for end-result of overall effectiveness of the lecture. In our study,
group discussion and Group I students were made fish retention of lecture information was more after lecture with
watchers. During the discussion, the teacher guided the Fish Bowl. Hence, it can be concluded that ‘lecture along with
participants when needed and moderated the discussion. The Fish Bowl discussion’ is more effective than lecture alone.
two group discussions were followed by plenary presentation. However, 10% of our students felt that lecture alone was
One student from each group was asked to report about the better because they could not follow the Fish Bowl discussion
active participation of the other group in discussion to the properly. Probably, this could be because of the limited time
teacher in-charge. Each Fish Bowl discussion session was for a allotted to the Fish Bowl discussion, i.e. 15 minutes for each
duration of 10 minutes each and plenary session was for a session. The time per session could be increased in the future
duration of 5 minutes. Hence, the total time allotted for Fish sessions to make these sessions more effective.
Bowl was 30 minutes for both sessions. At the end of the two In the present study, student satisfaction was more with
sessions, feedback was taken from the students by means of a ‘Lecture along with Fish Bowl’ (95%) when compared with
questionnaire about their views on Fish Bowl teaching lecture alone. This could be because any interactive teaching
technique, which had to be filled up in another 10 minutes. technique always increases the satisfaction of both teachers
and students in medical education due to active involvement,
A Questionnaire was given to all the 20 Students having increased attention and motivation.[11] Student’s satisfaction is
the following Questions: inversely proportional to the class room size in any
educational institution. This was also opined by Coles et al.[12]
Lecture Lecture with Fish Fish Bowl discussions are always conducted in small groups,
Alone Bowl Discussion which therefore result in more student satisfaction.
Which method In our study, combination of teaching methods (Lecture
stimulated interest? with Fish Bowl) was liked by majority (90%) of our students
Which method was able rather than a single method of teaching (Lecture alone), which
to retain more was liked by 10% of the students. Our study can be compared
information?
with the study done by Chaudhary et al.[13] In their study also
Student satisfaction
majority of the students (67.1%) favoured combination of
was more with which
method? teaching methods to single method of teaching. Combination
Which method is teaching method is most satisfied teaching method, because
better? the inherent deficiency of one method is compensated by the
other.[14]
The study was for a total duration of 60 minutes.
CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION Fish Bowl method of teaching inculcated interest in majority
The common and greatest challenge faced by the teacher in a of the students and the students were able to retain
Medical College is attentiveness of students and their information better with ‘lecture along with Fish Bowl.’ The
involvement and participation in the classes. [5] Moreover more long-lasting the retention of lecture information in
teaching learning process enforces a great deal of expectations memory, the more effective is the lecture. Hence, lecture with
from the teacher, equivalent participation from students and Fish Bowl is more effective than lecture alone. However, the
effective classroom management.[6] Moreover the tough lecture with Fish Bowl discussion can be made more effective
curriculum in a Medical College need to be made interesting by by increasing the time for Fish Bowl discussion. Combination
the implementation of new teaching learning strategies.[7] of lecture and Fish Bowl is a better satisfying teaching
‘Lecture with Fish Bowl discussions’ inculcated interest in the technique for the students, because the student is actively
class in majority (95%) of the students. Lectures interspersed involved and more learning takes place and also the
with discussions have always inculcated interest in students as deficiencies of one method would be compensated by the
seen by Baetty et al.[8] also which was in collaboration with our other.
study. The barriers to developing interest in students can be
plunged if learners are motivated to learn. The teacher in this REFERENCES
method acts like a facilitator, launching friendly and conducive 1. Vasundhara Devi D, Kiran Deedi M. Teaching and
environment to develop internal motivation towards learning learning methodology in medical education: an analysis
and thereby inculcating interest. Moreover lecture with Fish in GSL medical college, Rajamundry, AP. JEMDS
Bowl is more student-centered, while lecture alone is more 2015;4(72):12557-65.
teacher centered.[9] 2. San San T, Nyunt Ei Ei. Collaborative learning with think
Students need to retain information from classes for pair share technique. Computer Applications: An
interpretation and application of information with respect to International Journal 2015;2(1):1-11.
importance of the content. The instructor’s job is not over till 3. Shatzer JH. Instructional methods. Acad Med
they have assisted learner in retaining the information. In our 1998;73(9):38-45.

J. Evolution Med. Dent. Sci./ eISSN- 2278-4802, pISSN- 2278-4748/ Vol. 5/ Issue 32/ Apr. 21, 2016 Page 1714
Jemds.com Original Article
4. Walton H. Small group methods in medical teaching. 10. Gibbs G, Habeshaw S, Habeshaw T. Improving student
Medical Education 1997;31(6):459-64. learning during lectures. Medical Teacher 1987;9(1):11-
5. Rehman R, Afzal K, Kamran A. Interactive lectures: a 20.
perspective of students and lecturers. J Postgrad Med 11. Yvonne S, Linda S. Interactive lecturing: strategies for
Inst 2013;27(2):152-6. increasing participation in large group presentations.
6. Kamran A, Rehman R, Iqbal A. Importance of clinically Medical Teacher 1999;21(1):37-44.
oriented problem solving tutorials (COPST) in teaching 12. Coles C. Variability of student ratings of accounting
of physiology. Rawal Med J 2011;36(3):233-7. teaching: evidence from a scottish business school.
7. Vishram S, Poonam K. A paradigm shift from teaching to International Journal of Management Education
learning gross anatomy a metaanalysis of implications 2002;2(2):30-40.
for instructional methods. Journal of Anatomical society 13. Chaudary R, Dullo P, Gupta U. Attitude of 1st MBBS
of India 2013;62(1):84-9. medical students about two different visual aids in
8. Ian D Beatty. Transforming student learning with physilology lectures. Pak J Physiol 2009;5(2):16-9.
classroom communication systems. Educause Center for 14. Priyadarshini KS, Shetty HV, Reena R. Assessment of
Applied Research Bulletin 2004;3:2-13. different teaching aids and teaching methods for the
9. Brophy J. Synthesis of research on strategies for better perception of biochemistry by 1st MBBS students.
motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences
1987;45(2):40-8. 2012;1(6):1159-65.

J. Evolution Med. Dent. Sci./ eISSN- 2278-4802, pISSN- 2278-4748/ Vol. 5/ Issue 32/ Apr. 21, 2016 Page 1715