Fishbowl Discussion as an Instructional Intervention in Social Studies: Evidence from a Philippine Grade 8 Classroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/assrj.01.04.06Keywords:
fishbowl discussion, social studies education, Araling Panlipunan, written assessment, mixed methodsAbstract
The study examined the use of fishbowl discussion as an instructional strategy for improving Grade 8 students’ written assessment performance in Araling Panlipunan, particularly on the topic of European power expansion. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the study involved 39 students from a laboratory high school in the northern Philippines with complete paired pretest and posttest scores. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while qualitative data from interviews with ten purposively selected students were analyzed thematically. Results showed that students’ mean scores increased from 8.82 to 15.44 out of 30, indicating a movement from poor to good performance. The improvement was statistically significant, p < .001. Qualitative findings further revealed that students perceived fishbowl discussion as helpful in deepening understanding, promoting engagement, building confidence, and supporting peer-assisted learning. However, some students also reported challenges, particularly speaking pressure and limited time for individual study. Although the one-group design limits causal claims, the findings suggest that fishbowl discussion can be a useful learner-centered strategy in social studies instruction when supported by clear roles, structured guidelines, and inclusive facilitation.
Downloads
References
Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructi-vist teaching: Derived from a literature review and applied to five constructivist-teaching me-thod articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 gabay pangkurikulum sa Araling Panlipunan: Baitang 1-10 [K to 12 curriculum guide in social studies: Grades 1-10]. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/AP-CG.pdf
Duyvesteyn, I., & van der Wal, A. M. (Eds.). (2022). World history for international studies. Lei-den University Press. https://doi.org/10.24415/9789087284008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24415/9789087284008
Han, M., & Hamilton, E. R. (2023). Promoting engagement and learning: Using the fishbowl stra-tegy in online and hybrid college courses. College Teaching, 71(4), 281-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.2024127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.2024127
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explana-tory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
Muehlensiepen, F., Mucke, J., Krusche, M., Kurkowski, S., Bendzuck, G., Koetter, I., Lemarié, V., Grahammer, M., Heinze, M., Schulze-Koops, H., & Knitza, J. (2021). The virtual fishbowl: Bringing back dynamic debates to medical conferences. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 80(5), 675-676. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219552 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219552
Tricio, J., Montt, J., Orsini, C., Gracia, B., Pampín, F., Quinteros, C., Salas, M., Soto, R., & Fuen-tes, N. (2019). Student experiences of two small group learning-teaching formats: Seminar and fishbowl. European Journal of Dental Education, 23(2), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12414
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Young, J. (2007). Small group scored discussion: Beyond the fishbowl, or, everybody reads, everybody talks, everybody learns. The History Teacher, 40(2), 177-181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036986
Yung, K. W.-H. (2020). Using public exam questions in fishbowl debate to engage exam-oriented students in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 51(3), 440-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219888055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219888055
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ms. Shiela D. Donato, Ms. Paula Katleen B. Elveña, Francis Dave Mabborang, Ms. Ma. Rita V. Flores, PhD, Ms. Evelyn P. Balbalec, MAEd, Ms. Rhea A. Quileza, PhD

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.












