The Stanford Marshmellow Experiment and the AP Psych CED’s Suggested Fishbowl Instructional Strategy

Plus a few AI-Integrating Suggestions

I wrote the below primarily for AP Psych teachers belonging to College Board’s AP Psych Teachers Online Community. I am sharing this here now because I think many other teachers, and the general public as well, might find interest.
__________

Page 161 of the Course and Exam Description encourages teachers to use the fishbowl instructional strategy to engage students in a deep analysis of a psychological research study “of interest to your students,” the Stanford Marshmallow Study for example.

“The Marshmallow Study, conducted by Walter Mischel in the late 1960s and early 1970s, explored the concept of delayed gratification. In this study, children were offered a choice between one small reward available immediately or two small rewards if they waited for a short period. Follow-up studies tracked the participants into adulthood, suggesting that those who delayed gratification experienced better life outcomes in several areas. This research has sparked significant discussion regarding the implications of self-control, willpower, and socioeconomic factors on long-term success.”
— ChatGPT

The message on page 161 of the CED is that the use of this instructional strategy should enhance students’ understanding of research methods, ethical considerations, and the interpretation of results.

Wondering if you’ve yet given the page 161 suggestion a go and if so, did it focus on the Marshmellow Study? And in that case to what extent did it align with the below appearing step-by-step

Step 1: Begin by explaining the fishbowl discussion strategy to the students. Inform them that this method involves an inner circle of participants discussing a topic, while an outer circle listens. After a set period, the roles are reversed, allowing all students to actively participate and observe.

Step 2: Tell students that they will be conducting a fishbowl discussion related to the Marshmallow Study. This will help them analyze the study’s methodology, findings, and implications in depth.

Step 3: Provide students with resources on the Marshmallow Study to review before the discussion. Suggested materials include:

• Wikipedia article: Stanford marshmallow experiment
• Simply Psychology: Marshmallow TestNew Study Disavows
• Marshmallow Test’s Predictive Powers: Anderson Review
• The Marshmallow Study Revisited: University of Rochester
• Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test: The Atlantic

Step 4: Divide the class into two groups. One group forms a circle in the middle (the fishbowl), actively discussing the study, while the other group sits outside, listening and preparing to add their insights later.

• Round 1 — Inside the Fishbowl: The first group discusses the research method and design used in the Marshmallow Study. They evaluate the study’s approach to measuring delayed gratification and discuss the conclusions drawn by Walter Mischel and his team. This round focuses on identifying the types of conclusions (correlation vs. causation) that can be drawn from the study and discussing any potential research design flaws.
• Round 2 — Switch Roles: The groups switch, and the second group now discusses the ethical considerations of the study, possible research design flaws, and alternative explanations for the findings. They also explore how the study’s design could be improved and discuss the broader implications of the research on understanding human behavior.

Step 5.: After both rounds, facilitate a group reflection where students share their insights from both the discussion and the observation phases. Encourage them to reflect on the importance of research design in drawing valid conclusions and the ethical considerations involved in psychological research.

Step 6 Conclude by asking students to apply their learned skills to propose modifications to the Marshmallow Study or design a follow-up study that addresses any identified flaws or unanswered questions. Then provide students with a chance in class to access an AI platform of their choosing to check their thinking about that of the AI.

Two close-out questions:

Question #1: For those of you who periodically provide your students with an opportunity to reflect in writing on what they have learned, have you yet allowed your students to use AI with its ability to provide instant feedback for this purpose?

Questions #2: For those of you seeking to connect the insights gained from this particular fishbowl discussion to the age of AI, what do you think would happen if you were to present the four questions appearing below to your students; and then, provide them with time in class to use an AI platform of their choosing for research, followed by another class-wide sharing session.

1. How can AI help in predicting long-term outcomes based on early behaviors like those observed in the Marshmallow Experiment?
2. How can we use AI to further investigate the concepts of delayed gratification and self-control in different contexts or populations?
3. Can AI be used to develop personalized interventions for improving self-control and delaying gratification?
4. How might AI challenge or support the findings of the Marshmallow Experiment when applied to diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds?